Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

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

16627 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-01-20 12:17:14 AM  
At this point, I think the gun show loophole has a real shot at getting closed.  As long as the Democrats don't stack a bill with a bunch of other unpopular proposals, it should be relatively easy to make the Republicans look ridiculous if they don't pass it.
 
2013-01-20 12:18:57 AM  
Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.
 
2013-01-20 12:24:55 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.


And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:34 AM  
Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole
 
2013-01-20 01:06:44 AM  

www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-01-20 01:13:54 AM  
Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...
 
2013-01-20 01:27:14 AM  
Another reason why I still like Bill Clinton.
 
2013-01-20 01:29:36 AM  
Can we ban gun threads?
 
2013-01-20 01:30:00 AM  

vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else


Same with airplanes, I guess.
 
2013-01-20 01:37:51 AM  

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
 
2013-01-20 01:37:52 AM  

vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd



"God & Guns"

Last night I heard this politician
Talking 'bout his brand new mission
Liked his plans, but they came undone when he got around with God and guns

I don't know how he grew up
But it sure wasn't down at the hunting club
Cause if it was he'd understand a little bit more about the working man

God and guns
Keep us strong
That's what this country
Was founded on
Well we might aswell give up and run
If we let them take our God and guns

I'm here in my back of the woods
Where God is great and guns are good
You really can't know that much about 'm
If you think we're better off without 'm

Well there was a time we ain't forgot
You caressed all night with the doors unlocked
But there ain't nobody save no more
So you say your prayers and you thank the lord

For that peace maker
And the joy

God and guns (God and guns)
Keep us strong
That's what this country, lord
Was founded on
Well we might aswell give up and run,
If we let 'm take our God and guns.
Yea we might aswell give up and run,
If we let 'm take our God and guns!

Yeaaa
Ooh
God and guns

Don't let 'm take
Don't you let 'm take
Don't let 'm take
Our God and guns

Oh God and guns
Ye keep us strong
That's what this country, lord
Was founded on
Well we might aswell give up and run,
If we let 'm take our God and guns!

Wohoho
God and guns
Wohohoo
Ooh
 
2013-01-20 01:39:15 AM  
Saturday Night Special is not an anti gun song. It's an anti cheap ass-nickle plated knock off guns song.
 
2013-01-20 01:41:40 AM  

violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.


No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.
 
2013-01-20 01:42:28 AM  

vernonFL: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


FOUL! Jumping to conclusions. 5 yard penalty, lose the down.
 
2013-01-20 01:45:56 AM  

GAT_00: Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.


Well.  I thought Monica was kinda hot.
 
2013-01-20 01:48:04 AM  

doglover: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person living being in order to incapacitate or kill them.


Does that work for you?
 
2013-01-20 01:48:57 AM  

vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


No, guns are made for moving a small projectile from the barrel to ______________.
 
2013-01-20 01:58:31 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.

FOUL! Jumping to conclusions. 5 yard penalty, lose the down.


Okay, you're right. . Obama is not going to take away your Benelli. Every time I've been to a gun range, most of the people there are either current or former law enforcement or military.

48 year old Marines who like to shoot on the weekends are not having their guns taken away.

LOL Sorry I m drunk,
 
2013-01-20 01:59:18 AM  
ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.
 
2013-01-20 02:00:38 AM  
Guns are designed to launch a projectile in a straight line, that when paired with the pull of gravity, forms a parabolic arc-shaped path. It has no conscience or discretion, it is a tool. When the individual refuses to apply discretion, the state will do it for him.

You were warned, Teatards.
 
2013-01-20 02:02:10 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-20 02:05:25 AM  

Babwa Wawa: doglover: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person living being in order to incapacitate or kill them.

Does that work for you?


No.

I've never shot a living creature. They're not just for killing.

Target shooting is a thing in and of itself, and more than enough fun to justify legal firearms. Also, do you think Marine Sniper Scouts just magically train up in six weeks of basic? You want good soldiers, you kids growing up shooting. On top of that hunting is a good way to manage game levels now that apex predators are mostly dead in the wild. Self defense is an added bonus, but unless you're a cop or a gangster, the chances of it actually happening for you are nil. But the one time you need a gun, if it ever happens, you'll be glad you had it or sorry you didn't.
 
2013-01-20 02:06:47 AM  

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?



They're like ass-pennies.....but you know.....they're worth more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO1Q7F23DxM
 
2013-01-20 02:07:01 AM  

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?


I'm preemptively cock-blocking people who read a certain web comic from re-hyphenating.
 
2013-01-20 02:25:02 AM  

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


He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.
 
2013-01-20 02:28:04 AM  

hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...


I've been assured over and over again that the NRA does not speak for Real Gun Owners. If that is true, then they will do no such thing. If they flee to the NRA, they're only proving that they've been lying this whole time.

If they really cared about solutions, they'd form a new voice to shout down the NRA. I see no such thing happening. And so, the NRA is already speaking for them. They are the pro-gun voice. If they don't like that, that's their problem, not mine. If they didn't want the NRA speaking for them they'd do something.
 
2013-01-20 02:29:14 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.


This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.
 
2013-01-20 02:31:59 AM  
I think it's wrong to trivialize mental illness.
 
2013-01-20 02:37:11 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.


You are an example of President Clinton's point.
 
2013-01-20 02:48:04 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

You are an example of President Clinton's point.


I know it. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. He's the best president we've had since Roosevelt. (Hint: Not Franklin.) What we really need is a modern Andrew Jackson. A man who's not afraid to cane his political opponents or share giant cheeses with the masses.
 
2013-01-20 02:55:38 AM  

GAT_00: hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...

I've been assured over and over again that the NRA does not speak for Real Gun Owners. If that is true, then they will do no such thing. If they flee to the NRA, they're only proving that they've been lying this whole time.

If they really cared about solutions, they'd form a new voice to shout down the NRA. I see no such thing happening. And so, the NRA is already speaking for them. They are the pro-gun voice. If they don't like that, that's their problem, not mine. If they didn't want the NRA speaking for them they'd do something.


Like not joining the NRA?  I'm a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. So even though I have never supported them I do by not be a vocal dissenter to their advocacy? Or is everyone guilty of whatever agenda a certain advocacy group is pushing if they fit in that category? Does the AARP speak for my Mom automatically even though she hasn't joined the group but she is old?  Does the NAACP speak for my roommate even though he isn't a member but he is black? And if they disagree with them on anything it doesn't matter unless they form a new voice to shout them down? How about Catholics? Or Muslims? Or Environmentalists?
 
2013-01-20 03:38:11 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I think it's wrong to trivialize mental illness.


Good.  Now how does that apply to the issue at hand?
 
2013-01-20 03:51:54 AM  
Democrats probably have support for closing the gun show loophole and MAYBE a new AWB. Anything else would put some Democratic seats back into GOP hands, sadly.
 
2013-01-20 04:16:45 AM  
Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture

Yeah, that's Ted's job!
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-20 05:46:38 AM  
No, it's too deadly to trivialize.
 
2013-01-20 05:47:06 AM  

hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...


But when did anyone ever listen to common sense and rational thinking? Especially around here?
 
2013-01-20 05:53:19 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Guns are designed to launch a projectile in a straight line, that when paired with the pull of gravity, forms a parabolic arc-shaped path. It has no conscience or discretion, it is a tool. When the individual refuses to apply discretion, the state will do it for him.

You were warned, Teatards.


Why won't the government give me my constitutional right to own a trebuchet in my backyard?
 
2013-01-20 05:54:05 AM  
It would be nice if the gun enthusiasts could involvethemselves in the process of crafting new legislation that would be genuinely effective and yet still palatable. Or they could just screech "second amendment!" and get what they're given.
 
2013-01-20 05:55:20 AM  

Wyalt Derp: It would be nice if the gun enthusiasts could involvethemselves in the process of crafting new legislation that would be genuinely effective and yet still palatable. Or they could just screech "second amendment!" and get what they're given.


See my post to hubiestubert, above.
 
2013-01-20 05:57:18 AM  
First I hear "Don't demonize guns. A gun is just a tool like any other."
Then I hear "Don't trivialize gun culture."

Why is there no circle saw culture?
 
2013-01-20 06:00:10 AM  
The likelihood of you needing a gun goes up in proportion to your stupidity and criminal activity, neither ends well.
 
2013-01-20 06:01:30 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 06:04:00 AM  

hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...


Maybe the wrong people are arguing for the gun enthusiasts' cause. Alex Jones was not a stellar example in terms of PR and the NRA is now widely regarded as a lobbyist group for the arms industry, therefore lacking credibility. The other quarters are SHTF survivalists - who are making a poor risk assessment of the remote possibility of dangers that might exist in the future compared to the very real dangers that exist for many Americans today - and people who actually are hoping for the collapse of the government because they don't like it very much.

Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case. And yes, the libertarians too, although even many of them acknowledge there are limits to freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech (unless there actually is one).
 
2013-01-20 06:08:22 AM  
The Democrats ought to feel blessed they still have Clinton around to give perspective on voters they think of as rubes and morons. Well, Clinton knows how to get the votes of those rubes and morons, so you might want to pay attention.
 
2013-01-20 06:13:12 AM  

thisispete: Alex Jones was not a stellar example in terms of PR


which is the reason they decided to interview him about it. They knew it would be a circus full of crazy, and it was.

thisispete: Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case.


I tried. No one cares to listen.
 
2013-01-20 06:14:20 AM  
thisispete,
Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case. And yes, the libertarians too, although even many of them acknowledge there are limits to freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech (unless there actually is one).


And why a moderate alternative to the NRA that will exist as a weeping willow to the NRA's unbending oak or maple after 21 pre-school kids were murdered by some autistic asshole with a scary looking ar15.

I do believe gun rights need to be protected, but that last shooting just changed the game.
 
2013-01-20 06:16:19 AM  
"Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.
 
2013-01-20 06:18:21 AM  

Hetfield: "Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.


it's slightly better than "cracker culture".
 
2013-01-20 06:19:21 AM  
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!"
 
2013-01-20 06:20:29 AM  
And let's consider basic psych evaluations as a precondition.

It isn't perfect, but would screen out nutbags who clearly don't get empathy.

Link

Link

/Maybe include members of the family or household.
 
2013-01-20 06:21:58 AM  

log_jammin: Hetfield: "Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.

it's slightly better than "cracker culture".


Ha, true.
 
