If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture   (politico.com) divider line 1115
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16579 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-21 02:54:26 AM

Giltric: enochianwolf: He clearly violated pieces of the bill of rights,

They are still being violated fyi.....did you give the guy currently doing it a 2nd term?


yes, and I was happy to do so, you know why? because Romney
 
2013-01-21 02:57:10 AM

BigBooper: /so how long have you been a journalism student?


abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.


They're both semi-automatic riffles chambered in .223 Remington. Asides from the magazine capacity, whatever is on the receiving end isn't going to be able to tell the difference -- that was his point.
 
2013-01-21 02:57:25 AM

Crapinoleum: You know, I keep hearing this, but I have to say: [citation needed].


Anyone who knows thing one about guns and what the ban actually did would be too embarrassed to actually argue it did anything.

Problem 1: it defined an assault weapon as having three of the following characteristics: flash suppressor (ok, removed); bayonet lug (ok, removed); folding stock (ok, put the original M-16 stock on, you're fine); pistol grip (kept it); semi-automatic (kept it).  Two of three characteristics were maintained.  So we STILL had AR-15s, they just don't have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding stocks.

THIS was LEGAL:

3.bp.blogspot.com

No funky stock, no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor.  But what about that magazine?  That brings us to...

Problem 2: magazine capacity.  The AWB banned the manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Of course, in the months before the ban took effect, manufacturers and importers glutted the market with pallets and pallets of 30-round mags.  So if you wanted a snazzy 30-round magazine, you just had to buy one that had been made or imported before the ban took effect.  And if you are Bushmaster, would YOU manufacture magazines around-the-clock until the ban took effect?  I would.  And so did they.  So the above gun was, in fact, legal, but only if you bought the magazine separately.  I witnessed a Republican friend purchase that rifle (came with a 10-round mag) and three spare 30-round mags.

The AWB is one of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever produced by Congress, and everyone who wants to do something about gun violence should be deeply, deeply wounded that the Democratic Party had anything to do with its passage.
 
HBK
2013-01-21 03:03:06 AM

vygramul: Crapinoleum: You know, I keep hearing this, but I have to say: [citation needed].

Anyone who knows thing one about guns and what the ban actually did would be too embarrassed to actually argue it did anything.

Problem 1: it defined an assault weapon as having three of the following characteristics: flash suppressor (ok, removed); bayonet lug (ok, removed); folding stock (ok, put the original M-16 stock on, you're fine); pistol grip (kept it); semi-automatic (kept it).  Two of three characteristics were maintained.  So we STILL had AR-15s, they just don't have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding stocks.

THIS was LEGAL:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x118]

No funky stock, no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor.  But what about that magazine?  That brings us to...

Problem 2: magazine capacity.  The AWB banned the manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Of course, in the months before the ban took effect, manufacturers and importers glutted the market with pallets and pallets of 30-round mags.  So if you wanted a snazzy 30-round magazine, you just had to buy one that had been made or imported before the ban took effect.  And if you are Bushmaster, would YOU manufacture magazines around-the-clock until the ban took effect?  I would.  And so did they.  So the above gun was, in fact, legal, but only if you bought the magazine separately.  I witnessed a Republican friend purchase that rifle (came with a 10-round mag) and three spare 30-round mags.

The AWB is one of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever produced by Congress, and everyone who wants to do something about gun violence should be deeply, deeply wounded that the Democratic Party had anything to do with its passage.


But SCHOOLS!! CHILDREN!! EMOTIONAL STORIES!! Why are you so heartless?!?!
 
2013-01-21 03:20:31 AM

HBK: But SCHOOLS!! CHILDREN!! EMOTIONAL STORIES!! Why are you so heartless?!?!


Rumor has it Feinstein wants to reintroduce the ban, only banning pistol grips entirely, and not grandfathering existing weapons and magazines.  That's aggressive and would never pass, and even if it did, would be on the fast track to the Supreme Court for quick swat-down by the current 5 justices.
 
2013-01-21 06:31:07 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Wulfman: Wasn't the whole rationale behind the ban that your Big Gulps and Snickers bars affect the rest of us because healthcare? It was? OK. Just checking.

