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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 12:52:38 PM

CADMonkey79: 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.


Yeah, that tends to work against an invading force that doesn't understand the culture or geography. In civil wars where citizens overthrow their governments, they weren't taking on the might of the U.S. military. I am not saying it couldn't be done, I just don't see a historical precedent that would be comparable to a bunch of tea partiers taking down the U.S. government.
 
2013-01-20 12:52:41 PM

coeyagi: 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.



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

No, not at all.



So you both believe that you are already completely OWNED by your government, and that any "right" or "freedom" you have is subject to the whim of any asshat - liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, benevolent or tyrannical that HAPPENS to seize power?

In that case I suggest that you PRAY LIKE HELL that the "wrong guy" never gets into that position.

Because it doesn't matter whether you're a True Believer or an avowed atheist, PRAYER is the ONLY thing you'll have left.

:-)
 
2013-01-20 12:53:40 PM

odinsposse: 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.


Not saying you aren't correct, but I might have to consult someone with more credentials on that. I don't want to assume that I have less legal standing in shooting an intruder with the clear intent (implied in using a non-lethal round) to discourage the attacker, than I do in outright killing him.

Stranger laws are on the books, though. This is a case where knowing IS in fact half the battle.
 
2013-01-20 12:53:43 PM

TotesCrayCray: 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.


Trigger locks are dangerous -- nearly all of them have components that are inside the trigger guard and could, in some circumstances, push the trigger. It is foolish in the extreme to rely on such locks.

A better idea for a self-defense firearm would be to keep it in something like this -- the gun is secure from honest-but-curious people (e.g. children, unauthorized adults, etc.), offers comparable security to most "gun safes", and can be quickly opened in an emergency.

Also, you assume that someone would "run back" to confront their attacker. Pretty much any class addressing self-defense in the home will warn you specifically about confronting an attacker. It's a terrible idea and almost never advisable if it can be avoided. Assuming it's possible to do so, one should get to a place of safety (e.g. a locked bedroom), arm oneself, and call the police. If the criminal is just there to steal your TV or whatever, fine. Let them. That's what insurance is for. However, if they try to gain access to your refuge, even after warning them that you're armed and the police are on their way, that's a different story.

Gato Blanco: 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.


I'm not too dissimilar to your friend except that I grew up in California, have a BS in Physics and a minor in Math (doing my masters now, ultimate shooting for a PhD). I have no objection to background checks, but there's essentially no good reason to ban so-called "assault weapons" -- they're used extremely rarely in crime (according to Senator Feinstein, about 0.6% of all firearm-related homicides involve "assault weapons") and are extremely commonly used for perfectly legitimate purposes like sport and competition (guns like the AR-15 are exceptionally common in competition as they're highly modular, accurate, and reliable -- they can be easily modified to fit just about any shooter or shooting activity). They're functionally identical to other common semi-auto firearms, in that they fire one shot per pull of the trigger. Judging (and advocating for a ban on) a type of gun based on its appearance, rather than its actual functionality and use, is not terribly reasonable.
 
2013-01-20 12:54:31 PM

Amos Quito: 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?


How many times are you going to float nutty conspiracy theories? Don't bother calling your mom. I said hello to her last night.
 
2013-01-20 12:54:47 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]

ANSWER: The difference is how long it takes you to finish.
 
2013-01-20 12:55:25 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.


Aww someone had to start calling people names. Did I hit a nerve? So in your opinion banning guns (completely apparently) is going to keep the gang bangers in Chicago from using guns. Really? Man you are so far away from any kind of logical argument it is unreal. I'm sure the people who are trying to actually enact some laws that may help really love it when your kind chime in and move the other side even farther away from coming to a compromise. And for the record I am a liberal on every other issue, the bedwetters like you are what force me to the center.
 
2013-01-20 12:55:34 PM

Amos Quito: coeyagi: 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.


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

No, not at all.


So you both believe that you are already completely OWNED by your government, and that any "right" or "freedom" you have is subject to the whim of any asshat - liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, benevolent or tyrannical that HAPPENS to seize power?

In that case I suggest that you PRAY LIKE HELL that the "wrong guy" never gets into that position.

Because it doesn't matter whether you're a True Believer or an avowed atheist, PRAYER is the ONLY thing you'll have left.

:-)


Nope, that's why we have a thing called a democracy. We have power, every 2, 4 and 6 years. A little faith, prepper-esque guy.

But seriously, let me laugh harder that you think the 2nd amendment in today's context will allow you to overthrow the government. You'd better stop fighting gun grabbers and start fighting tank grabbers and rocket launcher grabbers.
 
2013-01-20 12:55:35 PM

doglover: What we really need is a modern Andrew Jackson.


Someone who ignores Supreme Court decisions to commit genocide?
 