2013-01-20 06:22:54 AM  

doglover: They're not just for killing.


Wow. That's some mental gymnastics shiat right there. Silver medal, at least. Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose. The fact that you can use them for other things doesn't change their purpose. Managing animals in the wild? Killing them. Target practice? Training for killing. Don't sugar coat it in your mind. At least have the honesty to admit that your little adult toy is supposed to kill stuff, whether you use it to play at killing things or actually kill them. It is a tool designed, made, sold, and used to kill. And one can argue that there is very little wrong with such a tool, but you can't honestly say it is for anything else.
 
2013-01-20 06:24:34 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.


THIS
 
2013-01-20 06:26:34 AM  
doglover,
Wow. That's some mental gymnastics shiat right there. Silver medal, at least. Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose. The fact that you can use them for other things doesn't change their purpose. Managing animals in the wild? Killing them. Target practice? Training for killing. Don't sugar coat it in your mind. At least have the honesty to admit that your little adult toy is supposed to kill stuff, whether you use it to play at killing things or actually kill them. It is a tool designed, made, sold, and used to kill. And one can argue that there is very little wrong with such a tool, but you can't honestly say it is for anything else.

A gun without bullets may be pretty useless, but putting holes in paper is plenty different then the emotional or practical reality of putting holes in a person at a random moment in life.
 
2013-01-20 06:26:48 AM  
The people I know all terrified about the guvmint taking their guns also tend to be ex-military. Why do they think the current military would suddenly go all fascist if Americans lost their guns?

"Now go round up all those agitators and lock them in camps to get re-edumakated!"

"uh, no, sir."


duh.
 
2013-01-20 06:26:57 AM  
FTFA: Obama took 23 executive actions this week to curb gun violence, but his key proposals will need a vote from Congress to become law. With a GOP House unlikely to take up any new gun control measures - and even some Democrats expressing wariness - his only recourse is to make his case directly to the public.

Because the GOP will compromise if the public sides with the left?

BAHAHAHahAHAhahahAHHHAHAhahahAhAHhahahhhaHAHhahahahahahahAHHahaha

Article needs the Satire tag. The GOP wouldn't compromise if Jesus and Zombie St. Reagan, riding dinosaurs, delivered a hand written and signed letter from God, in his own blood and co-signed by Galactus and the WH40k corpse Emperor, telling them to.

The GOP will biatch and moan and generally obstruct any hope of any kind of progress, while Obama and the Democrats offer them increasingly watered down and conciliatory proposals that will finally culminate in something weaker than even the GOP and the NRA's own supporters wanted, and then the GOP will reject even that, all while publicly attacking Obama as a tyrant taking away your freedoms for even suggesting the topic.

Welcome to US politics of the 21st century.
 
2013-01-20 06:27:06 AM  
Guns should be treated like cigarettes. Like buying cigarettes, purchasing guns/ammo should be accompanied by warning labels, public campaigns denouncing the culture, and other means that communicate the societal troubles that the gun culture has brings with it.

Right now, guns and violence are excessively glorified. Let's start by not doing that. Maybe there a few sensible regulatory measures that can be enacted, but any thoughts that removing a significant number of guns from the population via direct regulation is completely unrealistic.

It *has* to be done by reducing the demand for them, which can only be done by changing people's perception of guns.
 
2013-01-20 06:28:25 AM  

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?


farm6.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-20 06:28:34 AM  

pippi longstocking: The likelihood of you needing a gun goes up in proportion to your stupidity and criminal activity, neither ends well.


Know how I know you've never survived a home invasion?
 
2013-01-20 06:29:45 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS


You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?
 
2013-01-20 06:31:09 AM  

doglover: This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.


Would you also vote for, say, segregationists if you thought that was the best way to "keep your guns around"?
 
2013-01-20 06:31:28 AM  
Today's Gun Culture has its own magazine.

NSFW-ish
 
2013-01-20 06:31:41 AM  
Please Bill, don't ruin the surprise.
Cause this issues going to turn up like a certain blue dress round the next election.

/that in mind: if your working hard to make a world that's gonna suck when a republican gets to be in charge of it, You might want to rethink that.
/Or nevermind. I'm sure nothing bad will come from expanding the nics to include the smallest details of your life and making it publicly accessible.
/Its all in the name of protecting children from terrorists...
 
2013-01-20 06:31:43 AM  

phenn: pippi longstocking: The likelihood of you needing a gun goes up in proportion to your stupidity and criminal activity, neither ends well.

Know how I know you've never survived a home invasion?


Why, would it matter?
 
2013-01-20 06:35:50 AM  
doglover: This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case

I completely agree. Both sides are bad.

/How do I sign up?
 
2013-01-20 06:39:21 AM  

cowgirl toffee: Today's Gun Culture has its own magazine.


ISWYDT
 
2013-01-20 06:39:31 AM  

Nuclear Monk: Maybe there a few sensible regulatory measures that can be enacted, but any thoughts that removing a significant number of guns from the population via direct regulation is completely unrealistic.


Sure, but the important thing is that self-serving scumbags can scare gullible rubes with thoughts that someone might remove a significant number of guns from the population via direct regulation.
 
2013-01-20 06:40:33 AM  
Also, please read this book. It was written by an old professor of mine. If there are those among you who can't fathom the need for private gun ownership, and want the argument given with scientific rigor, this book is for you.
 
2013-01-20 06:42:53 AM  

Lsherm: At this point, I think the gun show loophole has a real shot at getting closed.  As long as the Democrats don't stack a bill with a bunch of other unpopular proposals, it should be relatively easy to make the Republicans look ridiculous if they don't pass it.


The Republicans claimed that Obama was going to seize guns with executive orders, and had the far right whipped into a frenzy about it. Then Obama gave his speech, and his actions turned out to be limited, reasonable, and undoubtedly constitutional. Now Democrats need to do the same thing in the Senate. Come up with a law that only the far right can argue with. Something that will get some Republican votes. I know that the house wouldn't pass such a bill. They won't pass anything that has anything to do with guns. But a reasonable and modest bill with bipartisan support that gets killed by the radical right in the house will give the American people one more reason to throw out the tea party Republicans.

Or has gerrymandering in Republican states made that impossible?
 
2013-01-20 06:47:28 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?


You're a moron.
 
2013-01-20 06:50:51 AM  

Enemabag Jones: A gun without bullets may be pretty useless, but putting holes in paper is plenty different then the emotional or practical reality of putting holes in a person at a random moment in life.


What a tool made for putting holes in paper might look like:
upload.wikimedia.org

What a tool made for killing might look like:
upload.wikimedia.org

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.
 
2013-01-20 06:51:19 AM  

GAT_00: And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


If you RTFA, Clinton isn't saying that the pro-gun folks are right, he's saying that they tend to be single issue voters. Even if 70% of Americans are in favor of more firearm regulations, the 30% that disagree tend to REALLY disagree. Clinton is warning that it will cost Democrats in the senate and the house if they push for new regulation.
 
2013-01-20 06:52:35 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?

You're a moron.


Huh? Are you saying Republicans aren't the party of rape and bigotry?
 
2013-01-20 06:53:47 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?


I wouldn't be voting for rape and bigotry.  I would be voting for the lesser of two evils.  This shiat might be just enough to tip the scales.  Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.
 
2013-01-20 06:56:18 AM  

unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.


Trying not to slam my face through the desk..
 
2013-01-20 07:05:39 AM  
Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:49 AM  

Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..


It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?
 
2013-01-20 07:06:29 AM  
Uncle Tractor,
What a tool made for killing might look like:


You could argue that second tool could could with put holes in a book report, a target, an unknown person in your home at 3am or anybody you don't like on a college campus. That is the tough part.

I would like to see that second tool used to punch holes in a book report, just because.

Any tool you don't know how to use effectively at the moment you need it is pretty useless.
 
2013-01-20 07:06:44 AM  

unamused: Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..

It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?


No sane person could type what you did.
 
2013-01-20 07:09:35 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


Really now...no liberal ever said Clinton was wrong about anything, even when we all KNEW he was lying about something.
 
2013-01-20 07:10:03 AM  

Warriors Warriors Warriors: Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.


pretty? Pretty!?!? It helped Newt become speaker. It was an outright disaster!

The kick in the face was that the assault weapon ban had a sunset, so the entire thing was for nothing.
 
2013-01-20 07:11:46 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?


It's only 6 AM but you just won the stupidest post of the day, hands down. Congrats, bigot.
 
2013-01-20 07:14:22 AM  

Gunther: If you RTFA, Clinton isn't saying that the pro-gun folks are right, he's saying that they tend to be single issue voters. Even if 70% of Americans are in favor of more firearm regulations, the 30% that disagree tend to REALLY disagree. Clinton is warning that it will cost Democrats in the senate and the house if they push for new regulation.


I agree with that somewhat but I also think that gun regulation is more popular now than it was in the 90's since all of this is happening in the aftermath of some pretty tragic shootings which make the ones in the 90's pale by comparison.

I still think it's politicallly costly but it shouldn't cost the Dems as much as it did in the 90s.

unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.


Well that's a relief. Especially since nothing being proposed is unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-20 07:16:11 AM  
These guns are the same, functionally.

i184.photobucket.com

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?
 
2013-01-20 07:17:21 AM  

gadian: Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose


No. Guns accelerate projectiles with expanding gas out of a tube. What you do with the projectiles is up to you.

I like target shooting. It's harmless fun and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have an AR-15 and a banana clip because I've never done anything violent to anyone in my life that wasn't part of a sport and controlled. I've never even shot a squirrel, and god knows that's a common enough rite of passage for children with their first .22 or pellet gun all over PA.

Yes, you can also shoot living things. But that's merely a technicality. There's no mental gymnastics required to say you can shoot other things, because as a lifelong shooter other things are all I've ever shot or thought about shooting.
 
2013-01-20 07:18:15 AM  
How many people here have had a few drinks?

I have, and if others, I want to know your drink of choice.

/Red wine.
//Threadjack, because it seems appropriate at the moment.
 
2013-01-20 07:18:24 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?


The one on the bottom looks more dangerous.
 
2013-01-20 07:18:43 AM  

vernonFL:
Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


... you have an interestingly broad definition of "person". Vegan, I take it?
 
2013-01-20 07:23:24 AM  

Babwa Wawa: doglover: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person living being in order to incapacitate or kill them.

Does that work for you?


Handguns are, in fact, designed with "persons" in mind. They're intended to provide killing efficiency. You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:38 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?