Money for healthcare =/= bullets killing people. The obese only physically hurt themselves. Bullets physically hurt anyone they go inside.

way south: Some guns are not designed to be weapons

There are guns that weren't designed to injure/kill things?


Absolutely.
...But I don't think this distinction is as important as others seem to think it is.

Back to the target pistol example. The heavy barrel is meant to reduce recoil and provide for a longer life against the stress of repeated firing, the choice of ammunition is for one of the most common and inexpensive rounds, the large frame provides for a secure grip.
No part of the ruger mkII was made with killing as its sole focus, Because killing is technically the job of the bullet. You can find specially made wadcutters that have shiatty ballistics for killing but create nice round holes in paper.
If you tried to use wadcutters on anything bigger than a mouse, you'll only succeed in pissing it off. Killing just wasn't part of that rounds design.

So yes, there are guns that would be pretty atrocious weapons. No military or police force would give you these firearms to defend anything.
This doesn't mean such a weapon couldn't be used for murder or hunting. It's just not designed for it.
Likewise there's guns designed for fighting which are only used to punch holes in paper. The majority of guns, in fact. Three hundred million guns vs thirty thousand killings means you are more likely to be murdered by your own car, bathtub, or pharmacist than any particular gun.

Which brings us back to the problem of regulating guns based on their design, because no ones really talking about the designers behind these guns. No one is talking about the men who did the math and milled the steel. No one is talking about the sales pitch that sold the gun.
The real goal is to regulate based on the emotional reaction to the weapon.
Black plastic ar-15 (which has killed a few thousand in its history) needs more regulation than wooden stocked mosin nagant (which has killed millions).
While we should recognize that all guns are dangerous, disingenuous people want to associate that danger with murder and mayhem because it gets an emotional reaction.

Legislation based on emotion is an extremely bad idea.

/when Eugene Stoner was making the m-16, he wasn't thinking about mad gun men. He was thinking about how best to keep communists off your lawn.
/when colt sold that gun as the semiautomatic ar-15 to cops and civilians, it was thinking about people who wanted to defend themselves.
/when bushmaster created the argent A3 that I bought, it was thinking about winning trophies.
/the man who forged Lizzie Borden's axe was thinking about how to chop down trees and I fail to see how any of this is relevant when it comes to stopping people from doing bad things.
/It sounds more like we are ignoring history and engineering to find a more perfect scapegoat.
 
2013-01-21 07:45:32 AM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Sorry, but the fact that our precious lawmakers are targeting a group of weapons that will have no appreciable effect on the overall firearms murder rate makes me doubt the legitimacy of their purported motives.

Why? That's how most legislation ends up. It gets watered down. The changes made in the AWB were easily bypassed by gun manufacturers. Politicians got to say they were doing something. The NRA got something to scream about to raise funds. TA DA!


The banned features in the AWB weren't manufactured during the AWB because the manufacturers were complying with the law. It's very dishonest to paint manufacturing and selling a completely legal item as 'bypassing' the law.
 
2013-01-21 07:48:57 AM
An AWB has nothing to do with reducing gun violence as semi-auto rifles are used in a statistically low number of crimes.

DC and their masters are going after the firearms that are most threatening to them.

If DC wanted to reduce gun violence they would go after hand guns.

That's next.
 
2013-01-21 08:02:13 AM

Uncle Tractor: It might be worth pointing out that guns made for hunting (for putting food in your fridge) are not the same as those made for killing people.


cdn.hark.com
You know how I know you don't know shiat about guns?
 
2013-01-21 08:19:09 AM
Step 1) Remove Habeas corpus.
Step 2) Remove Fourth amendment rights.
Step 3) Arrest anyone exercising their first amendment rights in protest over steps 1 &2.
Step 4) Remove second amendment rights.
Step 5) See step 3.
 
