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  
•       •       •

16577 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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 12:23:17 PM

Stone Meadow: 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.


Because everyone is a single issue voter.
 
2013-01-20 12:23:38 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.


If you don't have young children or people who are mentally ill in your house then why the need to lock up your weapon and have a trigger-lock on it? What's wrong with a nightstand? Hell, if you have young children just store the gun unloaded with a full magazine next to it, young children don't have the strength or dexterity to get the magazine in and actually chamber a round. Or get one of those safes with the four-button palm-style keypads that you can open without looking at in 2 seconds.
 
2013-01-20 12:24:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: 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?


I'm a sekret Jew.
 
2013-01-20 12:24:14 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


you can get the same thing in semi auto also
Glaser
 
2013-01-20 12:24:48 PM

Fark It: 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.


Again, here I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I'm naive or don't live in a neighborhood where people invading my home trying to kill me is a common occurrence for which I need to prepare.

CADMonkey79: 000 Buck shot would probably be the best choice.


Buck shot can penetrate walls, so I would consider that less than ideal as a first option.
 
2013-01-20 12:24:54 PM

Uncle Tractor: 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?


A semi auto rifle will shoot as fast as you pull the trigger. So yes, you can fill the air with bullets from a hunting rifle. Only they would be much bigger bullets that are travelling much faster. That means they would do even more damage.

And what does being tucked into a belt have to do with anything? You can saw the stock and barrel on a shotgun and tuck it into your belt if you feel like it.

But yes, keep pretending you know what you are talking about without ever putting any effort into getting to know what you are talking about. It works so well with any other topic of discussion, so why not guns? My opinion is just as valid as your facts right?
 
2013-01-20 12:24:55 PM
If the politics is important to you, I'd listen to ole Bill here. I know plenty of people who like to talk about how patriotic and American they are, implying they're there at every vote, but the only time I've seen them go was when people threatened (even in part) to take their guns away. You could pull off a few sensible things, possible, but if you even approach "gun control", you're going to lose your seats back to the loonies. Be pragmatic and move on, IMO. There's no point in standing up for the statistically insignificant amount of little kids who die every year from gun violence when it means you're going to make a slightly saner version of the Westboro Baptist Church have more power to unravel everything you vote in a few years later.

If politics isn't important to you, fine, vote with your heart and don't worry about the long term consequences.

That's what Clinton is trying to get you to understand, given he helped demolish Democratic wins (not just on the gun issue, but with a few others, too) and knows it.
 
2013-01-20 12:25:01 PM

Fark It: 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.


Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-20 12:25:02 PM

Fart_Machine: Mrtraveler01: 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?

I'm a sekret Jew.


Le gasp!
 
2013-01-20 12:25:47 PM

Blathering Idjut: 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 ...


This was essentially Bill Maher's point on his show on Friday.

These god damn hicks need to wake up and realize that there are plenty of other rights that are being heavily regulated or even trampled on, yet the NRA has them keyed up like zombies to do their derp bidding.
 
2013-01-20 12:26:28 PM

Enemabag Jones: 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.


True it is.  That's the issue that needs to be addressed.  I agree with SOME of the 23 items on the list.  I do NOT agree with the AWB or an arbitrary out of the blue "this is a good number to use" magazine size because it does NOTHING.

The problem is that the people are writing this law, AND FIGHTING this law, are both doing ZERO that is useful.

The NRA is acting more like PETA and MADD and less like a rational organization supporting its members.  They attack Obama for having armed guards for his kids, HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  They blame video games, which has been REPEATEDLY shown to NOT impact either way.

The lawmakers pushing these bans through, are the same people who call the internet a series of tubes, who use the term "legitimate rape", who dont care, admit or realize that the color, and furniture on a gun do not make it any more or less evil, and/or that the people breaking the law DONT CARE.
 
2013-01-20 12:26:31 PM

Fart_Machine: Sure it does if you want to compare buses to firearms since buses don't drive themselves.


And that's a valid comparison because.... guns fire themselves? Not sure what you're getting at here...
 
2013-01-20 12:26:54 PM

Wayne 985: 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.


Lying about what? You cant "close the gunshow loophole" without routing all gun sales through a business or government organization. Its the same thing.


I'm not even opposed to gun restrictions... I just think they need to be sensible, and not just "Well lets pass a law just so that we can all pretend like we actually did something even though we didnt!"
 
2013-01-20 12:27:30 PM

Blathering Idjut: 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 ...


Requiring background checks for all gun purchases is not wholly unreasonable, but we actually need to fix the background check system first and how information is reported to the NICS (something the NRA supports), otherwise it's just window-dressing. New York and California, IMO, go too far in regulating the 2nd Amendment, their laws and regulations and fees and mandatory waiting periods are too much of an infringement and operate from the idea that gun ownership is a privilege.

