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 1108
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16580 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»



1108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 03:53:38 PM

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

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

You misspelled 'comply with it.'


It's true, the AWB didn't ban the guns, it just banned how they could look.
 
2013-01-20 03:56:17 PM

contrapunctus: Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.


www.european-freedom-initiative.org

lul wut?
 
2013-01-20 03:57:12 PM

GUTSU: The Name: heypete: The Name: So, answer me this: if an AWB were included in a bill that also addressed problems with mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc., would you rather that bill die altogether than get passed?

Yes.

If the issue was about something other than guns (say privacy rights, where a bill that would expand warrantless wiretapping was contained within an otherwise-reasonable bill) I'd be opposed to it as well.

I guess I just don't understand why so many people feel (note: I said "feel," not "logically consider in the context of constitutional law") as strongly about the second amendment as they do the fourth amendment. I mean -really? That hunk of metal is just as important to you as your protection against unlawful search and seizure? I know they're legally equivalent and all, but legal reasoning doesn't seem to be what's behind most people's stance on the issue. As someone else in this thread has indicated, it's more of a fetish than anything else.


I find it odd that you don't understand that people want the means to self defense, I myself shudder to think of a society where only the military and police have guns.


I'd wager that, were we to become "a society where only the military and police have guns", our society would change both radically and quickly.

And most of us wouldn't like said changes very much.
 
2013-01-20 03:57:18 PM

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.


It is not forbidden in the Norwegian constitution.
 
2013-01-20 03:57:47 PM

CADMonkey79:
Maybe its because they look at guns a simply a tool, something the grow up around learn to respect and not fear. Something akin to people that love John Deere tractors or 57 Chevy's. My question is, do you have to understand it before they are allowed the right to feel that way? Is vilifying and mocking people who have done nothing illegal a good way to get them to come to a compromise or understanding when it comes to background checks or magazine restrictions?


And so you miss the very center of my argument. Would these same people have such a visceral reaction if their John Deere tractors or 1957 chevys were suddenly made illegal? Would they be willing to actually take another persons life to keep their tractor or their car? Or would they simply b*tch for awhile then move on with their lives?

And as I said before, my post has nothing to do with the legality of such objects, but the desire for such objects which brings such insanity.

This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.

Something is wrong here, very wrong.
 
2013-01-20 03:59:09 PM

heypete: There's also something to be said about the way public opinion polls ask questions: I'd be surprised if a poll that asked something like "do you support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines like those used in The Newtown shooting?" got less than the majority of people saying "yes, they should be banned".

But, if the question were asked like "do you support banning the most common types of civilian firearms, even if they're used in only 0.6% of gun-related homicides and this rate has been decreasing for years?", I think the answer would be different.

It's not uncommon for non-gun-owners (and even some gun owners) to think "assault weapons" = "machine guns" when this isn't the case at all. There's a lot of misconceptions about such guns.


THIS. Polls are meaningless if we don't know the exact questions being asked and the level of knowledge of the respondents. You can make them say whatever you want otherwise.
 
2013-01-20 03:59:55 PM
Bill Clinton is right. I'm completely distressed that the Left is going to waste time on the President's proposals. Can't we focus on marriage equality, a public option for healthcare or ending the War on Drugs?

Those last two will do some good in reducing gun violence, as well.
 
2013-01-20 04:02:23 PM

cryinoutloud: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Amos Quito: Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?
There is none. Not a single person has presented a reasoned argument for any kind of ban on assault weapons. And I don't just mean on fark, I mean anywhere. Every single argument is founded in emotionalism.

Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one. And no, "defending myself against the government" isn't a good reason, unless you live in some fantasy land.

and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.


Fortunately, we don't live in a world where we must prove that we have a "need" to exercise our rights.

Do you have a "need" to post ridiculously flawed assumptions on fark.com? No, you'll live if you don't, so obviously, you don't "need" to, goodbye first amendment.

Do you have a need to keep soldiers from being quartered in your house? No, I imagine you could still get by with them living in your house, so goodbye 3rd amendment.

The only reason you need a 4th amendment is if you're guilty of something. You're not guilty, are you? Only criminals "need" that one. Goodbye 4th amendment.

Your "logic" is laughable.  Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, look them up sometime.
 
2013-01-20 04:03:05 PM

heypete: There's also something to be said about the way public opinion polls ask questions: I'd be surprised if a poll that asked something like "do you support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines like those used in The Newtown shooting?" got less than the majority of people saying "yes, they should be banned".