2013-01-21 08:23:13 AM

Pincy: I don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I am just having a hard time believing anything you say since I feel like you can't even be honest about what your gun is for


You hit the nail on the head.  The debate is rampant with false equivalencies and flawed logic.  I enjoy target shooting and hunting, and have a lot of gun enthusiasts as friends.  It drives me absolutely batshiat when people say that guns aren't designed to kill - and unless the person has no experience with firewarms, it's bald-faced lie.  They'll trot out the target pistol example (as if those are the bestselling weapons).  I always ask them if they'd hand any firearm to an inexperienced child without telling them that the weapon's default mode is "kill".
 
2013-01-21 08:43:10 AM

L82DPRT: An AWB has nothing to do with reducing gun violence as semi-auto rifles are used in a statistically low number of crimes.

DC and their masters are going after the firearms that are most threatening to them.

If DC wanted to reduce gun violence they would go after hand guns.

That's next.


The problem being that most gun sales are self defense sales (60%, if I recall the stat), and handguns make up a massive number of those. Handgun fans also include current and returned cops as well as many in the security industry and politicians themselves.
Going for handguns is beartrap that politicians have run into before, because its a group a lot better represented than hunters or plinkers.

The AWB wasn't about going for the guns that do the most harm, it was about splitting the gun owning base by going for the least popular class of guns first.

Why AWB 2.0 is failing is because, due to modern machining, guns like the AR 15 became more affordable and far more popular. Many of the same self defense crowd started to invest in long guns, buying them by the millions.

The gun grabbers are unwittingly shoving both paws into the same beartrap they wanted to dance around.
Republicans, desperate to be on the winning side of any issue, are unlikely to let this opportunity pass.
 
2013-01-21 08:59:21 AM

Babwa Wawa: Pincy: I don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I am just having a hard time believing anything you say since I feel like you can't even be honest about what your gun is for

You hit the nail on the head.  The debate is rampant with false equivalencies and flawed logic.  I enjoy target shooting and hunting, and have a lot of gun enthusiasts as friends.  It drives me absolutely batshiat when people say that guns aren't designed to kill - and unless the person has no experience with firewarms, it's bald-faced lie.  They'll trot out the target pistol example (as if those are the bestselling weapons).  I always ask them if they'd hand any firearm to an inexperienced child without telling them that the weapon's default mode is "kill".


I wouldn't hand an inexperienced kid most power tools either. They aren't designed to kill, but plenty of people die from using them.
 
2013-01-21 09:18:01 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: They aren't designed to kill, but plenty of people die from using them.


Car keys. etc.
 
2013-01-21 09:39:24 AM

TheJoe03: I really think the NRA has done a disservice to those that support the 2nd Amendment, and they are more about backing the GOP than they are about promoting the rights of gun owners. This was made clear to me when they backed Romney.


TheJoe03: Civil libertarians have been against the Patriot Act all along. Not everyone that supports the 2nd Amendment is a Fox News drone.



Bears repeating.

US politics is such a team sport, and it's played in such a binary fashion by most people. I'll admit it, I catch myself doing it... and it's not helpful, so we need to be more wary of it.

And that is Bill Clinton's point. People have a caricature of their political opponents, and it is made worse when we talk past each other. That's just not helpful.
 
kab
2013-01-21 09:54:32 AM
I want SUV's banned. So can someone drive one into a sidewalk cafe full of people please? We need to get the discussion started.
 
2013-01-21 10:24:52 AM

abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?


Well the are not the same functionally for starters.
 
2013-01-21 10:32:12 AM

vudukungfu: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They aren't designed to kill, but plenty of people die from using them.

Car keys. etc.


Aaaaand we're back to hammers and bath tubs. Excellent!
 
2013-01-21 10:38:58 AM

mrshowrules: abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

Well the are not the same functionally for starters.


Yes they are. Both are semi-automatic rifles that can take removable magazines. In every important way, they are functionally identical. They are the same caliber and can shoot the same number of bullets in the same amount of time.

The differences between them are purely cosmetic. Dressing up a Volkswagen Bug chassis and engine to look like a Ferrari doesn't won't make it go 160 MPH, and that's the same point here: One looks like a machine gun, and one looks like an old-fashioned hunting rifle, but the "evil assault weapon" is merely a Beetle with bodywork to make it look like a Formula 1 car. No faster or more capable than common semi-automatic hunting rifles period.