2013-01-20 12:55:37 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.


How about the CPD concentrate its resources on policing those areas and getting criminals off the streets? IOW, enforce the laws we already have on the books, instead of abrogating the rights of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Because I hate to break it to you, but stricter gun laws will not result in criminals suddenly obeying them.
 
2013-01-20 12:56:20 PM

Fart_Machine: 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?


No, I want asshat politicians to quit using false arguments and appeals to base emotion to force-feed us their underhanded agendas.
 
2013-01-20 12:56:57 PM

LasersHurt: How would you like to diagnose and manage this prohibition to the Mentally Ill?


If your mentally unfit enough that owning a gun is a risk to yourself or others you shouldn't be on the street to begin with. We need to bring back the mental health institutions that we closed down in the 70's and make mental health care readily available to help people avoid getting that far gone to begin with.
 
2013-01-20 12:57:56 PM

Stone Meadow: 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.


Did you forget that this same mass hysteria about Obama "banning" guns has been around since before his first term in office and he won both times?
 
2013-01-20 12:58:19 PM

Fart_Machine: So do you want gun owners to have license requirements and registration that bus drivers and their vehicles do?


No. And there is a circumstance that clearly differentiates the two. Let's see if you can figure out what that is.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:20 PM

odinsposse: 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.


Well no, not when it's restricted to extremely small areas in the middle of a state and country where guns circulate like currency. But anyway, I somehow doubt that that fact would make your compatriots on the west side and the south side open to the idea of doing away with gun bans in the city altogether.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:49 PM

Amos Quito: So you both believe that you are already completely OWNED by your government


Who said that?
 
2013-01-20 12:58:59 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: 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?

No, I want asshat politicians to quit using false arguments and appeals to base emotion to force-feed us their underhanded agendas.


Proposing alleviating crime and death = underhanded agenda

Striving for world peace = dubious intentions, man

//not saying that their agenda is necessarily in the ballpark of "effective', but i laugh at you for suggesting it's an underhanded agenda
 
2013-01-20 12:59:20 PM

coeyagi: CADMonkey79: 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.

Yeah, that tends to work against an invading force that doesn't understand the culture or geography. In civil wars where citizens overthrow their governments, they weren't taking on the might of the U.S. military. I am not saying it couldn't be done, I just don't see a historical precedent that would be comparable to a bunch of tea partiers taking down the U.S. government.


True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.
 
2013-01-20 12:59:39 PM
coeyagi: Nope, that's why we have a thing called a democracy.

We do?

How did we manage to lay our hands on this wonderful thing?

Is it worth keeping?

If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?
 
2013-01-20 01:00:22 PM

The Name: Well no, not when it's restricted to extremely small areas in the middle of a state and country where guns circulate like currency. But anyway, I somehow doubt that that fact would make your compatriots on the west side and the south side open to the idea of doing away with gun bans in the city altogether.


Yet nobody supports nation-wide gun bans. No sirree!
 
2013-01-20 01:01:17 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: 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?

No, I want asshat politicians to quit using false arguments and appeals to base emotion to force-feed us their underhanded agendas.


It would help if you took your own advice then.
 
2013-01-20 01:02:10 PM

Amos Quito: coeyagi: Nope, that's why we have a thing called a democracy.

We do?

How did we manage to lay our hands on this wonderful thing?

Is it worth keeping?

If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?


Got It: with militias with guns, the same as the British military since they didn't have tanks, drones, fighter jets at the time.

Keep it: (rolls eyes) With assault weapons against tanks and F16s, obviously.
 
2013-01-20 01:02:38 PM
Let the states decide how regulate guns!

RON PAUL!!!11,!
 
2013-01-20 01:03:07 PM

CADMonkey79: I'm sure the people who are trying to actually enact some laws that may help really love it when your kind chime in and move the other side even farther away from coming to a compromise. And for the record I am a liberal on every other issue, the bedwetters like you are what force me to the center.


So, in other words, you are a petulant little twit who puts his fragile little ego ahead of the good of society. Duly noted.
 
2013-01-20 01:03:34 PM

GoldSpider: The Name: Well no, not when it's restricted to extremely small areas in the middle of a state and country where guns circulate like currency. But anyway, I somehow doubt that that fact would make your compatriots on the west side and the south side open to the idea of doing away with gun bans in the city altogether.

Yet nobody supports nation-wide gun bans. No sirree!


Don't you dare call them a gun-grabbers either!
 
2013-01-20 01:04:00 PM

adragontattoo: 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?


The point is, what are the guns you wouldn't use for hunting good for?

(BTW: The last one is an ag-3. It's the weapon I used in the army. It can be used for hunting, although it's illegal to do so)

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...

Um. OK. Not really sure what the "assault weapon" definition is supposed to be good for.
 