But, if the question were asked like "do you support banning the most common types of civilian firearms, even if they're used in only 0.6% of gun-related homicides and this rate has been decreasing for years?", I think the answer would be different.

It's not uncommon for non-gun-owners (and even some gun owners) to think "assault weapons" = "machine guns" when this isn't the case at all. There's a lot of misconceptions about such guns.


Listening to my ignorant friends talk about guns and gun control is quite stunning. You'd think the AR-15 was fully automatic with a 10 mile range, with enough punch to rip through an oak tree on the way to kill a newborn and have a 14 foot long bayonet spear hanging off the front.

Oh, and the barrel shroud is what makes an assault weapon dangerous.
 
2013-01-20 04:04:18 PM

unamused: What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote?  We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.  Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.


For what reason?

You seem to be missing half of the concept here. We've already established that a right can be restricted in the name of public safety or to prevent crime---but you need a legitimate and pressing reason to do so.

Firearm sales and ownership is regulated for reasons of safety and crime prevention; you're proposing to do the same thing to voting for no reason except "waaah."

I should also add that voting is already regulated a great deal, despite being a right. You can't use a camera to film yourself voting, for example, and you can't try to persuade other people in the voting area to vote for your candidate. These rules are there to prevent fraud.
 
2013-01-20 04:08:01 PM

rewind2846: CADMonkey79:
Maybe its because they look at guns a simply a tool, something the grow up around learn to respect and not fear. Something akin to people that love John Deere tractors or 57 Chevy's. My question is, do you have to understand it before they are allowed the right to feel that way? Is vilifying and mocking people who have done nothing illegal a good way to get them to come to a compromise or understanding when it comes to background checks or magazine restrictions?

And so you miss the very center of my argument. Would these same people have such a visceral reaction if their John Deere tractors or 1957 chevys were suddenly made illegal? Would they be willing to actually take another persons life to keep their tractor or their car? Or would they simply b*tch for awhile then move on with their lives?

And as I said before, my post has nothing to do with the legality of such objects, but the desire for such objects which brings such insanity.

This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.

Something is wrong here, very wrong.


Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor. Hate to break it to you but they really don't care that you don't get it. Your irrational fear of law abiding people owning guns is much stranger than their desire to own them. They don't need to provide you with another example because they don't care that you are afraid.
 
2013-01-20 04:08:13 PM

jeffas69: contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.

It is not forbidden in the Norwegian constitution.


I think you just proved his larger point.
 
2013-01-20 04:08:24 PM
it could be argued that you should never patronize your enemies on any subject.
 
2013-01-20 04:09:43 PM

rewind2846: And as I said before, my post has nothing to do with the legality of such objects, but the desire for such objects which brings such insanity.

This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.

Something is wrong here, very wrong.


Have you considered the possibility that it isnt "insanity" at all, and that perhaps other people have had different life experiences as you and thus have developed a different set of values and priorities?

Somebody who has never seen violence or war will have a drastically different opinion of guns than somebody who has.
 
2013-01-20 04:14:22 PM

Alonjar: rewind2846: And as I said before, my post has nothing to do with the legality of such objects, but the desire for such objects which brings such insanity.

This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.

Something is wrong here, very wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that it isnt "insanity" at all, and that perhaps other people have had different life experiences as you and thus have developed a different set of values and priorities?

Somebody who has never seen violence or war will have a drastically different opinion of guns than somebody who has.


Just to add to this... when my grandmother died, we found she had a large stash of canned food hidden away, mostly consisting of cat food. She was clearly saving it for an emergency. Is saving months worth of cat food to eat during a famine "insane"? A lot of people would say it is.

Somebody who grew up during the great depression would not. They would not only consider it reasonable, but perhaps a necessity.
 
2013-01-20 04:16:18 PM

CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.


Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.

Tatterdemalian: More important really, those chunks of metal are the only physical barrier to unlawful search and seizure that exists.


Alonjar: The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.


See

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.

 
2013-01-20 04:23:23 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.

Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.


"Because other people do it", isn't a valid excuse for anything.
 
2013-01-20 04:23:23 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.

Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.

Tatterdemalian: More important really, those chunks of metal are the only physical barrier to unlawful search and seizure that exists.

Alonjar: The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

See

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.


I (they) don't give a flying fark what the rest of the world has done. The US is a one of a kind culture and I really shouldn't have to explain how we are different. Again, I (they) don't care that you don't get it, we don't care that you are afraid of guns.
 