Continuing to argue this point after it has been shown to be false puts you about on the intellectual level of the 8 year old kid who wrote to Obama saying people shouldn't own machine guns.
 
2013-01-21 10:53:50 AM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

Well the are not the same functionally for starters.

Yes they are. Both are semi-automatic rifles that can take removable magazines. In every important way, they are functionally identical. They are the same caliber and can shoot the same number of bullets in the same amount of time.

The differences between them are purely cosmetic. Dressing up a Volkswagen Bug chassis and engine to look like a Ferrari doesn't won't make it go 160 MPH, and that's the same point here: One looks like a machine gun, and one looks like an old-fashioned hunting rifle, but the "evil assault weapon" is merely a Beetle with bodywork to make it look like a Formula 1 car. No faster or more capable than common semi-automatic hunting rifles period.

Continuing to argue this point after it has been shown to be false puts you about on the intellectual level of the 8 year old kid who wrote to Obama saying people shouldn't own machine guns.


The top one has a telescope.  That represents a important functional difference.  I think both of you are choosing your words poorly.  Maybe me you mean "effectively".  Or referring to the core functionality perhaps.
 
2013-01-21 10:57:06 AM

Evil High Priest: vudukungfu: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They aren't designed to kill, but plenty of people die from using them.

Car keys. etc.

Aaaaand we're back to hammers and bath tubs. Excellent!


We would be better off if they put limits on stupid analogies.
 
2013-01-21 10:58:13 AM

heili skrimsli: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Sorry, but the fact that our precious lawmakers are targeting a group of weapons that will have no appreciable effect on the overall firearms murder rate makes me doubt the legitimacy of their purported motives.

Why? That's how most legislation ends up. It gets watered down. The changes made in the AWB were easily bypassed by gun manufacturers. Politicians got to say they were doing something. The NRA got something to scream about to raise funds. TA DA!

The banned features in the AWB weren't manufactured during the AWB because the manufacturers were complying with the law. It's very dishonest to paint manufacturing and selling a completely legal item as 'bypassing' the law.


Being pedantic doesn't change the point.
 
2013-01-21 11:30:23 AM

Evil High Priest: vudukungfu: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They aren't designed to kill, but plenty of people die from using them.

Car keys. etc.

Aaaaand we're back to hammers and bath tubs. Excellent!


The subject was power tools. Someone said that nobody would hand a child a gun without a warning, and the same is true of power tools. It's not the "hammers and bathtubs" argument at all. Although, if you have evidence that a child is more likely to die in a shooting rampage than drowning in a bathtub, please show a source. The CDC shows 10 children die per day in the U.S.. How many die in mass shootings per day?

No really, I'd like an answer.

/knows you won't give any sort of direct answer, you'll look too ridiculous if you did.
 
2013-01-21 11:41:20 AM

Fart_Machine: heili skrimsli: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Sorry, but the fact that our precious lawmakers are targeting a group of weapons that will have no appreciable effect on the overall firearms murder rate makes me doubt the legitimacy of their purported motives.

Why? That's how most legislation ends up. It gets watered down. The changes made in the AWB were easily bypassed by gun manufacturers. Politicians got to say they were doing something. The NRA got something to scream about to raise funds. TA DA!

The banned features in the AWB weren't manufactured during the AWB because the manufacturers were complying with the law. It's very dishonest to paint manufacturing and selling a completely legal item as 'bypassing' the law.

Being pedantic doesn't change the point.


The point is that the manufacturers complied with the law, and stopped producing the cosmetic features that the gun banners found super duper scary, so the gun banners had to apply spin, twist words and attempt to paint complying with the law as skirting it.

If you make it illegal to paint cars red and have alloy wheels, and Ford, GM, Honda and all the other auto makers out there say 'Fine, we will now only offer cars in black, yellow, white, and green and will supply only steel wheels.' that is not an example of 'bypassing' the law because they continued to make completely legal cars.

Insisting that you stop being dishonest about this is not pedantic at all. You're just pissy because you've been called out for it.
 