The current major point of contention -- by which I mean the one that the reasonable people that are probably going to win the actual policy changes, not the morons like Feinstein who want the stupid one-aspect test AWB uselessness -- is not the gun so much as the magazine. The AR model pictured has a 30-round mag, the other has maybe a 10, probably a 5 or 8.

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.
 
2013-01-20 07:25:57 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?

It's only 6 AM but you just won the stupidest post of the day, hands down. Congrats, bigot.


How is he a bigot again?

I will agree the GOP doesn't endorse Rape per se, they just are very insensitive about it (ie: sex out of wedlock is just as bad as rape, Rape victims never get pregnant, etc.).

And I guess the GOP has turned down the rhetoric it had against Muslims like they did in 2010. That and that stupid law in AZ that got struck down which would've allowed police to stop and question anyone who "looks like an illegal immigrant".

That and the fact that the economy seems to do worse under a Republican than it does under a Democrat, just look at what happened when Bush was President, we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.
 
2013-01-20 07:26:14 AM  
abhorrent1,
These guns are the same, functionally.
Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?


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

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

Real:
1-One has a scope indicating it might be for hunting, the other has iron sites making it less useful for hunting. Spray and Pray might mean something to some people.
2-One has smaller magazine indicating it is probably used for hunting, the other has a large magazine making it more capable for battle and more scary in the media after 21 grade school kids just were shot. Please argue the 30 round is useful for hunting.
 
2013-01-20 07:26:25 AM  

Alphax: unamused: Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..

It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?

No sane person could type what you did.


Of course I can.  Pretty much all Americans understand what "...shall not be infringed" actually means, it's just that half of us lie about it.

You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.

If the pubbies take the Senate in '14 and the WH in '16, your ban will be overturned along with "Obamacare."
Will the minor woodie you guys get by sticking it to the rubes be enough to risk making that bet?  What about Roe?  There are 4 states down to one clinic we are on the cusp of having an antiabortion state for the first time since the seventies.  And that is with the Dems in charge.  How much will you lose if the pubbies get the throttle back?
How much are you willing to lose?
Eight years of Duhbya didn't teach you; maybe it will take eight of Rick Perry followed by eight of Michelle.
 
2013-01-20 07:27:46 AM  

mksmith: You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.


You don't hunt people with them either. They're for target ranges and self defense. But self defense is so rare. I know a man who's owned a handgun of one kind or another for defense for 60 odd years and was a long haul trucker. He's never needed to use it. And violent crime rates were a lot higher back in his day. But our families have hung out and put a lot of holes in milk jugs together.

Guns aren't evil, people are.
 
2013-01-20 07:28:20 AM  

unamused: You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.


They always say lots of untrue things. That won't change.
 
2013-01-20 07:29:44 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?


That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

It might be a semi-auto, but it is most definitely not an AR-15 style rifle.

/so how long have you been a journalism student?
 
2013-01-20 07:31:11 AM  
Unless you're a milkjug. Then guns are worse than Kim Jung Il and Joseph Stalin sewn together into some kind of two headed mummy monster that hates Capitalists and dissenters.
 
2013-01-20 07:32:00 AM  
It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress so they can be the scapegoats... If it passes, and public emotion is high against it, he can blame the GOP... if it doesn't pass, he still looks good and he can still look like he "tried"... The EAs he did, were moderate and not really much of anything...
 
2013-01-20 07:32:20 AM  
Bah, what would Bill Clinton know about winning two presidential elections against opponents who knew what they were doing?
 
2013-01-20 07:32:40 AM  
If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.
It kills far more people per year then guns. the media is all about making headlines when a nut case kills a couple of people with a gun (not to trivialize Newtown), but on the same day, a drunk driver can wipe out a family of 5, and only the local news will cover that story.
No one talks about the 'alcohol culture'. Why is that? If I own a gun, somehow Liberals think I'm a crazed monster. But it's cool if I go out drinking with friends.
There is a far, far greater greater chance that I could have one to many drinks, and kill someone with my car, then killing someone with a gun.
 
2013-01-20 07:33:31 AM  
The other quarters are SHTF survivalists - who are making a poor risk assessment of the remote possibility of dangers that might exist in the future compared to the very real dangers that exist for many Americans today - and people who actually are hoping for the collapse of the government because they don't like it very much.

Here's the problem with that statement. Once you add in self defense and possibly hunting, I think the risk assessment many responsible gun owners make is something like this (note I'm defining responsible gun owners as people who are somewhat intelligent, don't drink when they shoot, and follow the rules of safety at all times, which I admit may not be a majority of gun owners):

1) Will I accidentally shoot myself or someone else? No, because I practice safety
2) Will I shoot someone on purpose who doesn't deserve to be shot? No, because I am of sound mind and mild temperament, and I have a detailed understanding of my rights to self defense, and where they end.
3) Will someone in my family shoot someone or themselves accidentally or on purpose? No, because I'm careful to train those who are responsible, and I'm careful to secure weapons from those I believe irresponsible/immature. I'm also careful about who I let into my life, and who I trust my life (and those of my family members) with.
4) Will someone break in and shoot myself or someone in my family? No, because my guns are secure and I have a carefully planned strategy for self defense should this ever happen.
5) Could something happen that could relax the laws of society, i.e. natural disaster, fall of government, invasion, etc.? Probably not likely, but in the worst case scenario....

Of the 5 above possibilities, #5, no matter how remote, is the MOST likely possibility to the responsible, safe gun owner. When studies come out that say a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a member of the family, the responsible gun owner looks through the list above and says "not in my family". And, the VAST majority of the time (with over 300 million guns out there), the responsible gun owner is RIGHT. It's a calculated awareness, not denial.
 
2013-01-20 07:35:19 AM  
The "issue," after loughner, holmes, and lanza, has been described as both "gun culture" and "mental health." while symptomatic, these are not the whole story.

First, loughner went after a politician, which is high profile. Holmes went big in a movie theater, with a high number of casualties. And lanza did this same, going after kids, which, in no uncertains terms, is a catastrophe of the highest order. Yet these high profile, high impact incidents make up a small percentage of overall gun deaths ( which does not negate them by any means).

There is no single "gun culture," although guns are a common uniting factor across said cultures. Inner city gun culture is differnt from country gun culture, which is different than white suburban middle class gun culture, and so on. The gun does not represent freedom, as in consitutional rights, as much is it does fear. It is not so much a symbol of protection as it is provocation. Guns do not minimize fear, but rathet create it an exploit it.

Fear transcends mental health and mental illness, although it is evident in paranoia, phobias, and anxiety. It refers to self preservation, and survival, however far removed the surface of our dialogues about gun violence. Therefore, what needs to be addressed is what people are afraid of, and you will find it is their way of life, their very existence... which is why it is so goddamned hard to change. But until there can be a rational appraisal of it, were stuck in the same
loop.

Loughner, holmes, and lanza may be viewed as extreme examples of gun violence, outside the scope of rational discourse about guns, because of their alleged mental states and their atrocities...but they are prime examples of how we handle outcasts, loners, and marginalized persons. We just call them "mentally ill," because its a term we can bandy about in an attempt to make the inexplicable explicable. They alone are, or were, resonsible for their acts and must face the consequences. Yet it is up to us to address, within each of our psyches and with each other, what fear compels to create the conditions of possibilty, the ground for gun violence, or any violence for that matter. This is where the discussion must turn. What must be faced in order to be freed, what must be lost in order to be gained.
 
2013-01-20 07:37:08 AM  

unamused: Of course I can.  Pretty much all Americans understand what "...shall not be infringed" actually means, it's just that half of us lie about it.


How are your 2nd Amendment rights being infringed with what's being proposed?

unamused: You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.


As I said, we demonize them because they are insensitive about Rape

-Rape babies are a gift from God
-Rape victims never get pregnant due to some magical biological function which keeps women from getting pregnant after getting raped (never mind the logical inconsistency from Tea Party Republicans like Murdoch and Akin, they really should've communicated to one another before making those idiotic comments)
-Getting pregnant out of wedlock is just as bad as getting raped

And yes, they are bigoted toward Gays because they won't let them get married. I'm glad you finally see that point. Unless you provide me with a good reason on why gay people shouldn't get married, I'm just going to assume that they're bigots.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:34 AM  

Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress so they can be the scapegoats... If it passes, and public emotion is high against it, he can blame the GOP... if it doesn't pass, he still looks good and he can still look like he "tried"... The EAs he did, were moderate and not really much of anything...


Yep. He managed to sidestep the issue, while looking concerned. He handed it off to Biden to 'look into solutions', and pretty much turned it over to Congress after that (which is where it belongs).
Say what you will about President Obama, the man is not stupid.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:59 AM  

Alphax: unamused: You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.

They always say lots of untrue things. That won't change.


Do you not get the part where gay marriage and gun ownership are on the same side of coin called rights? Do you not see your own hypocrisy by saying "These rights I want are good. These rights I don't want are bad." and then criticizing the other guys for doing the same but disagreeing with you?

Some people don't want gay rights. They're straight and married. They don't need you to be happy. They don't care. So they pander to the haters and get elected in gerrymandered little counties full of xenophobic old people who think gay and pedophile are the same thing.

Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim. You forgot the rule of fighting monsters, and that's not to become that which you fight. If you are pro rights, you must be pro rights. If you are only pro the rights you like, you're no different than a Republican senator who's against the rights you like that don't matter to him.
 
2013-01-20 07:41:25 AM  

BigBooper: That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.


Sorry you're correct. It's a Vepr-Pioneer. It is a .223 though so the point still stands. Throw a different stock on it and you have virtually identical weapons. So go ahead a limit magazine size. If nothing else it'll inconvenience spree killers by making them carry 4 or 5 mags instead of 2.
 
2013-01-20 07:43:20 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?


the gun on top is not a bushmaster.

Link
 
2013-01-20 07:43:31 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.


When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.
 
2013-01-20 07:43:47 AM  

mksmith: Handguns are, in fact, designed with "persons" in mind. They're intended to provide killing efficiency. You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.


They're used for backup for most things you hunt with a rifle, as well, if you don't get a clean shot the first time. Trying to take a mercy-shot at a deer that's flopping around with a rifle from close range can be pretty awkward, and once you wound your prey you're ethically obligated to finish the job.

They're also very popular target shooting guns, because in all frankness if you set your rifle ranges far enough out that a trained person can't pretty much nail it every time then the variation is damn near pure luck, where pistol has more skill-dependent variation in accuracy. Pistol's an olympic sport, for instance.