2013-01-20 04:23:24 PM

doglover:

Basically, the right to bear the best arms one could was a fact of life back then because America was a war on all fronts. The Canadians were still loyal British, and their allies the Indians were up there with them. The Spanish were doing things in the Caribbean. The natives to the west were not keen on the pale faces who kept pushing into their turf. And to top it off, the British themselves were still the biggest Empire this globe has ever seen and they ruled the waves.

Not to mention the need to keep all the slaves in their place. The thing is, though, that that isn't reality anymore, and is therefore not a justification for the widespread ownership of firearms today.


Well, just look into the history of the British two finger salute. The French were so decimated by the archers that any archer or suspected archer had their right hands maimed. Lifetimes of training work.

If you'd actually done even the most trivial research yourself, you'd know that that story's an urban legend; it has no historical validity whatsoever, as even a cursory trip to Wikipedia will reveal.
 
2013-01-20 04:24:41 PM

Alonjar: You should see how much more polite cops are after they are informed that I am armed.


All I get out of that is that you do alot of stupid things to draw the attention of the police.

Actually, all I get out of that is that you play internet tough guy and pretend you threaten cops. I'd be shocked if you managed to type that comment without wetting yourself.
 
2013-01-20 04:26:11 PM

adamgreeney

Smartest
Funniest
2013-01-20 10:18:30 AM
giffin: adamgreeney: So you are saying that guns were not invented to kill? Really? That is why they were invented, and why they are improved on constantly. The power to kill something is the sole reason they are around. Just because you can use them for something else doent mean the nature and purpose chages. I have a bunch of books in the trunk of my car. Are you saying a car is just a bookshelf that can be used to drive around, but thats not why is was made?

By that rational, yo-yos are only meant to kill things, despite the fact that an entire economy has sprung up around yo-yos that are less good at killing things.

How the hell is a yo-yo meant to kill people? Is there some history of yo-yo yielding gangs roaming the streets? What you're saying lacks even the slightest bit of logic


Didn't you watch The Wire? Some of the cops in that show referred to the street kids as "Yo's"
 
2013-01-20 04:26:30 PM

CADMonkey79: The US is a one of a kind culture


Yea.

Specifically we're really good at getting innocent people killed because yellow-bellied pants-shiatters like you think that either King George's zombie is going to show up on your front law any day now or you're going to have to go Buford Pusser when a gang of local criminals comes after your family.

We're a culture of idiots. Thanks for supporting it.
 
2013-01-20 04:28:54 PM

rewind2846: This is where the strangeness comes from. Find me one other object (tool) which raises this much emotional angst, rage and outright fear over the possibility of its non-existence or even restrictions on its use. Just one.



The ability to vote, for one.


John Deere Tractors and 57 Chevy's don't help to preserve your OTHER rights.
 
2013-01-20 04:32:42 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Alonjar: You should see how much more polite cops are after they are informed that I am armed.

All I get out of that is that you do alot of stupid things to draw the attention of the police.

Actually, all I get out of that is that you play internet tough guy and pretend you threaten cops. I'd be shocked if you managed to type that comment without wetting yourself.


Then you're a moron, who clearly makes up whatever he needs to in his head to justify his own world views. Its called projection, you should try to work on that.
 
2013-01-20 04:32:43 PM
I could care fark all for what Bill Cllinton says.

I voted against him because he kept caving in to the Republicans.

He didn't even accomplish half of what Obama did in just the first 4 years.

And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.
 
2013-01-20 04:36:25 PM

numbquil: ZaldaPhlemm: Is it possible for a 3D printer to make a 30 round clip.?

I'm pretty sure that you could. I own a RepRap Prusa Mendel and I don't see why you couldn't. A magazine is basically 3 or 4 pieces and the only piece you wouldn't be able to print is the spring which you could just get somewhere else.

It would actually be a lot easier just to weld one together from sheet metal. Welders and other metal working and machining tools are a lot more common and more accessible to people than 3D printers.



Dunno about that. There are a pair of 3d printers at the local high school here.

/that's like 6d
 
2013-01-20 04:36:31 PM

The Name: I guess I just don't understand why so many people feel (note: I said "feel," not "logically consider in the context of constitutional law") as strongly about the second amendment as they do the fourth amendment.


I'm a big fan of all liberties, and jealously defend them as best I can (mostly by writing letters to my congressmen to oppose things like warrantless wiretapping, gun bans, invasive airport security, email retention/monitoring, etc.). I'm a member of the NRA, EFF, and ACLU (and often donate to other similar organizations) -- I don't agree 100% with everything the organizations say or do, but I feel that the benefits of being a member outweigh the downsides.