2013-01-21 11:50:18 AM

Amos Quito: .......And the boobs as well.


Now wait a goddamned minute!
 
2013-01-21 12:22:11 PM

heili skrimsli: The point is that the manufacturers complied with the law, and stopped producing the cosmetic features that the gun banners found super duper scary, so the gun banners had to apply spin, twist words and attempt to paint complying with the law as skirting it.

If you make it illegal to paint cars red and have alloy wheels, and Ford, GM, Honda and all the other auto makers out there say 'Fine, we will now only offer cars in black, yellow, white, and green and will supply only steel wheels.' that is not an example of 'bypassing' the law because they continued to make completely legal cars.

Insisting that you stop being dishonest about this is not pedantic at all. You're just pissy because you've been called out for it.


You called me out on what exactly? Gun manufacturers altered their weapons and still sold them. TA DA! I'm sorry if that feeds into your paranoia as a "ban". Clear some of that sand out of your vagina.
 
2013-01-21 12:37:48 PM

Fark It: Lsherm: gun show loophole

The term "gun show loophole" demonstrates a lack of understanding of gun laws and is an emotionally loaded propaganda term, made to make private sales seem criminal and secretive, when in fact non-FFLs are legally not permitted to access the NICS. There is no loophole, the law was never intended for private sales.

/supports expanding the NICS


The bold here is the loophole, actually (though it looks like you're in favor of closing it even if you don't consider it a loophole, so flame not intended).
 
2013-01-21 12:50:57 PM

Fart_Machine: heili skrimsli: The point is that the manufacturers complied with the law, and stopped producing the cosmetic features that the gun banners found super duper scary, so the gun banners had to apply spin, twist words and attempt to paint complying with the law as skirting it.

If you make it illegal to paint cars red and have alloy wheels, and Ford, GM, Honda and all the other auto makers out there say 'Fine, we will now only offer cars in black, yellow, white, and green and will supply only steel wheels.' that is not an example of 'bypassing' the law because they continued to make completely legal cars.

Insisting that you stop being dishonest about this is not pedantic at all. You're just pissy because you've been called out for it.

You called me out on what exactly? Gun manufacturers altered their weapons and still sold them. TA DA! I'm sorry if that feeds into your paranoia as a "ban". Clear some of that sand out of your vagina.


You're lying out your ass by claiming that they 'bypassed' the law by producing semi-automatic rifles that did not have any of the banned cosmetic features.

Unless of course you're trying to claim that the only way they could comply with the law is to stop producing semi-automatic rifles entirely, which seems to be what your kind actually means by the oft repeated disingenuous claim that the manufacturers 'got around' or 'bypassed' the ban by .. not manufacturing banned items.

Is that it? Your panties are in a wad because Colt and Bushmaster chose to comply with the law as written and continue production instead of cease to exist?
 
2013-01-21 12:55:16 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: /knows you won't give any sort of direct answer, you'll look too ridiculous if you did.


Actually dude, I shredded you above in this thread.

Every argument you have been making is bullshiat, and I've yet to hear you acknowledge that fact.

You have no place telling others here that they look "ridiculous. "
 
2013-01-21 01:10:42 PM

heili skrimsli: You're lying out your ass by claiming that they 'bypassed' the law by producing semi-automatic rifles that did not have any of the banned cosmetic features.


Again you're getting pedantic with terminology. Did they continue to still produce guns without those features or not?

Unless of course you're trying to claim that the only way they could comply with the law is to stop producing semi-automatic rifles entirely, which seems to be what your kind actually means by the oft repeated disingenuous claim that the manufacturers 'got around' or 'bypassed' the ban by .. not manufacturing banned items.

Is that it? Your panties are in a wad because Colt and Bushmaster chose to comply with the law as written and continue production instead of cease to exist?


That's a wonderful strawman you've got there. My point was the AWB was cosmetic and pointless. You're the one with panty-problems over a simple word which doesn't detract from anything I've said. Go change your tampon.
 
2013-01-21 01:58:59 PM

Fart_Machine: That's a wonderful strawman you've got there. My point was the AWB was cosmetic and pointless. You're the one with panty-problems over a simple word which doesn't detract from anything I've said. Go change your tampon.