2013-01-20 01:04:18 PM

Amos Quito: If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?


Your gun club and it's collection of semi-auto rifles isn't going to be able to stop a military-backed tyrant. Sorry to burst your Paul Revere fantasy, but with the disparity between arms available to civilians and the military, it's just not happening.

Which happens to be a big part of why the FF's largely didn't favor keeping a standing army.
 
2013-01-20 01:07:31 PM

CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.


Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.
 
2013-01-20 01:07:51 PM

RabidJade: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

I think he is speaking from the mistake he made back then.



True, except that he still supports such a ban even today.
 
2013-01-20 01:08:27 PM
 
2013-01-20 01:08:41 PM

fusillade762: doglover: Saturday Night Special is not an anti gun song. It's an anti cheap ass-nickle plated knock off guns song.

What's an ass-nickle?


More valuable than an ass-penny.

Link
 
2013-01-20 01:09:17 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: I'm sure the people who are trying to actually enact some laws that may help really love it when your kind chime in and move the other side even farther away from coming to a compromise. And for the record I am a liberal on every other issue, the bedwetters like you are what force me to the center.

So, in other words, you are a petulant little twit who puts his fragile little ego ahead of the good of society. Duly noted.


Wow somebody got a whittle angry. Look dude you are a whacko I get it. You are an extremist that is absolutely no different than the crazy teabaggers and the religious fundies. You want to force your beliefs on everyone in the same way. Just the opposite side of the same insane coin. But you are entertaining for sure, Favorited.
 
2013-01-20 01:09:18 PM

CADMonkey79: GoldSpider: The Name: Well no, not when it's restricted to extremely small areas in the middle of a state and country where guns circulate like currency. But anyway, I somehow doubt that that fact would make your compatriots on the west side and the south side open to the idea of doing away with gun bans in the city altogether.

Yet nobody supports nation-wide gun bans. No sirree!

Don't you dare call them a gun-grabbers either!


No argument here. I'm a gun-grabber. And I wish it were more politically feasible for our elected officials to identify as such.
 
2013-01-20 01:11:05 PM

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


I think you are having some problems understanding my post. It expresses no opinion one way or the other.
 
2013-01-20 01:11:21 PM

Fart_Machine: Did you forget that this same mass hysteria about Obama "banning" guns has been around since before his first term in office and he won both times?


Have you forgotten that until now he has never pressed for any actual changes to gun laws?

I have to go do the family thing now and will be off the web for the rest of the day. You guys have fun. :^)
 
2013-01-20 01:11:38 PM

GoldSpider: Amos Quito: If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?

Your gun club and it's collection of semi-auto rifles isn't going to be able to stop a military-backed tyrant. Sorry to burst your Paul Revere fantasy, but with the disparity between arms available to civilians and the military, it's just not happening.

Which happens to be a big part of why the FF's largely didn't favor keeping a standing army.


You assassinate tyrants... you dont take their army head on.
 
2013-01-20 01:11:57 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.

Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.


I'll bet the Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians etc would find him hilarious.
 
2013-01-20 01:12:42 PM

CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: I'm sure the people who are trying to actually enact some laws that may help really love it when your kind chime in and move the other side even farther away from coming to a compromise. And for the record I am a liberal on every other issue, the bedwetters like you are what force me to the center.

So, in other words, you are a petulant little twit who puts his fragile little ego ahead of the good of society. Duly noted.

Wow somebody got a whittle angry. Look dude you are a whacko I get it. You are an extremist that is absolutely no different than the crazy teabaggers and the religious fundies. You want to force your beliefs on everyone in the same way. Just the opposite side of the same insane coin. But you are entertaining for sure, Favorited.


Lol, yeah, I'm a whacko. I want the second amendment repealed so guns can be regulated at the state, county and local level just like any other substance or object, like explosives, poisons, drugs, etc. How crazy of me to think that.
 
2013-01-20 01:12:43 PM

coeyagi: Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: 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?

No, I want asshat politicians to quit using false arguments and appeals to base emotion to force-feed us their underhanded agendas.


coeyagi:  Proposing alleviating crime and death = underhanded agenda


Banning Assault Weapons will alleviate "crime and death", LOL!


coeyagi:  Striving for world peace = dubious intentions, man


Banning Assault Weapons will bring world peace?


coeyagi:  //not saying that their agenda is necessarily in the ballpark of "effective', but i laugh at you for suggesting it's an underhanded agenda


Can you read the FBI report I linked to above? Do you think politicians are too stupid to read these reports? Because what they are proposing will effectively do NOTHING to address the problems that they are howling about.

73% of all gun homicides are committed with HANDGUNS, yet they are going after weapons that are responsible for less than 4% of all homicides.