I think for a lot of people, a politicians views on gun rights really cuts through a lot of the weasel-word fluff in how they regard individual liberties and serves as a fairly straightforward litmus test. The heavy-handedness of government actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge is still clear in the memories of a lot of people, and many people distrust the government and are skeptical of giving them more power or authority.

Also, a lot of gun-related restrictions are much more easily visible to the average person. If you tell them the government may be recording and monitoring their phone calls, some people might be outraged but most people shrug and say "I've got nothing really to hide, and it doesn't really interfere with my day-to-day life. They might actually catch some bad guys. No biggie." (I think that's a dangerous attitude, but that's neither here nor there.) TSA checkpoints might be a momentary inconvenience, but in the end many people just say "No big deal. I can still fly where I need to go and the checks might catch some bad guys." Same sort of things with background checks -- not really a big deal, as they're carried out quickly and at the point of sale. But when politicians start talking about banning certain guns (particularly those that are rarely used in crime and are highly popular among law-abiding people), that hits a bit closer to home as it's something they can more readily see -- they can no longer buy something that they used to be able to.

When you get meaningless regulations like those in New York State that say you can't buy new magazines over 7 rounds and while you can keep your existing 10-round magazines, you can only load 7 rounds into them, a lot of people get annoyed because it's clear that such measures were not enacted to reduce violent crime as it's obvious that criminals will ignore them.

A lot of the issues come back to the same groups and politicians proposing the same restrictions, year after year, even though there's no real evidence that they'd be effective at reducing violent crime. It probably doesn't help that a lot of those groups and politicians have no real understanding of what they're proposing (e.g. bolt-action .50 caliber rifles are not the least bit effective at shooting down planes, allowing a semi-auto Mini-14 with a wood stock but banning the exact same gun if it has a plastic stock and a differently-shaped grip won't do jack, etc.) or are intentionally misleading people. There's not really a lot of trust that people proposing gun control measures are doing it for safety or for reducing violent crime, but rather that they're pushing to significantly reduce (if not eliminate) private gun ownership and their "common-sense" restrictions are just a stepping stone to more restrictions (this is further compounded by gun-control proponents and politicians who have made statements that explicitly state that as a goal).

/I don't necessarily agree with all those positions, but they're not uncommon.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 04:37:10 PM

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

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


Well that's a blatant lie. Are you an intentional liar, or are you an ignorant liar?
 
2013-01-20 04:38:16 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: The US is a one of a kind culture

Yea.

Specifically we're really good at getting innocent people killed because yellow-bellied pants-shiatters like you think that either King George's zombie is going to show up on your front law any day now or you're going to have to go Buford Pusser when a gang of local criminals comes after your family.

We're a culture of idiots. Thanks for supporting it.


We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?. Sure why not. Hate to break it to you but guns aren't going anywhere, so I guess you just have to ball up your tiny little fists and cry about it on fark. Honest question, how do you even stand to live in this country? Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?, I can't imagine.
 
2013-01-20 04:39:16 PM

CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.

Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.

Tatterdemalian: More important really, those chunks of metal are the only physical barrier to unlawful search and seizure that exists.

Alonjar: The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

See

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.

I (they) don't give a flying fark what the rest of the world has done. The US is a one of a kind culture and I really shouldn't have to explain how we are different. Again, I (they) don't care that you don't get it, we don't care that you are afraid of guns.


Ah, American Exceptionalism, the refuge of idiots.
 
2013-01-20 04:41:33 PM

CADMonkey79: We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?


It's cute you think that progressing as a society and standing up to an unhealthy obsession with firearms constitutes being "terrified by an inanimate object."

And yeah, you're the one shiatting your pants because Obama wants to ban certain assault rifles, close loopholes at shows and strengthen background checks. You act like being civilized violates your Constitutional protections. Seriously grow the fark up.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 04:41:41 PM

CADMonkey79: Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: The US is a one of a kind culture

Yea.

Specifically we're really good at getting innocent people killed because yellow-bellied pants-shiatters like you think that either King George's zombie is going to show up on your front law any day now or you're going to have to go Buford Pusser when a gang of local criminals comes after your family.

We're a culture of idiots. Thanks for supporting it.

We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?. Sure why not. Hate to break it to you but guns aren't going anywhere, so I guess you just have to ball up your tiny little fists and cry about it on fark. Honest question, how do you even stand to live in this country? Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?, I can't imagine.


Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.
 
2013-01-20 04:42:04 PM

The Name: I (they) don't give a flying fark what the rest of the world has done. The US is a one of a kind culture and I really shouldn't have to explain how we are different. Again, I (they) don't care that you don't get it, we don't care that you are afraid of guns.

Ah, American Exceptionalism, the refuge of idiots.


You're right. The roman empire became the greatest empire the world has ever known because they said Hey, lets copy what the Gauls are doing
 
2013-01-20 04:43:19 PM

Xcott: unamused: What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote?  We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.  Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.

For what reason?

You seem to be missing half of the concept here. We've already established that a right can be restricted in the name of public safety or to prevent crime---but you need a legitimate and pressing reason to do so.

Firearm sales and ownership is regulated for reasons of safety and crime prevention; you're proposing to do the same thing to voting for no reason except "waaah."

I should also add that voting is already regulated a great deal, despite being a right. You can't use a camera to film yourself voting, for example, and you can't try to persuade other people in the voting area to vote for your candidate. These rules are there to prevent fraud.


Because I don't like liberals getting to vote, so I want it to be difficult.  If just providing an ID is difficult, a NICS would be a serious biatch.  We need to make sure ballots aren't getting into the wrong hands.
;)
 
2013-01-20 04:43:32 PM
Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.
 
2013-01-20 04:44:07 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.

Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.

Tatterdemalian: More important really, those chunks of metal are the only physical barrier to unlawful search and seizure that exists.

Alonjar: The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

See

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.

I (they) don't give a flying fark what the rest of the world has done. The US is a one of a kind culture and I really shouldn't have to explain how we are different. Again, I (they) don't care that you don't get it, we don't care that you are afraid of guns.

Ah, American Exceptionalism, the refuge of idiots.


So when are you planning on leaving, cause you ain't going to win this one nutbar. Gun's are part of our culture and they are not going anywhere. Must be hard to sleep at nite.

By the way thanks for the reminder of why I don't call myself a liberal.
 
2013-01-20 04:45:22 PM

HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.


Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 04:46:33 PM

whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.


Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?
 
2013-01-20 04:47:34 PM

HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?


Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.
 
2013-01-20 04:48:54 PM

whidbey: CADMonkey79: We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?

It's cute you think that progressing as a society and standing up to an unhealthy obsession with firearms constitutes being "terrified by an inanimate object."

And yeah, you're the one shiatting your pants because Obama wants to ban certain assault rifles, close loopholes at shows and strengthen background checks. You act like being civilized violates your Constitutional protections. Seriously grow the fark up.

Never said I didn't support closing loopholes and strengthening background checks did I slick?
 
2013-01-20 04:51:00 PM
I think it's worth keeping Clinton's point in mind, because this year the inevitable debate on gun control took a weird radicalized turn.

Usually, there are three groups in the national conversation on gun control: gun control activists, gun rights activists, and crazy uncle derp. Crazy uncle derp is the guy who thinks he speaks for the other gun rights activists, but he says scary moronic things like "we need guns to shoot cops and american soldiers," or "a gun is a tool like a car, except you don't really own cars because of a secret title the DMV assigns to your NWO straw man name." Crazy uncle derp thinks it's useless to restrict guns because according to his Internet researches people can 3D print machine guns, or just kill 100 people with some ammonia and bleach, or build a bomb by plugging an overunity device into itself, powered by one of those engines that run on water. Oh, crazy uncle derp.

Well, this year, it seems that crazy uncle derp has so dominated the national conversation, that it even seems like the NRA has swung full derp to speak for the derp agenda. The gun control activists are calling for X Y Z changes in public policy, and the other side is making bogus analogies about spoons---even people at the top, whose job is to make the case to the public and media for the 2nd amendment, are speaking derp.

This year, the derp squad has become so loud and so entrenched that that the usual gun rights activists are barely heard---or rather, they end up arguing with crazy uncle derp too. The derp squad has gotten so out of hand that it's making everyone else look like the other side, because they're all saying "dude" to crazy uncle derp. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that the "tea party" has repeatedly lost elections for the Republicans, by being energized enough to control the party but crazy enough to scare away regular people. Now they're applying their magic to the firearm debate, with predictable results.

Clinton's point is that lots of gun owners are not crazy uncle derp, and if we see them that way then we will underestimate the impact of gun control on future elections. For every loser who insists Lanza could have killed 20 kids with a friggin' musket, there's dozens of people who aren't like that, but who own rifles and will be disappointed if congress makes their life more complicated.
 