Seems I was right. You really are butthurt because firearms manufacturers were still able to make and sell a legal product and weren't put out of business by removing all those scary cosmetic features from their rifles.

If anybody's tampon needs to be changed, it's yours.
 
2013-01-21 02:09:22 PM

OscarTamerz: Please Chimpbama, repass the "assault" weapons because it did absolutely nothing the first time around, would have done nothing at Springhook and won't do anything this time but give us the senate back. Or in Brer Rabbit tar baby terms you may be familiar with, "Please don't throw us in that briar patch!"


Chimpbama? Springhook? "tar baby terms you may be familiar with?" "give us the senate back"?

I have to say that this is about the most insulting post purportedly from a Republican I've seen in some time.
 
2013-01-21 02:17:03 PM

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: /knows you won't give any sort of direct answer, you'll look too ridiculous if you did.

Actually dude, I shredded you above in this thread.

Every argument you have been making is bullshiat, and I've yet to hear you acknowledge that fact.

You have no place telling others here that they look "ridiculous. "


That's kind of hilarious. You didn't shred me, you're comments were laughable, so much so that it wasn't even worth it to address your bullshiat, because even you have to realize how far out there your reply was. Oh, and notice you're not giving a direct answer? Nope, as predicted you resort to schoolyard name calling and declarations of "victory" while avoiding the substance of the conversation. You're quite honestly, pathetic.
 
2013-01-21 02:28:52 PM

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


I don't think he has a problem with the nickel finish, that's why he calls out the 'blue' barrel.
 
2013-01-21 03:16:27 PM
If guns kill people, do pencils make spelling errors?
 
2013-01-21 03:58:30 PM

petec: If guns kill people, do pencils make spelling errors?


Well, I am occasionally told by humanities majors that "most math is done by computers and calculators."

I don't have the heart to tell them that most writing is "done" by printers, and most music is played by speakers.
 
2013-01-21 04:00:01 PM

petec: If guns kill people, do pencils make spelling errors?


Errors committed with a pencil can be corrected.

/keep up the good work
 
2013-01-21 04:11:06 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: /knows you won't give any sort of direct answer, you'll look too ridiculous if you did.

Actually dude, I shredded you above in this thread.

Every argument you have been making is bullshiat, and I've yet to hear you acknowledge that fact.

You have no place telling others here that they look "ridiculous. "

That's kind of hilarious. You didn't shred me, you're comments were laughable, so much so that it wasn't even worth it to address your bullshiat, because even you have to realize how far out there your reply was. Oh, and notice you're not giving a direct answer? Nope, as predicted you resort to schoolyard name calling and declarations of "victory" while avoiding the substance of the conversation. You're quite honestly, pathetic.

then you're just a liar. I answered all of your arguments, and showed why they were fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion.

1. The Constitution can be regulated, and it has been. This includes the 2nd Amendment. I asked you to bring up a court case that backs up your contention that the 2nd Amendment is not.

If you can't back up your point, the honorable thing to do is drop it.

2. Guns are not cars, knives, electrical outlets, etc.

This is also a disingenuous argument. And yet, rather than admit to it, you keep using it, primarily to troll others.
3. You keep using strawman arguments like "my side" says "guns have no "valid use."

This is a bullshiat statement, as it has been pointed out to you that many on "my side" are gun owners.

Your arguments are basically trolls. Easily trounced, based on fallacies and other disingenuous means of discussion.

What's more, if you choose to keep responding with the same bullshiat, I have no problem putting you ignore.
Again.
 
2013-01-21 05:01:42 PM

whidbey: 1. The Constitution can be regulated, and it has been. This includes the 2nd Amendment. I asked you to bring up a court case that backs up your contention that the 2nd Amendment is not.


Fail, every instance of an amendment being "restricted" by the courts aside from the assault weapon ban had to do with the fact that you were interfering with someone's safety or freedom. Infringement on the second amendment cannot be argued to fall into this category. Simply by owning shapes of metal doesn't interfere with your life.

whidbey: 2. Guns are not cars, knives, electrical outlets, etc.