So, in summary... nope.
 
2013-01-20 07:44:15 AM  

doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.


Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
2013-01-20 07:44:37 AM  
Abe Vigoda's Ghost
Yep. He managed to sidestep the issue, while looking concerned. He handed it off to Biden to 'look into solutions', and pretty much turned it over to Congress after that (which is where it belongs).
Say what you will about President Obama, the man is not stupid.


He also looked into the video games issue, give the man credit. He is being fully presidential.
 
2013-01-20 07:46:14 AM  
Yes, because a problem that didn't even involve an "assault weapon" will be stopped by another AWB. Such extreme ignorance.

Yes, that's right, Lanza never used the rifle. This entire episode has been a gigantic lie.

MSNBC
 
2013-01-20 07:47:40 AM  

themindiswatching: Democrats probably have support for closing the gun show loophole and MAYBE a new AWB. Anything else would put some Democratic seats back into GOP hands, sadly.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming.
 
2013-01-20 07:47:47 AM  

Mrtraveler01: doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban gay people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.


FTFM
 
2013-01-20 07:47:57 AM  

Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress


Um, Executive orders also cannot do the things the clip limit and AWB would like to do, those require laws.

... what do you think executive authority involves, exactly? Because EOs are pretty much limited to the interpretation of the law by members of the executive branch, the creation and organization of executive departments, and the general dispostion of military forces in ways taht don't trespass on congressional authority (he can't declare war, for instance).
 
2013-01-20 07:48:29 AM  

doglover: Do you not get the part where gay marriage and gun ownership are on the same side of coin called rights? Do you not see your own hypocrisy by saying "These rights I want are good. These rights I don't want are bad." and then criticizing the other guys for doing the same but disagreeing with you?


No, I see nothing of the sort.

The only 'right' I see you and the NRA pushing for is the right to purchase and use deadly weapons and ammunition, undocumented, and increase the chance of violent death for yourself and those around you. Is that really something you want to fight for? The NRA is doing it for the profits of the gun manufacturers.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:17 AM  

naptapper: themindiswatching: Democrats probably have support for closing the gun show loophole and MAYBE a new AWB. Anything else would put some Democratic seats back into GOP hands, sadly.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming.


Popular opinion seems to suggest that people are more supportive of these kinds of bans than they were back in the 1990's.

Still a politically risky move if not handled correctly.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:23 AM  

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLY FARKING shiat

ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN

OOOO YEAH!

 
2013-01-20 07:51:49 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture

Yeah, that's Ted's job!
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 199x254]


You are who Bill is trying to educate here. Shame you're too arrogant to listen.

Nice picture of Terrible Ted, though. The ballcap he's wearing, "One asterisk (ass-to-risk) for the thin blue line," is a symbol of the Thin Blue Line charity, which raises money to assist the survivors of killed or disabled public safety workers. Ted has helped raise a good deal of money for them.

I'm sure he's still morally inferior to you, however.
 
2013-01-20 07:53:03 AM  

naptapper: themindiswatching: Democrats probably have support for closing the gun show loophole and MAYBE a new AWB. Anything else would put some Democratic seats back into GOP hands, sadly.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming.


The gun show loophole being closed polls consistently between 85% and 90%. That's of the total voting population, not just democrats.

The AWB redux with an extra side of uselessness though, nah, that one's doomed. I would not be surprised to see it put forward as its own proposed law to focus the opposition on it while slipping something else in under the radar, but in itself it's not happening. For all our faults, we in the US do tend to notice when something accomplishes nothing and not repeat it once it's been corrected the first time. Note how abortion is still legal at the national level, no matter how much the GOP whinges and moans.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:47 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Note how abortion is still legal at the national level, no matter how much the GOP whinges and moans.


But they are shutting down medical facilities in many states.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:51 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.


That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.
 
2013-01-20 07:56:28 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: Of course I can.  Pretty much all Americans understand what "...shall not be infringed" actually means, it's just that half of us lie about it.

How are your 2nd Amendment rights being infringed with what's being proposed?

unamused: You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.

As I said, we demonize them because they are insensitive about Rape

-Rape babies are a gift from God
-Rape victims never get pregnant due to some magical biological function which keeps women from getting pregnant after getting raped (never mind the logical inconsistency from Tea Party Republicans like Murdoch and Akin, they really should've communicated to one another before making those idiotic comments)
-Getting pregnant out of wedlock is just as bad as getting raped

And yes, they are bigoted toward Gays because they won't let them get married. I'm glad you finally see that point. Unless you provide me with a good reason on why gay people shouldn't get married, I'm just going to assume that they're bigots.


If you ban 30rd. mags and I want to buy one, you have infringed on my right to bear that arm.

For the record I am pro choice, and I think we need to get gummint out of the marriage business.  It is unconstitutional for the government to require a license for a church to practice its religion and consecrate a marriage.  We let the government get involved to prevent white chicks from marrying slaves back in the day.
This is why gun owners don't want the government getting involved in what guns we buy.
 
2013-01-20 07:57:35 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Guns are designed to launch a projectile in a straight line, that when paired with the pull of gravity, forms a parabolic arc-shaped path. It has no conscience or discretion, it is a tool. When the individual refuses to apply discretion, the state will do it for him.

You were warned, Teatards.


Warned how?
 
2013-01-20 07:57:45 AM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.


That is a fark headliner. Consider the suburban rage.
 
2013-01-20 07:59:06 AM  

unamused: If you ban 30rd. mags and I want to buy one, you have infringed on my right to bear that arm.


Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to 30 round magazines? It just says you have the right to bare arms in general.

You're making it sound like people are proposing to ban guns completely.

Now THAT would actually be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:18 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:20 AM  
unamused,
If you ban 30rd. mags and I want to buy one, you have infringed on my right to bear that arm.
For the record I am pro choice, and I think we need to get gummint out of the marriage business. It is unconstitutional for the government to require a license for a church to practice its religion and consecrate a marriage. We let the government get involved to prevent white chicks from marrying slaves back in the day.
This is why gun owners don't want the government getting involved in what guns we buy.


Then don't vote republican, unless you discover those are the only issues that concern you.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:00 AM  
PS.  The idiotic crap the pubbies come out with regarding rape is to try and close the rape baby loophole which allows women to avoid sensible abortion laws.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:32 AM  

unamused: For the record I am pro choice, and I think we need to get gummint out of the marriage business.  It is unconstitutional for the government to require a license for a church to practice its religion and consecrate a marriage.


This is just downright stupid because MARRIAGE WAS A CIVIL INSTITUTION LONG BEFORE IT WAS A RELIGIOUS ONE!!!

unamused:
We let the government get involved to prevent white chicks from marrying slaves back in the day.

Thank you for providing me with a great example of why I don't trust State Governments.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:57 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.


Because that worked so very well the last time we tried it.
 
2013-01-20 08:02:32 AM  

unamused: PS.  The idiotic crap the pubbies come out with regarding rape is to try and close the rape baby loophole which allows women to avoid sensible abortion laws.


Because as we know, this is a serious and chronic problem.

/rolls eyes
//"sensible abortion laws" my ass
 
2013-01-20 08:03:47 AM  

abhorrent1: BigBooper: That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

Sorry you're correct. It's a Vepr-Pioneer. It is a .223 though so the point still stands. Throw a different stock on it and you have virtually identical weapons. So go ahead a limit magazine size. If nothing else it'll inconvenience spree killers by making them carry 4 or 5 mags instead of 2.


The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.
 
2013-01-20 08:04:37 AM  

Alphax: The only 'right' I see you and the NRA pushing for is the right to purchase and use deadly weapons and ammunition, undocumented, and increase the chance of violent death for yourself and those around you. Is that really something you want to fight for? The NRA is doing it for the profits of the gun manufacturers.


Clearly, you stopped fighting the urge to slam your face in the desk.
 
2013-01-20 08:04:52 AM  

unamused: Alphax: unamused: Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..

It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?

No sane person could type what you did.

Of course I can.  Pretty much all Americans understand what "...shall not be infringed" actually means, it's just that half of us lie about it.

You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.

If the pubbies take the Senate in '14 and the WH in '16, your ban will be overturned along with "Obamacare."
Will the minor woodie you guys get by sticking it to the rubes be enough to risk making that bet?  What about Roe?  There are 4 states down to one clinic we are on the cusp of having an antiabortion state for the first time since the seventies.  And that is with the Dems in charge.  How much will you lose if the pubbies get the throttle back?
How much are you willing to lose?
Eight years of Duhbya didn't teach you; maybe it will take eight of Rick Perry followed by eight of Michelle.


This is why Bill Clinton wrote his article. He knows damn well W and the Republican controlled Senate and House were a direct result of his war on guns.
 
2013-01-20 08:05:31 AM  

Alkony: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

Because that worked so very well the last time we tried it.


The point, you've missed it.
 
2013-01-20 08:05:53 AM  

Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?


Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.
 
2013-01-20 08:06:18 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.


Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.
 
2013-01-20 08:06:19 AM  

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


If those crying for gun control would actually research a lot of what of what is behind what they preach it would be a different debate altogether. But they won't when flash emotions and media sensationalism runs rampant in those who think they are on top of the issues. It's kind of like male virgins crying for abortion rights. More than likely the commenter will find something small to nitpick in your statement and roll right over the facts.
 
2013-01-20 08:07:29 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to 30 round magazines?


Where does it say you have the right to marriage at all?
 
2013-01-20 08:07:35 AM  

Mrtraveler01: doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Of course the comparison works.  Santorum doesn't want to ban all marriages, just the assaul...er, uh, gay ones.
 
2013-01-20 08:08:25 AM  
unamused,
The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.


Why TF is Cho champion? Is the body count more impressive?

26 people, 21 of which were grade school. That managed to get people in to re-evaluate the NRA's zero tolerance position on any sort of gun control, except for full auto.

/Smarter for his goal maybe, but that is all.
 
2013-01-20 08:09:20 AM  

doglover: Mrtraveler01: Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to 30 round magazines?

Where does it say you have the right to marriage at all?


Touche.

I still don't think limiting the size of a magazine = infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-20 08:09:35 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.


You know, I could really go for emergency bourbon stations in public places.
 
2013-01-20 08:10:01 AM  

doglover: mksmith: You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.

Guns aren't evil, people are.