I also think that the majority of gun violence in this country should really be called drug or prohibition-violence, as it's fueled by our senseless drug war, which ruins more lives yearly than guns ever will.
 
2013-01-20 12:27:41 PM

Fark It: 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.


Oh, believe me, I am fully in favor of repealing the second amendment.

And the second amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense. The amendment itself states that it exists to guarantee well-regulated militias. And in any case, you don't need an amendment to the constitution to defend yourself (whether with a gun or not) any more than you need one to drive a car or wipe your ass. The only purpose it currently serves is to make reasonable gun regulation nearly impossible.
 
2013-01-20 12:29:28 PM

The Name: I am fully in favor of repealing the second amendment.


*ignore

The only time we passed a constitutional amendment that took away rights, we ended up repealing it, as it was a costly disaster.
 
2013-01-20 12:29:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: 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?



Fart_Machine: Mrtraveler01: 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?


I'm a sekret Jew.

How many times are you and Fart_Machine going to try to float that gas bag in this thread?

Now go report yourselves to the mods.


/And would it KILL you to call your mothers once in a while?
 
2013-01-20 12:29:59 PM

CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.


Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.
 
2013-01-20 12:30:22 PM

Fark It: 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.

If you don't have young children or people who are mentally ill in your house then why the need to lock up your weapon and have a trigger-lock on it? What's wrong with a nightstand? Hell, if you have young children just store the gun unloaded with a full magazine next to it, young children don't have the strength or dexterity to get the magazine in and actually chamber a round. Or get one of those safes with the four-button palm-style keypads that you can open without looking at in 2 seconds.


Nite stand? Screw that I just put my shotgun on the couch next to me. Sometimes I dress it in a little suit and let it eat super at the table with the rest of the family. Sometimes it doesn't want to eat its veggies but I just tell it "they will make you a better killing machine".
 
2013-01-20 12:31:56 PM

Fark It: The Name: I am fully in favor of repealing the second amendment.

*ignore

The only time we passed a constitutional amendment that took away rights, we ended up repealing it, as it was a costly disaster.


I agree with him. Do you promise to ignore me too?

Please
 
2013-01-20 12:32:12 PM

Mrtraveler01: Fart_Machine: Mrtraveler01: 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?

I'm a sekret Jew.

Le gasp LePew!



/FTFY
 
2013-01-20 12:32:23 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?


Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

cdn2-b.examiner.com

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.
 
2013-01-20 12:32:29 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.

Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.


So lets just dissolve the entire thing. Hopefully they can put something in there about how big my soda cup can be.
 
2013-01-20 12:32:31 PM

Fark It: If you don't have young children or people who are mentally ill in your house then why the need to lock up your weapon and have a trigger-lock on it? What's wrong with a nightstand? Hell, if you have young children just store the gun unloaded with a full magazine next to it, young children don't have the strength or dexterity to get the magazine in and actually chamber a round. Or get one of those safes with the four-button palm-style keypads that you can open without looking at in 2 seconds.


All fine, to an extent. But my point is that you have to be able to get to your gun before the invader gets to you. Remember, home invasions aren't always solo acts and they're usually armed as well. I'm not saying that a gun can't be useful in that situation. I'm questioning exactly how useful. If you can't get to it, it's useless. Gun in the nightstand, fully loaded? Useless if you're sitting on the couch and someone comes in armed.
 
2013-01-20 12:32:55 PM

Sagus: GoldSpider: 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.

you can get the same thing in semi auto also
Glaser


If you shoot someone breaking into your home, it's best to finish them off. If they live, you open yourself up to a boatload of lawsuits depending on the laws in your state.
 
2013-01-20 12:33:22 PM
To clarify, I am in favor of ditching the 2nd Amendment, in favor of something less ambiguous.

We're American. Spell it out for us.
 
2013-01-20 12:33:37 PM

Fark It: The Name: I am fully in favor of repealing the second amendment.

*ignore

The only time we passed a constitutional amendment that took away rights, we ended up repealing it, as it was a costly disaster.


At least he's making a constitutionally-valid argument. If you don't like the 2nd or believe it needs to be clarified, nothing short of another Amendment can change it. Most gun control advocates would simply ignore it. Even so-called "constitutional scholars" (heard on the radio the other day) are advocating that stance, since the SCOTUS routinely ignores other Amendments. That's frightening.
 
2013-01-20 12:35:44 PM

enry: Shae123: Enemabag Jones: abhorrent1,
These guns are the same, functionally.
Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

I am game. Granted you can swap out hardware to a greater or lesser degree on either, or just get a mini-14 if you are sick fark that wants to take out a grade school or a movie theater.

Perceptive.
1-One has wood, the other is black and evil.
2-One has a flash hider at the end of the barrel, making it more taticool.