So? You can't throw out a comparison simply because it is not THE EXACT SAME THING. What is the point of a comparison if you require the subjects in question to be exactly the same? That statement is beyond asinine.

whidbey: 3. You keep using strawman arguments like "my side" says "guns have no "valid use."


A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Learn what a straw man is. It's perfectly valid for me to say that your side generally has a position, as I didn't attribute that position to you specifically. It's called a conversation. Quit whining.

whidbey: Your arguments are basically trolls. Easily trounced, based on fallacies and other disingenuous means of discussion.

What's more, if you choose to keep responding with the same bullshiat, I have no problem putting you ignore.
Again.


Nice ad hominem, while labeling my positions as fallacies! By all means, put me on ignore I don't care since you add nothing interesting or honest to the conversation, but there's no need to tell me about it like a spiteful 13 year old girl.
 
2013-01-21 05:35:25 PM

SpectroBoy: You know how I know you don't know shiat about guns?


Cuz you go hunting with uzis?
 
2013-01-21 05:43:57 PM

heili skrimsli: Fart_Machine: That's a wonderful strawman you've got there. My point was the AWB was cosmetic and pointless. You're the one with panty-problems over a simple word which doesn't detract from anything I've said. Go change your tampon.

Seems I was right. You really are butthurt because firearms manufacturers were still able to make and sell a legal product and weren't put out of business by removing all those scary cosmetic features from their rifles.

If anybody's tampon needs to be changed, it's yours.


Then you really can't comprehend what you read then or you're a habitual liar. Since the "scary changes" didn't ban the guns themselves or reduce their utility why are you pissing your pants on having it renewed?
 
2013-01-21 06:00:49 PM

Fart_Machine: Since the "scary changes" didn't ban the guns themselves or reduce their utility why are you pissing your pants on having it renewed?


Because some people would like to have those features available. And if it's not been shown that banning them reduced crime, why renew it?
 
2013-01-21 06:35:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: Since the "scary changes" didn't ban the guns themselves or reduce their utility why are you pissing your pants on having it renewed?

Because some people would like to have those features available.


True.

extras.mnginteractive.comtimenewsfeed.files.wordpress.comstatic.guim.co.ukwww.gannett-cdn.com
 
2013-01-21 06:44:25 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7545482/82035248#c82035248" target="_blank">Nina_Hartley's_Ass</a>:</b> <i>BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: Since the "scary changes" didn't ban the guns themselves or reduce their utility why are you pissing your pants on having it renewed?

Because some people would like to have those features available.

True.

[extras.mnginteractive.com image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]</i>

Wow, what a great response, a picture of killers. Do you think this is remotely clever? Did their guns have folding stocks, thumb holes, bayonet lugs etc? I don't know why you're in these threads so often. You clearly know absolutely nothing about guns, those killers, or how to debate properly.
 
2013-01-21 07:07:39 PM
BRAVENEWCHENEYWORLD: You clearly know absolutely nothing about guns, those killers, or how to debate properly.

"If the name of that gun sounds familiar it is because it was the same make and caliber weapon that authorities say Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14. Before that tragedy, the semi-automatic weapon also made headlines as one of the weapons allegedly brandished by James Holmes, who opened fire at a movie theater in Colorado this summer, and Jacob Tyler Roberts, who reportedly did the same at an Oregon shopping mall earlier this month. It was also the weapon of choice for John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo during the so-called Beltway Sniper Shootings of 2002."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/26/bushmaster_223_will i am_spengler_jr_reportedly_used_same_type_of_gun_as_adam.html

/apparently Fark's html done blowed up
 
2013-01-21 07:36:26 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BRAVENEWCHENEYWORLD: You clearly know absolutely nothing about guns, those killers, or how to debate properly.