Give an evil person a handgun and he's going to be far more evil and much more dangerous to others.
 
2013-01-20 08:10:38 AM  

unamused: abhorrent1: BigBooper: That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

Sorry you're correct. It's a Vepr-Pioneer. It is a .223 though so the point still stands. Throw a different stock on it and you have virtually identical weapons. So go ahead a limit magazine size. If nothing else it'll inconvenience spree killers by making them carry 4 or 5 mags instead of 2.

The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.


Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.
 
2013-01-20 08:10:42 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.


Far more kids were killed by drunk drivers than guns last time I looked it up.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:43 AM  
doglover
Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)
It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


Smartest thing yet in this thread.
 
2013-01-20 08:12:34 AM  
images.dailystar-uk.co.uk
Not a gang member

greensides.files.wordpress.com
Not a hooker

img241.imageshack.us
Not whatever it is they're dressed as...

www.prepper-resources.com
Just a hunting rifle wearing a funny outfit

However it does beg the question why
 
2013-01-20 08:12:41 AM  

unamused: Mrtraveler01: doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Of course the comparison works.  Santorum doesn't want to ban all marriages, just the assaul...er, uh, gay ones.


I'm not a fan of the assault weapons ban myself. I just think we need stronger background checks and better way to track who buys a gun.

I'm sure people would be against this somehow.
 
2013-01-20 08:14:04 AM  
No one is trivializing something that kills thousands of Americans a year. If anything, the pro-gun people are trivializing it.
 
2013-01-20 08:14:35 AM  

doglover: Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?

Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


This sounds too reasonable and sensible. I'm sure the NRA and some gun nuts  won't like it for some reason.
 
2013-01-20 08:15:41 AM  
Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws. Slaves and subjects don't have the right to own guns. Free people do. Allowing citizens to have guns is not about hunting or protecting one's home. Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them. When politicians seek to control guns, we must ask ourselves why.

Governments do not write gun control laws to stop gun violence. No gun law ever proposed or enacted will stop an evil, deranged person from using whatever weapon he can devise to achieve his goal of destruction. Any thinking person can grasp that. Murder is against the law in every state, yet murder continues. Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation. Rather than 26 people killed in a single incident, however, there is a steady trickle of murder and injury day after day. That, apparently, makes it more palatable. Or, it makes it less useful in ginning up support for taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

One must ask himself why so many in government are so committed to taking away the 2nd Amendment. What are they afraid of?

One must also ask why so many of the governed are willing to give up their rights. What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? Obama supporters are apparently willing to let him rewrite the Constitution as he desires. Would they be so complacent if GW Bush were still in office? Biden, during the campaign, accused Republicans of wanting to put blacks back in chains. Can people be put in chains when they are armed?

Gun control laws are not an answer to gun violence. Controlling evil in the public square is. Evil will never be brought fully under control. We can attempt to ameliorate it and we can defend ourselves against it. Just as the locks on our homes have become more sophisticated as thieves have become more sophisticated, so our defenses against evil must become more sophisticated - be they arms, psychological profiling, or other tools.

So Clinton is correct. Be very careful about taking rights away from gun owners. The gun culture is not about a bunch of rednecks drinking and plinking. It's about a people who believe that their self-determination is permitted by their self-reliance.

It's the anti-gun culture that we should fear. People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.

If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.
 
2013-01-20 08:16:08 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: PS.  The idiotic crap the pubbies come out with regarding rape is to try and close the rape baby loophole which allows women to avoid sensible abortion laws.

Because as we know, this is a serious and chronic problem.

/rolls eyes
//"sensible abortion laws" my ass


I know; it sounds just as stupid as "sensible gun laws."  I planned it that way.
 
2013-01-20 08:16:19 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


Exactly. Gun culture SHOULD be trivialized and mocked.

We're supposed to say "yeah, first graders are getting shot, but we can offend gun lovers because it might cost some dem congressmen their seats"?!? If the dems and Obama don't show balls on this issue, they're worthless.
 
2013-01-20 08:17:50 AM  

doglover: gadian: Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose

No. Guns accelerate projectiles with expanding gas out of a tube. What you do with the projectiles is up to you.

I like target shooting. It's harmless fun and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have an AR-15 and a banana clip because I've never done anything violent to anyone in my life that wasn't part of a sport and controlled. I've never even shot a squirrel, and god knows that's a common enough rite of passage for children with their first .22 or pellet gun all over PA.

Yes, you can also shoot living things. But that's merely a technicality. There's no mental gymnastics required to say you can shoot other things, because as a lifelong shooter other things are all I've ever shot or thought about shooting.


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?
 
2013-01-20 08:18:15 AM  
doglover,
Guns aren't evil, people are.


I completely agree. Let's train a high functioning monkey, more intelligent then average. Let the monkey shoot a few watermelons. Don't bother with mercy or put your hands up sort of thing.

Then let's put the monkey in Wayne LaPierre's home, doors locked, with a few 30 round magazines. We trained the monkey to swap magazines.

Let's see how that turns out.

/Thank You Eddie Izzard.
 
2013-01-20 08:19:47 AM  
Bill Clinton is pretty smart.
 
2013-01-20 08:22:30 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


Pawn shops need a Federal Firearms License to sell guns. They are required to perform background checks, just like standard "gun shops".

Ordering guns online doesn't mean that one gets the gun shipped to their house -- it's more like "ship to store" services available from a lot of merchants in that one buys the gun online, the gun is shipped to the local gun shop (they have to get a copy of the dealer's license and can verify its validity on the ATF site), and one goes through the background check there. It's a useful thing when the local gun shop or their regular distributors don't have something in stock (I'm a lefty and many shops don't have lefty-specific rifles due to the low volume of sales).

Bill_Z_Bub: However it does beg the question why


I rather like the AR platform because it's easy to customize and adjust for specific needs. I'm 6'0" and my wife is 5'4" -- we can both shoot the same rifle comfortably because the stock is adjustable. She has a history of carpal tunnel issues with her wrists and finds the pistol grip to be more comfortable than the more traditional stock. I like the fact that I can pop off the standard .223 upper and put on a .22LR upper for cheap target practice, and that pretty much all the internal parts are user-maintainable -- I don't need to go to a gunsmith to have a match-grade trigger installed or to change calibers. I like the modularity and ease of maintenance/service -- to use a computer analogy, it's the "custom-built PC" of rifles, compared to more appliance-like guns that aren't really meant to be used in anything but the default configuration.

I've never understood all the "tacticool" stuff that people do with their firearms, but they don't really harm anyone, so why not?
 
2013-01-20 08:22:56 AM  

Mr. Right: Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws.


Oh boy...here we go...

Mr. Right: Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them.


People still keep fantasizing this moment huh?

Mr. Right: Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation.


Cities like Detroit also have numbers that high but not as strict gun laws. There has to be more behind this than simple talking points.

Mr. Right: What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government?


They're not delusional?

Mr. Right: People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.


Or tax breaks for that competitors might not get and would only benefit their particular industry (because they're so special and all)....oh wait...that wasn't what you meant huh?

Mr. Right: If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.


Funny'd
 
2013-01-20 08:25:49 AM  

doglover: Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?

Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


Before the revolution printing presses also had to be licensed. By it's very nature a license implies something that is not a right. You don't have a right to drive for example.

The only purpose of a license is to restrict something. If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied. It's no different than trying to license a printing press.
 
2013-01-20 08:27:15 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I still don't think limiting the size of a magazine = infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.


It's a little complicated.

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.

So it was almost a given that someone was gonna attack your area at some point and the Continental Army wouldn't be able to get there in time to help. So the colonies wouldn't sign off on anything until they got the right to arm themselves.

There's also the fact that in English history, hence in American history, we've practiced the art of perpetual training for times of war. In ye olden days, England found longbowmen were brutally effective against heavy cavalry. The only problem? It takes years to be able to use the English longbow with any skill. So they made bow practice mandatory for all men. The result? 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.

What's that got to do with the second amendment? Military guns are ALWAYS expensive. The old smoothbore muskets were much heavier duty weapons than the rifles civilians liked to use. But, a gun's a gun. A boy who grows up hunting with a rifle could really sling a musket around, too. That's true even to this day. Someone who knows how to hit a moving target with a .22 will be that much better at using a deck mounted .50 cal on a destroyer to take out a pirate speed boat off Somalia.

So basically, while you're not gonna overthrow any governments with an AR-15 and a 100 round beta-mag, there's no reason not to let responsible people have one for shiats and giggles because learning how to deal with jams and put multiple rounds into a target as quickly as is possible to do safely as a boy might one day translate into Little Johnny Smith saving the life of someone in his squad out in some war zone after he joins up to get that GI Bill.
 
2013-01-20 08:27:29 AM  

onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.


What about permits?
 
2013-01-20 08:28:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: abhorrent1: BigBooper: That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

Sorry you're correct. It's a Vepr-Pioneer. It is a .223 though so the point still stands. Throw a different stock on it and you have virtually identical weapons. So go ahead a limit magazine size. If nothing else it'll inconvenience spree killers by making them carry 4 or 5 mags instead of 2.

The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.

Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


He was never adjudicated unfit to own a gun.
Even if you buy guns online, you have to do a background check.
 
2013-01-20 08:30:44 AM  

doglover: So basically, while you're not gonna overthrow any governments with an AR-15 and a 100 round beta-mag, there's no reason not to let responsible people have one for shiats and giggles because learning how to deal with jams and put multiple rounds into a target as quickly as is possible to do safely as a boy might one day translate into Little Johnny Smith saving the life of someone in his squad out in some war zone after he joins up to get that GI Bill.


I can agree with that.

I will say that banning assault weapons and restricting the size of a magazine really aren't the things I'm interested in.

I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.
 
2013-01-20 08:31:08 AM  

violentsalvation: vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.

No, guns are made for moving a small projectile from the barrel to ______________.


Don't Stop....
 
2013-01-20 08:32:00 AM  

Mrtraveler01: shotglasss: Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?

It's only 6 AM but you just won the stupidest post of the day, hands down. Congrats, bigot.

How is he a bigot again?

I will agree the GOP doesn't endorse Rape per se, they just are very insensitive about it (ie: sex out of wedlock is just as bad as rape, Rape victims never get pregnant, etc.).

And I guess the GOP has turned down the rhetoric it had against Muslims like they did in 2010. That and that stupid law in AZ that got struck down which would've allowed police to stop and question anyone who "looks like an illegal immigrant".