Real:
1-One has a scope indicating it might be for hunting, the other has iron sites making it less useful for hunting. Spray and Pray might mean something to some people.
2-One has smaller magazine indicating it is probably used for hunting, the other has a large magazine making it more capable for battle and more scary in the media after 21 grade school kids just were shot. Please argue the 30 round is useful for hunting.

Why is not useful for hunting?

If you need 30 rounds to take down a deer, you should take up farming instead.


I don't need 30 rounds to take down a deer. I do need a detachable magazine because that makes it simple, quick and much safer to unload a gun. With a fixed magazine, I have to cycle any loaded amunition through the chamber, with a detachable magazine I can remove the magazine, eject the round in the chamber (if there is one) and the gun is unloaded.

As for magazine capacity, when I'm hunting I normally keep about 3 rounds in the gun. But, and this is important, most of my shooting is at paper targets because I might shoot 1 or 2 deer a year but I need to be able to hit my target with some certainty. And when practicing it is quite convenient and helpful to be able to shoot multiple rounds without reloading. I can concentrate on accuracy and precision without breaking concentration to reload every few seconds.
 
2013-01-20 12:35:48 PM

GoldSpider: Fark It: 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.

Again, here I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I'm naive or don't live in a neighborhood where people invading my home trying to kill me is a common occurrence for which I need to prepare.


That isn't just opinion. That is legal reality. You fire a gun at someone, regardless of how safe you think you are being, it is considered an attempt to kill them. Killing someone in self defense is legal. If you feel comfortable enough that you don't think you need to kill an attacker then you significantly undercut the idea that you needed to defend yourself at all. So trying to shoot to wound is both unsound strategy and more likely to get you in legal trouble if you try it.
 
2013-01-20 12:35:51 PM

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


If gun owners don't give an inch, the gun grabbers will take a mile? What a cute notion. If gun grabbers could take more than an inch, the would take it. As it stands, they know they will get nothing, so they're trying to get gun owners to give in. We won't.
 
2013-01-20 12:35:58 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.

Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.



Most of them were not slave owners. The more you know.
 
2013-01-20 12:36:16 PM

coeyagi: 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.


Why is that our responsibility? Present reasonable laws, or

Fart_Machine: When you have to compare 9/11 to abortions it's time to stop posting.


So you dont have any actual merit or substance to anything you have to say. No actual argument, supportive points, nothing. Just that the words "9/11" and "abortion" are emotional triggers which drive you crazy and/or make you uncomfortable and unable to apply logic or cost/benefit analysis.

Its almost like you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about...
 
2013-01-20 12:39:02 PM

coeyagi: 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.


End the war on drugs. Now go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-20 12:39:12 PM

Alonjar: coeyagi: 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.

Why is that our responsibility? Present reasonable laws, orFart_Machine: When you have to compare 9/11 to abortions it's time to stop posting.

So you dont have any actual merit or substance to anything you have to say. No actual argument, supportive points, nothing. Just that the words "9/11" and "abortion" are emotional triggers which drive you crazy and/or make you uncomfortable and unable to apply logic or cost/benefit analysis.

Its almost like you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about...


It's not your direct responsibility. I never said it was. I am just saying, if you want to get them off your back, here is a means to do that. Whining about the 2nd being overturned is not going to help anyone.

It is your duty however to vote in people who are serious about changing things, so if you don't want to lift a finger other than voting, you can vote in the needle in a haystack candidate who is serious about fixing things rather than being a tool for either extreme of the debate.
 
2013-01-20 12:39:30 PM

CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.

Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.

So lets just dissolve the entire thing. Hopefully they can put something in there about how big my soda cup can be.


Hey, whatever works, works, right? You realize that the founders included a procedure for amending the constitution for a reason, right? (Note: they also made that procedure very difficult, also for a reason.) Why is everyone so resistant even to the possibility that we can improve upon what the founders did -over two hundred years ago, at a time when we still had slavery and bloodletting? Do you guys really believe that 1789 was the apogee of our civilization?
 
2013-01-20 12:40:02 PM

umad: coeyagi: 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.

End the war on drugs. Now go fark yourself.


Good, finally, a pussy speaks and takes action!
 
2013-01-20 12:40:12 PM

odinsposse: GoldSpider: Fark It: 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.

Again, here I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I'm naive or don't live in a neighborhood where people invading my home trying to kill me is a common occurrence for which I need to prepare.

That isn't just opinion. That is legal reality. You fire a gun at someone, regardless of how safe you think you are being, it is considered an attempt to kill them. Killing someone in self defense is legal. If you feel comfortable enough that you don't think you need to kill an attacker then you significantly undercut the idea that you needed to defend yourself at all. So trying to shoot to wound is both unsound strategy and more likely to get you in legal trouble if you try it.