2013-01-20 04:51:10 PM

CADMonkey79: whidbey: CADMonkey79: We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?

It's cute you think that progressing as a society and standing up to an unhealthy obsession with firearms constitutes being "terrified by an inanimate object."

And yeah, you're the one shiatting your pants because Obama wants to ban certain assault rifles, close loopholes at shows and strengthen background checks. You act like being civilized violates your Constitutional protections. Seriously grow the fark up.
Never said I didn't support closing loopholes and strengthening background checks did I slick?


Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.
 
2013-01-20 04:52:11 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: Maybe in there minds banning their guns would be as ridiculous as banning their tractor.

Well, their minds are wrong, because all over the world there is plenty of precedent for banning guns, unlike tractors.

Tatterdemalian: More important really, those chunks of metal are the only physical barrier to unlawful search and seizure that exists.

Alonjar: The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

See

contrapunctus: Many first world countries that severely restrict gun ownership have not devolved into petty dictatorships as a result.

The burden of proof lies on the gun culture at this point, not those of us who want America to join the rest of the civilized world.

So please explain. Why is Norway able to restrict gun ownership and we are not? Show your work.

I (they) don't give a flying fark what the rest of the world has done. The US is a one of a kind culture and I really shouldn't have to explain how we are different. Again, I (they) don't care that you don't get it, we don't care that you are afraid of guns.

Ah, American Exceptionalism, the refuge of idiots.


One more thing then I have got to go.

What is it like having such extreme views that nothing you believe in is ever put into law? Must be frustrating. Again you are no different than some crazy teabagger.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 04:52:57 PM

whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.


Where are you from whibdey?
 
2013-01-20 04:53:53 PM

whidbey: CADMonkey79: whidbey: CADMonkey79: We should ban guns cause you are terrified by a inanimate object, but I'm the pant-shiatter?

It's cute you think that progressing as a society and standing up to an unhealthy obsession with firearms constitutes being "terrified by an inanimate object."

And yeah, you're the one shiatting your pants because Obama wants to ban certain assault rifles, close loopholes at shows and strengthen background checks. You act like being civilized violates your Constitutional protections. Seriously grow the fark up.
Never said I didn't support closing loopholes and strengthening background checks did I slick?

Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.


Whatever dude, I have to go down to the car wash and wash the hippes I ran over last night out of the treads on my tank.
 
2013-01-20 04:54:19 PM

HBK: whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.

Where are you from whibdey?


I'm from the PAC NW. The other side of the country. And yes, I've fired a gun.

Your anecdote really doesn't mean anything. It is not evidence, it is not testimony.
 
2013-01-20 04:55:50 PM

CADMonkey79: Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?,


This has been pretty much your entire "argument" throughout this thread.

I own two guns.

I'm just not stupid enough to think I should be able to do so without accepting some reasonable responsibilities for them or that I should be able to own them if I've proven that I'm likely to use them to suppress others' rights.

But you keep building that strawman until it reaches the sun. If it weren't for shiat you gun nuts wouldn't have anything coming out of your mouths.
 
2013-01-20 04:58:13 PM

whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.


Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.
 
2013-01-20 04:58:29 PM

CADMonkey79: Kind of hard to tell when you post like you have the "right" to have any damn weapon you choose.

Whatever dude, I have to go down to the car wash and wash the hippes I ran over last night out of the treads on my tank.


I wouldn't be surprised. But you really are afraid of regulating firearms, and for no good reason.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 04:58:37 PM

whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: whidbey: HBK: Most of the gun control advocates I've met have never handled a firearm and seem to be honestly afraid of them. It's really funny. They also generally tend to be from cities in the northeast.

Because anecdotes are somehow important to this discussion.

Anecdotes are the basis for the recent push for gun control, aren't they? 21 children murdered and all?

Pretty sure you're confusing anecdotes with actual on the record evidence.

Where are you from whibdey?

I'm from the PAC NW. The other side of the country. And yes, I've fired a gun.

Your anecdote really doesn't mean anything. It is not evidence, it is not testimony.


I wasn't making an argument, merely an observation. I have a lot of friends and family from NY, NJ, and they hate guns but have never fired one. My Texas and Louisiana friends grew up around guns and think they're no big deal. It's a pretty funny comparison. The people who lash out the loudest against guns are the ones who have no experience with them, in my experience.
 
Displayed 50 of 1108 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report