That and the fact that the economy seems to do worse under a Republican than it does under a Democrat, just look at what happened when Bush was President, we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.


The economy does poorly when Democrats run Congress, better when Republicans run it. Check history.
 
2013-01-20 08:32:26 AM  

Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..


By all means, slam away.....
 
2013-01-20 08:32:32 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.

Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.


And people like you are why there can not be a reasonable debate. If I shoot and kill you, it's homicide. If I kill you with a car while driving drunk, it's a homicide. Both have the end result. Someone is dead.

2010 numbers:

Number of Gun Homicides: 11,078

People who died in drunk driving crashes: 10,228

Both numbers are far too great, and yet we are only aggressively addressing one of them.

I'm not seriously proposing a ban on alcohol. I'm making a point that there are other things out there killing people.
The public is fed crap by the media. The media makes a living selling crap. It's a lot scarier to hold up a gun and say it's a killing monster, then to hold up a bottle of vodka and say the same.
 
2013-01-20 08:32:33 AM  

Mrtraveler01: onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.

What about permits?


I suspect he doesn't like licenses, permits, certificates, go-aheads, cards, notes, or thoughtful glances towards any method of registering weapons.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:01 AM  
FTA:  "Clinton said that an National Rifle Association lobbyist threatened him over his veto in the state house, saying that the group would cause problems for his upcoming presidential campaign in rural states like Texas.

"Right there in the lobby," Clinton said. "They thought they could talk to governors that way.

"I knew I was getting older when I didn't hit him," Clinton said. Clinton recalls telling the NRA lobbyist, "If that's the way you feel, you get your gun, I'll get my gun and I'll see you in Texas."


I LOL'd.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:13 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.


Pretty much all sensible people agree, though the devil is in the details (as it always is).

The big disagreement seems to come about when people try lumping in sensible things with really extreme things like gun bans that have no real effect on crime. Since a lot of people are opposed to gun bans and ineffective restrictions on their rights, tempers flare and nothing productive gets done.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:24 AM  
onyxruby
Before the revolution printing presses also had to be licensed. By it's very nature a license implies something that is not a right. You don't have a right to drive for example.
The only purpose of a license is to restrict something. If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied. It's no different than trying to license a printing press.

It's almost like something was wrong when a high functioning autistic semi-adult adult can go around a grade school and kill 21 students with a random tool of some sort, and that tools needs re-evaluation.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:29 AM  

Enemabag Jones: And let's consider basic psych evaluations as a precondition.

It isn't perfect, but would screen out nutbags who clearly don't get empathy.


...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.

The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.
 
2013-01-20 08:34:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: mksmith: Handguns are, in fact, designed with "persons" in mind. They're intended to provide killing efficiency. You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.

They're used for backup for most things you hunt with a rifle, as well, if you don't get a clean shot the first time. Trying to take a mercy-shot at a deer that's flopping around with a rifle from close range can be pretty awkward, and once you wound your prey you're ethically obligated to finish the job.

They're also very popular target shooting guns, because in all frankness if you set your rifle ranges far enough out that a trained person can't pretty much nail it every time then the variation is damn near pure luck, where pistol has more skill-dependent variation in accuracy. Pistol's an olympic sport, for instance.

So, in summary... nope.


All the way back to the flintlock pistol, the handgun was designed as an antipersonnel weapon, not a back-up tool for deer-hunters. You can go fishing with hand grenades, too, but that's not their purpose.

IAC, it's not hunters I especially have a problem with, . . . even though I don't understand people who think killing things is "fun". My grandfather was an avid duck hunter -- and my grandmother got really tired of plucking the damn things, because, to him, the ethics of hunting insisted you ate what you killed. My father was a career army officer but we never had firearms in the house, with the exception of his mandatory sidearm, which we kids NEVER were allowed to go near.

But people like my father and grandfather were extremely safety-conscious and would NOT have approved of untrained civilians swaggering around in populated areas with military-style weapons over their shoulder. I was in combat myself in the '60s, and after I got home and married and had kids, I had no weapons of any kind in the house, either. Still don't.

My problem is with the gun-worshipers -- and that's exactly what they are -- who buy only assault weapons (or as near to that ideal as they can get), and in large quantities. They have to have large-capacities magazines. They have to have hollow-point cartridges. They wear camo underwear. They used to rave about the dangers of a Communist invasion. Now they rave about the government coming in black helicopters to "take away their rights" -- which they interpret as carrying any weapon they like, anywhere they like (including inside schools), and the hell with everyone else. That's the definition of a sociopath. The very idea of licensing their weapons and checking their background for criminal activity and mental health issues, they regard as an infringement.

These people are NOTHING but dangerous. We are the only society in the history of the world that thinks it proper to arm the mentally ill. And if I ever decide to acquire a handgun, it will be to protect myself from people like them.
 
2013-01-20 08:36:08 AM  
If Democrats couldn't patronize everyone with opposing viewpoints, what would they do with their lives?
 
2013-01-20 08:36:27 AM  

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

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

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

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


Why is not useful for hunting?
 
2013-01-20 08:38:20 AM  

heypete: Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.

Pretty much all sensible people agree, though the devil is in the details (as it always is).

The big disagreement seems to come about when people try lumping in sensible things with really extreme things like gun bans that have no real effect on crime. Since a lot of people are opposed to gun bans and ineffective restrictions on their rights, tempers flare and nothing productive gets done.


I would agree with dropping the gun bans if we focus more on strengthing background checks and keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to.
 
2013-01-20 08:38:25 AM  

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



Aaaand that was the year he lost the Senate to the Repubs.

He remembers, and is warning of a replay.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:00 AM  

Mrtraveler01:
Or tax breaks for that competitors might not get and would only benefit their particular industry (because they're so special and all)....oh wait...that wasn't what you meant huh?



Your "response" is nothing more than a reiteration of failed, leftist talking points. But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance. Congratulations!
 
2013-01-20 08:39:01 AM  
shotglasss
The economy does poorly when Democrats run Congress, better when Republicans run it. Check history.


Yeah, because when Iisten to Hannity I know that I can expect the job-creators to do their job-creating when the Bush tax cuts are in effect.

Look at what happens with deficit spending comparing Republicans presidents to Democratic presidents.

Look at the recent boom and bust cycle comparing Republican Presidents to Democratic Presidents.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:17 AM  

LL316: If Democrats Republicans couldn't patronize everyone with opposing viewpoints, what would they do with their lives?


FTFY

Not seeing your point here to be honest with you.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.


Well, I think Alligators have a lot of teeth.

If we just collect dead alligators from zoological parks we could get lots of teeth and glue them to the parchment.

I'm thinking this isn't what you were talking about.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:40 AM  
Wow I must have really changed - I could not stand Clinton when he was president - hated everything about him, was glad when them impeached him. Now I kinda wish he was back in politics again... wtf is going on?
 
2013-01-20 08:39:55 AM  
Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.
 
2013-01-20 08:40:28 AM  

Mr. Right: But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance.


The fact you said this after that irrational and frankly incoherent post you made earlier is HILARIOUS to me.

Thanks buddy, I needed a good laugh this morning.
 
2013-01-20 08:41:17 AM  

Mrtraveler01: onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.

What about permits?


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.
Equal rights.
 
2013-01-20 08:41:31 AM  

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


Aaaand that was the year he lost the Senate to the Repubs.

He remembers, and is warning of a replay.


How is polling for these gun laws doing now compared to the mid 1990's?
 
2013-01-20 08:42:06 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress

Um, Executive orders also cannot do the things the clip limit and AWB would like to do, those require laws.

... what do you think executive authority involves, exactly? Because EOs are pretty much limited to the interpretation of the law by members of the executive branch, the creation and organization of executive departments, and the general dispostion of military forces in ways taht don't trespass on congressional authority (he can't declare war, for instance).


Hence the quotes around executive action...
 
2013-01-20 08:42:07 AM  

doglover: Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.

Well, I think Alligators have a lot of teeth.

If we just collect dead alligators from zoological parks we could get lots of teeth and glue them to the parchment.

I'm thinking this isn't what you were talking about.


cdn.styleforum.net

/Probably should've chosen better wording
 
2013-01-20 08:42:33 AM  

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

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

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

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

Why is not useful for hunting?


If you need 30 rounds to take down a deer, you should take up farming instead.
 
2013-01-20 08:43:44 AM  

unamused: What about a valid driver license to vote?


You mean something like Voter ID?
 
2013-01-20 08:44:32 AM  
IlGreven
...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.
The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.


I would never questions your understanding the United States Constitution. I am sure you are the utmost scholar. The phrase right to bear arms means unlimited ownership of gun, I would not question that. Anyone can drive, people with multiple DWI's, medical conditions, people don't have any restrictions with regard to wearing lenses.

fark it, sorry I brought it up.
 
2013-01-20 08:44:40 AM  

unamused: We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.


You don't like background checks?

Even most sensible gun owners seem to be ok with that.
 
2013-01-20 08:45:12 AM  

mksmith: who buy only assault weapons (or as near to that ideal as they can get), and in large quantities.


Rifles like the AR-15 are very well-suited to competition and sporting purposes, and are extremely commonly used for those purposes.

Over the years, the gun culture has changed a bit: it used to be mostly about hunting and clay shooting and, while those sports are still common, different types of competition and other non-hunting shooting sports have increased significantly in popularity.

They have to have large-capacities magazines.

In general, such magazines have been the "standard" size for those firearms since they were first introduced for civilian sale.

Even with the increase in popularity of "assault weapons" and certain magazines, gun-related homicide rates have been going down for decades (and are at their lowest value since 1964). Mass shootings have pretty much remained constant in the last ~30 years. While they are certainly tragic, they remain very rare.

They have to have hollow-point cartridges.

What's wrong with hollow-points? They're more effective and less likely to overpenetrate their target, walls, etc. and pose a risk to bystanders than full metal jacket bullets. They're much less likely to penetrate body armor, such as worn by police, than FMJs.
 
2013-01-20 08:46:24 AM  

mittromneysdog: Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.


Nobody sane is saying that. But don't forget Columbine and Virgina Tech were committed with weapons that fit the AWB. Those wouldn't be prevented.
 
2013-01-20 08:46:46 AM  

Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit,


Well that and he knows that an Executive Order can't make new law - it only applies to directing the Executive Branch.

unamused: The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.


Both of which he used nothing but standard capacity magazines with and which he purchased 30 days apart due to the VA law limiting him to one purchase a month.