"If the name of that gun sounds familiar it is because it was the same make and caliber weapon that authorities say Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14. Before that tragedy, the semi-automatic weapon also made headlines as one of the weapons allegedly brandished by James Holmes, who opened fire at a movie theater in Colorado this summer, and Jacob Tyler Roberts, who reportedly did the same at an Oregon shopping mall earlier this month. It was also the weapon of choice for John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo during the so-called Beltway Sniper Shootings of 2002."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/26/bushmaster_223_will i am_spengler_jr_reportedly_used_same_type_of_gun_as_adam.html

/apparently Fark's html done blowed up


Did you have a point? Did those guns have "assault weapon" classifications? Not every semi auto .223 is categorized as an assault weapon. Even if they were, can you demonstrate that a bayonet lug, or other features like a thumbhole stock would have made the shootings ANY different?
 
2013-01-21 07:36:26 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: 1. The Constitution can be regulated, and it has been. This includes the 2nd Amendment. I asked you to bring up a court case that backs up your contention that the 2nd Amendment is not.

Fail, every instance of an amendment being "restricted" by the courts aside from the assault weapon ban had to do with the fact that you were interfering with someone's safety or freedom. Infringement on the second amendment cannot be argued to fall into this category. Simply by owning shapes of metal doesn't interfere with your life.


Bullshiat. The honorable thing to do is admit you don't have anything to back your point up. Your opinion is not a fact.

whidbey: 3. You keep using strawman arguments like "my side" says "guns have no "valid use."

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position


You made a point that was easily knocked down. Like a straw man. THAT is the etymology of the term. Again, the honorable thing to do is admit your point is full of shiat and easily debunked.

Nice ad hominem, while labeling my positions as fallacies! By all means, put me on ignore I don't care since you add nothing interesting or honest to the conversation, but there's no need to tell me about it like a spiteful 13 year old girl.

Actually, no. And this is the third time I've pointed out your falllacies.

*plonk*
 
2013-01-21 07:45:42 PM

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: 1. The Constitution can be regulated, and it has been. This includes the 2nd Amendment. I asked you to bring up a court case that backs up your contention that the 2nd Amendment is not.

Fail, every instance of an amendment being "restricted" by the courts aside from the assault weapon ban had to do with the fact that you were interfering with someone's safety or freedom. Infringement on the second amendment cannot be argued to fall into this category. Simply by owning shapes of metal doesn't interfere with your life.

Bullshiat. The honorable thing to do is admit you don't have anything to back your point up. Your opinion is not a fact.


lmao, I have to prove that every restriction pertaining to our bill of rights is due to the fact that someone else's rights are being infringed if certain of our rights were unlimited? How about if you find one restriction that's not based in that idea.

whidbey: You made a point that was easily knocked down. Like a straw man. THAT is the etymology of the term. Again, the honorable thing to do is admit your point is full of shiat and easily debunked.


Oh, so that's your excuse for not using the logical fallacy properly. And you think this makes you look less stupid?

whidbey: Actually, no. And this is the third time I've pointed out your falllacies.


Feel free to declare victory in your head. You didn't point out any fallacy, you just whine a lot.
 
2013-01-21 08:04:47 PM

Lsherm: Jesus, you need to go back and take a statistics class.  You are compounding the risk of being burglarized for every year you are alive.  The risk of being burglarized doesn't change the longer you are alive.  Someone who lives their entire life in an area with a 2% annual burglary rate has a 2% chance of being burglarized every year.

Or just use what my thermodynamics prof used to call the "idiot test":  your 223% result means every single person in the US who lives to be 78 will be burglarized at least twice.   Does that sound right to you?


Yes. I dont understand how you can all be so bad at math, while claiming you arent. If I flip a coin one time, there is a 50% chance it will land on heads. If I flip a coin 100 times, is it a 50% chance it will land on heads at least once? fark no. The individual odds dont change for each occurance (which is what your teachers were talking about)... but when you add more occurances, you absolutely have a greater chance of having a positive result at least one time.

Someone who drives 10,000 miles for one year, and then never drives ever again, has a much lower chance of "being in an accident at some point in their life" than a guy who drives 10,000 miles every year for his whole life.

You are so farking stupid that it hurts, and you completely misunderstood your teachers lessons about probability.

/I'm responsible for finding and eliminating manufacturing errors on assembly lines, I literally deal with probability statistics all day... its my job.
 
2013-01-21 08:08:08 PM
bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 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