Are they that STOOPID for proposing such a solution? Or are you that STOOPID  for believing them?
 
2013-01-20 01:12:47 PM

GoldSpider: Amos Quito: If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?

Your gun club and it's collection of semi-auto rifles isn't going to be able to stop a military-backed tyrant. Sorry to burst your Paul Revere fantasy, but with the disparity between arms available to civilians and the military, it's just not happening.


But 100 million gun owners will make them think twice, wouldn't it? Do you really think the military short of committing suicide with nuclear weapons has a chance when they're outnumbered on their own territory by over 50 to 1? There's only so many attack aircraft, there's only so many tanks. The U.S. is a huge geographical area, and they need supplies. The military could not win in a battle against their own citizens. Anyone who thinks otherwise learned everything they know about war from tv.
 
2013-01-20 01:13:34 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.

Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.



Nice cherry picking. I prefaced my part of the discussion with "I do not subscribe to the tyrant part of the argument". I seem to have become so angry I am sure it's hard to read as you tremble with fear and type though.
 
2013-01-20 01:14:27 PM

CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.

Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.


Nice cherry picking. I prefaced my part of the discussion with "I do not subscribe to the tyrant part of the argument". I seem to have become so angry I am sure it's hard to read as you tremble with fear and type though.


You....lol
 
2013-01-20 01:14:48 PM

umad: 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.


As fast as I can pull the trigger? You're talking *BANG!* BANG!* BANG!* ... (until cartridge is empty) vs *BRUPP!*

I guess you've got a faster trigger finger than I have.

And what does being tucked into a belt have to do with anything?

Makes it easier to bring them into schools and such.

You can saw the stock and barrel on a shotgun and tuck it into your belt if you feel like it.

How useful is it for hunting after you've done that?
 
2013-01-20 01:14:51 PM

Stone Meadow: How about the CPD concentrate its resources on policing those areas and getting criminals off the streets?


Guns are above criticism, people are evil.

media.commercialappeal.com

America is in the thrall of a weird cult.
 
2013-01-20 01:15:11 PM

umad: The Name: CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.

Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.

I'll bet the Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians etc would find him hilarious.


Sorry, I thought this was The Greatest Country In The World(TM), not Libya, Egypt or Syria.
 
2013-01-20 01:16:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: But 100 million gun owners will make them think twice, wouldn't it?


I hate to indulge this, since this is getting squarely into "paranoid gun nut" territory, but suppose a large number of those gun owners also happened to support said hypothetical tyrant...
 
2013-01-20 01:17:28 PM

Wayne 985: 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.


I've always lived in states that background checks at gun shows, thought it was nationwide
 
2013-01-20 01:17:57 PM

LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th. Seems to me you phony patriots are really just concerned about maintaining your fantasy of some day getting to kill someone.


You'll find a lot of people that support the 2nd amendment also support the 1st amendment, are self identified liberals, belong to the ACLU and so on. I've seen several people out themselves as as EFF members or the like and 2nd amendment supports just in this thread.

Don't let the vocal minority within the Democratic party that are anti-gun lead you to believe that anyone who supports gun rights is a Republican. Bill Clinton saw first hand how the Democrats lost control of Congress for a decade after this perception led him to wage his anti-gun war. This is what he was trying to warn fellow Democrats about in his speech. There are a /lot/ of otherwise moderate Democrats that will vote Republican if they have to in order to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

Personally I'm zealous about defending the 2nd amendment because I realize it's historic relevance is securing all other rights. I'm not a member of the Tea Party, not a Republican, not a member of the NRA, don't own a rifle, hand gun, don't have a conceal carry permit. I have surprised friends who knew me for years just by owning a pair of hunting shotguns. I have been a member of the EFF and support them in what they do. I've gone on the record as to wanting an ACLU / NRA type of organization for years.

Why is it so hard to understand that just because someone supports the 2nd amendment that they aren't a member of the Tea Party, or even Republican party? Their are millions of Democrats that support the 2nd amendment and I can give you a list of historical liberals that supported gun rights if you really want to have an identity crisis....
 
2013-01-20 01:18:02 PM

CADMonkey79: CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: True, but you would also have to factor in large portions of the military defecting to the insurgents side. No way you are convincing all of the US military to fight against their own people.

Lol. Do you guys have any idea how bizarre it is that these kinds of conversations even come up debates about gun control? In any other developed country you would be written off as a nut for even bringing up such apocalyptic scenarios.


Nice cherry picking. I prefaced my part of the discussion with "I do not subscribe to the tyrant part of the argument". I seem to have become so angry I am sure it's hard to read as you tremble with fear and type though.

You....lol


You don't seem to know what "even come up" means.

/should have been an "in" between "up" and "debates"
 
2013-01-20 01:20:34 PM

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.


Then make the NICS available to the general public.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report