He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance, so he just brought two pistols and 19 magazines and reloaded.

Mrtraveler01: Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


The state of Virginia didn't report the court holding over Cho's mental status because he wasn't actually committed. That's why he passed the NICS check. And he did pass, twice. Once for each handgun.
 
2013-01-20 08:47:39 AM  

doglover: mittromneysdog: Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.

Nobody sane is saying that. But don't forget Columbine and Virgina Tech were committed with weapons that fit the AWB. Those wouldn't be prevented.


Which is exactly why I'm lukewarm to a renewed AWB.
 
2013-01-20 08:48:35 AM  

heili skrimsli: He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance


Except campus police.
 
2013-01-20 08:50:29 AM  
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.
Equal rights.


False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.
 
2013-01-20 08:51:41 AM  

letrole: 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.
Equal rights.

False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.


I love it when the right-wingers argue with each other.
 
2013-01-20 08:51:54 AM  

mittromneysdog: Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.


Those are called "crazy people". There are tens of millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the country. The crazy nutjobs can be quite vocal, though.

Also, renaming "gun control" to "gun safety" is pretty silly -- most of the proposed laws have little to do with actual safety.

Mrtraveler01: I would agree with dropping the gun bans if we focus more on strengthing background checks and keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to.


I have no problems with better background checks, but what do you mean by "keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to"? Gun shops must keep records of sale (the ATF Form 4473) for 20 years already. How would this be changed?
 
2013-01-20 08:52:28 AM  
Shae123,
Why is not useful for hunting?


When I understand useful for hunting...we have relatively moderate sized round for creatures around 150 pounds, using iron sites (well within a specific range), indicating limited mobility, with 30 rounds, indicating spray over a single shot.

I don't think that would be good for say, deer. You would want a larger round with a longer range ideally, although deer slugs are sometimes used.

In the case of critters, a .223/5.56 where you might want multiple rounds without a site required, the round is overkill.

There are always exceptions I suppose, but then are we getting into very, very limited exceptions? I am listening.
/Because these rifles seem to be designed for humans with limited training to hunt other humans.
 
2013-01-20 08:54:03 AM  

dletter: violentsalvation: vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.

No, guns are made for moving a small projectile from the barrel to ______________.

Don't Stop....


I guess that since a gun is only designed to move a small projectile forward, then all anyone needs are airsoft guns.

That chunk of lead moving faster than the speed of sound and shaped to punch through bone and flesh and/or Kevlar is fine to get rid of.

You heard it from the pro-gun folks, folks!
 
2013-01-20 08:55:30 AM  

heypete: Those are called "crazy people". There are tens of millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the country. The crazy nutjobs can be quite vocal, though.


I know, and sadly they hurt a legitmate cause.

Especially when you got someone who seems to think background checks infringe on their rights and that someday, we're going to have to rise up against our government.\

heypete: but what do you mean by "keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to"? Gun shops must keep records of sale (the ATF Form 4473) for 20 years already. How would this be changed?


I'm not sure in all honesty. It's all part of keeping better track of who is buying these guns and making sure that people unfit to buy a gun aren't getting one.

It's all pretty tricky and complicated and will take a lot more effort than a simple and ineffective ban on assault weapons or the size of a magazine.
 
2013-01-20 08:57:50 AM  

letrole: 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.
Equal rights.

False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.


Voting is a right.  Voting for the Presidential Electors is a privilege.
Several amendments declare voting a right.
 
2013-01-20 08:58:02 AM  
letrole: False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.

Mrtraveler01: I love it when the right-wingers argue with each other.

I'm not arguing with unamused. I'm pointing out a flawed point of reasoning. Voting is not a Right.
 
2013-01-20 08:58:05 AM  

doglover: [www.smbc-comics.com image 577x1500]


A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, in the 10th Lecture of A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
 
2013-01-20 08:58:19 AM  

Enemabag Jones: That managed to get people in to re-evaluate the NRA's zero tolerance position on any sort of gun control, except for full auto.



Thanks for posting this. It tells us that we can safely ignore your postings in gun threads since you haven't bothered to do your homework and have nor real clue about the NRAs actual position or historical record of being involved in the creation and promotion of gun control laws.
 
KIA
2013-01-20 09:01:17 AM  
Why is it they say:

Send lawyers, guns and money
And get me out of this.
 
2013-01-20 09:01:45 AM  

Enemabag Jones: When I understand useful for hunting...we have relatively moderate sized round for creatures around 150 pounds, using iron sites (well within a specific range), indicating limited mobility, with 30 rounds, indicating spray over a single shot.


Pretty much all states impose magazine capacity limits for hunting, so there's really no functional difference between an AR-15 with a 5-round mag and a Browning BAR (a very common semi-auto hunting rifle) with a 5-round mag.

I don't think that would be good for say, deer. You would want a larger round with a longer range ideally, although deer slugs are sometimes used.

Perhaps. With the right type of bullets (e.g. softpoints), .223 is suitable for deer. It's even better for smaller game (like the oft-mentioned-in-Fark-gun-threads wild hogs).

Anyway, the caliber-specific argument is not really a good one, as AR-pattern rifles are available in a wide range of calibers and can be easily changed from one to the other.

Because these rifles seem to be designed for humans with limited training to hunt other humans.

They were also designed to be modular, lightweight, rugged, easy to maintain, accurate, and reliable. Those seem like pretty ideal design goals for any firearm.

Sure, a hand grenade has pretty much one primary function and is not very suitable for any other use, but a rifle like the AR-15 is quite useful for just about any purpose that a rifle might be used for. They're extremely common in competitions and for shooting sports because they possess the features mentioned above. They are used extremely rarely in crime.
 
2013-01-20 09:01:48 AM  

BigBooper: Warriors Warriors Warriors: Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.

pretty? Pretty!?!? It helped Newt become speaker. It was an outright disaster!

The kick in the face was that the assault weapon ban had a sunset, so the entire thing was for nothing.


That, and it didn't have any impact on crime.

Gun owners typically see gun control regulation as a one-way street, and it has been, despite the anti-gun advocates insistence on "commonsense," "compromise," and "believing in your right to hunt." They believe in deliberately confusing the general public with emotionally-loaded terms like "assault weapons" and "gun show loophole." In 1934, the NFA went into act. It had the effect of nearly outlawing machine guns, creating a lengthy registration system that was expensive in order to go after organized crime and bank robbers (a side effect of prohibition). It also punitively attacked gun ownership by heavily regulating short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors. Gun owners got nothing in return. The GCA of 1968 created the FFL system and criminalized interstate transfer of guns between non-licensed parties and restricted the importation of firearms. Of course it created prohibited classes of people, but again had punitive, anti-gun measures (no mail-order ammunition). Gun owners got nothing in return. FOPA in 1986 was the same deal, although a bipartisan group of lawmakers said, in response to allegations of abusive practices by the ATF:

--"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."--

They repealed the ban on mail-order ammunition and clarified parts of the 1968 GCA that were poorly drafted. Gun owners actually got something in return. They were punished with the arbitrary and improper passage of the Hughes Amendment which closed the machine gun registry.

If I have a pie, and someone comes up and tells me to give them a piece, and I ask why, and they say I should do it to be reasonable and compromise, and that I'll still get to keep some of my pie, and they keep doing this, eventually I'm going to be left with crumbs. I was watching an MSNBC panel the other day, where one of the panelists, a former politician (forget his name) was actually trying to be reasonable, and telling the other guests not to discount the 2nd Amendment and gun owners (much like Clinton did). He was still woefully misinformed. He "compromised" by saying no one needs "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" and if they did they can leave them at the range, locked up. Never mind that for millions of people, the range is their backyard, a neighbors land, or an empty stretch of BLM property, and that gun ranges are not storage lockers with 24/7 security. The people pushing for new laws fundamentally don't get it, and they have a pile of dead children on which to climb and use as a pulpit to claim the moral high ground.

You care about hunters? Great. Most gun owners don't hunt. I think people who cover themselves in deer piss and climb into a tree in order to take a bunch of deer at feeders with high-powered rifles (you know, pets) while drinking are idiots. The people who poach and trespass during hunting season and cause property damage are not responsible gun owners. Neither are the people who go bird-"hunting" by shooting birds out of traps that have had their wings clipped to make them easy targets. Hunters are the fudds and Dick Cheney's of the world, and the fact that their guns have wood and 5-shot magazines do not make them more responsible than someone with an AR.

It's interesting too that at least here on Fark, there is this desire to make the NRA and individual gun owners responsible for gun legislation, that we have to answer to people. It's funny how we don't do that for other Constitutional Rights. Do we demand the ACLU come up with counter-terrorism legislation when they oppose unconstitutional abuses of power? Is the onus on them? Do they have to answer for victims of terrorism? Do they have an outdated view of the constitution that doesn't take into account 21st century realities? Does anyone really need the 4th Amendment who doesn't plan on blowing things up?

Anyway, I'm just asking what gun owners will be getting in return this time, besides Diane Feinstein's dick up our asses.
 
2013-01-20 09:01:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: What about permits?


Okay, I will try to put this in terminology that people can understand. If you can substitute "printing press" for gun and still have it be acceptable than it's probably not a problem. In today's society the printer has replaced the printing press that is available to the public. Do you think it is okay to ask the public to get a permit to buy a laser printer at the store? Remember that before the revolutionary way printing presses were explicitly licensed as a way restricting free speech.

The press and the gun were both very important issues to the founding fathers. It is not an accident that they were the first two things called out in the Bill of Rights. If it is a right than it can't be licensed or otherwise restricted.

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.


The Supreme Court has a very strong track record of squashing any type of license or poll tax that is required in order to vote. I'm inclined to think they will probably do the same to voter ID requirements that require you present a state ID or drivers license to vote. I understand (but don't know) that some states have tried to get around this by waiving the fee to get a state ID accordingly. Regardless you have a good point.
 
2013-01-20 09:02:20 AM  

hasty ambush: doglover: [www.smbc-comics.com image 577x1500]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, in the 10th Lecture of A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis


People trying to find ways to keep innocents from being slaughtered are not afraid of weapons.
 
2013-01-20 09:03:45 AM  
unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.
 
2013-01-20 09:04:13 AM  

onyxruby: Mrtraveler01: What about permits?