When I lived in a very rough neighborhood, this is exactly what the police said, too, by the way. It wasn't limited to guns. If you had a knife, they recommended killing the person and putting a knife in their hands. But their first suggestion was to get the hell away from any person who might break in and not try to defend yourself unless you absolutely had to. But it was a really, really bad area, and break-ins were a common occurrence.
 
2013-01-20 12:40:16 PM

Fart_Machine: Stone Meadow: 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.

Because everyone is a single issue voter.


Is that your honest assessment? Because if it is I would just point you to the mass hysteria we've put up with over the past four years because one man, just one man, in this country happens to be black. Remember that? Romney would have won the popular vote with a shift of less an a million and a half votes. There are more than 80 million gun owners in this country, so yes, IMO it is not an inconceivable stretch to conclude that a small but sufficient fraction of them could shift their votes from Dem to GOP on this one issue.
 
2013-01-20 12:41:06 PM

Wulfman: Most of them were not slave owners. The more you know.


The gun debate seems to be more about semantics, legal loopholes and an accident of history than common sense.
 
2013-01-20 12:42:02 PM

ilambiquated: 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?

Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 419x350]

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.



As I pointed out previously, Assault WeaponsTM are NOT a significant threat to public safety.

But they could be seen as troublesome to would-be tyrants.

Don't you think?
 
2013-01-20 12:42:48 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.

Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.

So lets just dissolve the entire thing. Hopefully they can put something in there about how big my soda cup can be.

Hey, whatever works, works, right? You realize that the founders included a procedure for amending the constitution for a reason, right? (Note: they also made that procedure very difficult, also for a reason.) Why is everyone so resistant even to the possibility that we can improve upon what the founders did -over two hundred years ago, at a time when we still had slavery and bloodletting? Do you guys really believe that 1789 was the apogee of our civilization?


So other than helping to alleviate your fear of guns so you don't have to live in terror everyday, what else would you like to change?
 
2013-01-20 12:43:12 PM

Amos Quito: ilambiquated: 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?

Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 419x350]

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.


As I pointed out previously, Assault WeaponsTM are NOT a significant threat to public safety.

But they could be seen as troublesome to would-be tyrants.

Don't you think?


Would be tyrants in control of a military with tanks, drones and other assorted death instruments probably lose sleep over those assault weapons.
 
2013-01-20 12:43:27 PM

Amos Quito: ilambiquated: 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?

Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 419x350]

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.


As I pointed out previously, Assault WeaponsTM are NOT a significant threat to public safety.

But they could be seen as troublesome to would-be tyrants.

Don't you think?


To tyrants with the strength of the US military behind them?

No, not at all.
 
2013-01-20 12:46:58 PM

CADMonkey79: So other than helping to alleviate your fear of guns so you don't have to live in terror everyday, what else would you like to change?


There are lots of people living in places like Chicago where daily terror of guns is a real thing. Try to remember that next time you mouth off from your shack in the woods, Cletus.
 
2013-01-20 12:49:18 PM

coeyagi: Amos Quito: ilambiquated: 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?

Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 419x350]

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.


As I pointed out previously, Assault WeaponsTM are NOT a significant threat to public safety.

But they could be seen as troublesome to would-be tyrants.

Don't you think?

Would be tyrants in control of a military with tanks, drones and other assorted death instruments probably lose sleep over those assault weapons.


I don't subscribe to the "tyrant" aspect of this argument, but in reality the most effective way to fight a large military force is with small groups of insurgents carrying small arms and IED's.
 
2013-01-20 12:49:42 PM

The Name: To tyrants with the strength of the US military behind them?

No, not at all.


Julius Caesar would like a word with you...
 
2013-01-20 12:49:43 PM

adragontattoo:

Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
[www.smith-wesson.com image 475x333]

Different from

[www.mossberg.com image 850x240]


I've seen this silly argument so many times. Even in this thread. Do you all work at the same meme mill?
 
2013-01-20 12:50:10 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: So other than helping to alleviate your fear of guns so you don't have to live in terror everyday, what else would you like to change?

There are lots of people living in places like Chicago where daily terror of guns is a real thing. Try to remember that next time you mouth off from your shack in the woods, Cletus.


I live in Chicago and so I know that strict gun laws are not in any way a shield from violence.
 
2013-01-20 12:50:46 PM

Sagus: 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?


The ATF. Link

It's been all over the news for the last couple weeks.
 
2013-01-20 12:51:41 PM

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Sure it does if you want to compare buses to firearms since buses don't drive themselves.

And that's a valid comparison because.... guns fire themselves? Not sure what you're getting at here...


So do you want gun owners to have license requirements and registration that bus drivers and their vehicles do?
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report