Okay, I will try to put this in terminology that people can understand. If you can substitute "printing press" for gun and still have it be acceptable than it's probably not a problem. In today's society the printer has replaced the printing press that is available to the public. Do you think it is okay to ask the public to get a permit to buy a laser printer at the store? Remember that before the revolutionary way printing presses were explicitly licensed as a way restricting free speech.

The press and the gun were both very important issues to the founding fathers. It is not an accident that they were the first two things called out in the Bill of Rights. If it is a right than it can't be licensed or otherwise restricted.


So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?
 
2013-01-20 09:04:43 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


number of blowjobs GAT_00 has had in the whitehouse: 0
Bill Clinton: 1 confirmed

/argument is invalid
 
2013-01-20 09:04:48 AM  

Enemabag Jones: I don't think that would be good for say, deer. You would want a larger round with a longer range ideally, although deer slugs are sometimes used.


I hunt deer with an AR all the time. 75gr ballistic tips out of a 24 inch barrel. Same rifle also works wonders on coyotes, bobcats, small hogs and any assortment of nuisance animals.

It's funny, you can always tell people that don't know about hunting... Poachers most commonly use .22lrs. They don't seem to have much of a problem despite the huge power difference between that and the "wimpy" .223... which in every other case is described as "high powered"
 
2013-01-20 09:05:42 AM  
Click Click D'oh
Enemabag Jones: That managed to get people in to re-evaluate the NRA's zero tolerance position on any sort of gun control, except for full auto.
Thanks for posting this. It tells us that we can safely ignore your postings in gun threads since you haven't bothered to do your homework and have nor real clue about the NRAs actual position or historical record of being involved in the creation and promotion of gun control laws.


OK, I am listening. I have not researched the full library of NRA position papers on gun control legislation. I do remember a paper in the late 80's/early 90's where they objected to specific legislation on gun modification because australia was able to turn a bolt action into a semi-auto or full auto rifle during wwII based on what they could do in a machine shop to old rifles.

So I clearly don't understand what I am talking about and need to be shut down for the uneducated shill that I am.

I am so sorry. Please correct my slanderous post.
 
2013-01-20 09:06:24 AM  

vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


/FTFY
 
2013-01-20 09:06:33 AM  
unamused: Voting is a right. Voting for the Presidential Electors is a privilege.
Several amendments declare voting a right.


Rights do not exist simply because they are declared by pieces of paper.

You have have the right to do whatever you can conceive and achieve through your own efforts. If someone else is required to give you assistance, if others are obligated, then you are beholding to them. Rights don't work like that.

So you go vote all on your own. Go out in the woods where you are free to do whatever you wish without any obstruction, and vote vote vote all you like.

Nope.

By its very nature, voting requires cooperation. It is a privilige that is dependant upon others.
 
2013-01-20 09:06:47 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I know, and sadly they hurt a legitmate cause.


[snip]

It's all pretty tricky and complicated and will take a lot more effort than a simple and ineffective ban on assault weapons or the size of a magazine.

Agreed wholeheartedly.
 
2013-01-20 09:06:58 AM  
Sorry Bill, that horse left the barn long ago...
 
2013-01-20 09:07:57 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.


And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.
 
2013-01-20 09:08:04 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:08:10 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.


Aaaand that was the year he lost the Senate to the Repubs.

He remembers, and is warning of a replay.

How is polling for these gun laws doing now compared to the mid 1990's?



Clinton doesn't seem terribly confident, does he?

Consider the following:

Do those who govern respect the opinions and the votes of the governed?  Why or why not? What are the consequences of disregarding the will of the people?

Do ALL governments ALWAYS respect the will of the governed? Or do they sometimes blatantly abuse their power?

What differentiates a "benevolent" from an abusive, tyrannical government?
 
2013-01-20 09:09:02 AM  

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 429x420]
[25.media.tumblr.com image 850x638]


O...k...

And your point?
 
2013-01-20 09:10:58 AM  
hasty ambush:

Using children to further your political goals?

I've been told that's like something Obama and Hitler would do.
 
2013-01-20 09:11:15 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


I am of two minds on this (as I am with most things.) But I do think assault weapons belong in the hands of the military, any any hunter who needs high-capacity magazines is a shiatty hunter.

It's hard not to look down at folks who obviously harbor Red Dawn fantasies, and are willing to possibly endanger others for the sake of those fantasies. The problem is the gun business/gun lobby playing upon those fantasies in order to make a buck. The Red Dawn fantasies are unfortunately ingrained in our culture. The type of folks who keep bleating that we need access to high capacity magazines and assault weapons are not going to be convinced overnight (if at all) that we won't become a fascist dictatorship the very second gun reform is enacted - because a lot of them have been drinking the Kool-aid (via faux news, Free Republic, etc) that says we already are. They're not going to listen to anyone who tells them that other countries that have instituted assault weapons bans or full-on gun bans haven't imploded/become socialist/facist dictatorships, because in their minds, 'this is MURICA! goddammit.'

A lot of these people are folks who are willing to believe that Sandy Hook is a 'ZOMG GUBMINT CONSPIRACEE' rather than face the fact that we have a real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

How do you reason with people like that?
 
2013-01-20 09:11:15 AM  

doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.


But to be fair, governing Democrats and Obama are trying to be careful not to make the same mistake.

If you take out the AWB and the regulating the size of the magazine, you could probably get something that all parties would agree on.

Besides, nothing too extreme wouldn't pass anyway because it would never pass the House.

Got to give them credit for treading water carefully on this issue.
 
2013-01-20 09:12:34 AM  

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

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

You are an example of President Clinton's point.

I know it. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. He's the best president we've had since Roosevelt. (Hint: Not Franklin.) What we really need is a modern Andrew Jackson. A man who's not afraid to cane his political opponents or share giant cheeses with the masses.


you are far to intelligent to be here... it's confusing.
 
2013-01-20 09:13:10 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?


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:14:13 AM  

mksmith: Babwa Wawa: doglover: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person living being in order to incapacitate or kill them.

Does that work for you?

Handguns are, in fact, designed with "persons" in mind. They're intended to provide killing efficiency. You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.


Not true there are handgun rounds designed for hunting purposes

Handgun rounds for hunting
 
2013-01-20 09:14:42 AM  
I can have a nuclear bomb, can't I? I want to be well armed. I can use a delivery system that operates the same way as a gun.
 
2013-01-20 09:14:48 AM  

Mrtraveler01: doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.

But to be fair, governing Democrats and Obama are trying to be careful not to make the same mistake.

If you take out the AWB and the regulating the size of the magazine, you could probably get something that all parties would agree on.

Besides, nothing too extreme wouldn't pass anyway because it would never pass the House.

Got to give them credit for treading water carefully on this issue.


I know. Obama's smart. Fark is SMRT. It's getting annoying. What happened to the silly threads and stuff. Why is every Tom, Dick, and hairy moron weighing in on gun control suddenly? It's weird.
 
2013-01-20 09:14:56 AM  

JRoo: hasty ambush:

Using children to further your political goals?

I've been told that's like something Obama and Hitler would do.


You mean like taking guns
 
2013-01-20 09:15:23 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-20 09:16:15 AM  
It's easier to pass gun laws than to create and use a database of all mentally ill ( including depression) citizens.
 
2013-01-20 09:16:34 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.

Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.

And people like you are why there can not be a reasonable debate. If I shoot and kill you, it's homicide. If I kill you with a car while driving drunk, it's a homicide. Both have the end result. Someone is dead.

2010 numbers:

Number of Gun Homicides: 11,078

People who died in drunk driving crashes: 10,228

Both numbers are far too great, and yet we are only aggressively addressing one of them.

I'm not seriously proposing a ban on alcohol. I'm making a point that there are other things out there killing people.
The public is fed crap by the media. The media makes a living selling crap. It's a lot scarier to hold up a gun and say it's a killing monster, then to hold up a bottle of vodka and say the same.


You apparently can't tell the difference between the use of an intoxicant to impair oneself and the use of a weapon to kill other people. Your analogy would be more sensible if you said you wanted to ban CARS because they are used to kill people. That would be stupid, but not as incoherent as comparing alcohol to guns.

And you compare drunk-driving homicide to gun homicide! Drunk driving is criminal even when no one gets hurt--are you sure you want to treat gun possession that way? No, probably not. Well, good news: despite the rile-up-the-rubes scaremongering, the fact is that no one is going to outlaw gun ownership.
 
2013-01-20 09:17:15 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance.

The fact you said this after that irrational and frankly incoherent post you made earlier is HILARIOUS to me.

Thanks buddy, I needed a good laugh this morning.


Your inability to comprehend does not make a statement irrational or incoherent. If your comprehension is at the level of your writing, as evidenced by your many posts in this thread, I pity you.

The fact that you are eligible to vote gives me nothing to laugh about, so no thanks for that.
None of which changes the fact that gun laws have been and will continue to be ineffectual, no matter the blather from the left. Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.
 
2013-01-20 09:17:33 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?


My position is that it isn't because the courts have already ruled that it is illegal for people who are convicted criminals or have been adjudicated as being a danger to themselves or others (that is, they've lost their rights after due process) to possess firearms.

The background check is merely an enforcement mechanism for existing laws against prohibited people owning firearms.

You fill out a form, the dealer checks with the background check system, and gets a "PROCEED" (ok to continue with the sale), "DENY" (the person is prohibited from buying firearms and the transaction must not proceed), or "DELAY" (something requires additional checking, such as someone having a similar name and birthdate to a prohibited person or an error with the system) response.

Other than the "DELAY" response, the check takes place in seconds and so doesn't really put any sort of burden on the law-abiding person.

Of course, the barrier imposed by the background check is not insurmountable for criminals, as criminals have demonstrated by illegally acquiring firearms for years, but it does fix the easy problem of "how do we stop criminals from acquiring firearms from licensed dealers" and drives them towards illegal sources like straw purchasers (who should be nailed to the wall) and other such sources, thus allowing the authorities to better focus on the illegal sources.
 
2013-01-20 09:17:45 AM  

Mrtraveler01: we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.


dl.dropbox.com

You know how I know you know nothing of history?

Clinton not only led the fight to kill Glass Steagall, he also killed an attempt to regulate derivatives.  Here's the PBS Frontline episode detailing this.

Giving his Wall Street buddies exactly what they wanted has been very lucrative for Clinton.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.
 
2013-01-20 09:17:47 AM  
Click Click D'oh,
It's funny, you can always tell people that don't know about hunting... Poachers most commonly use .22lrs. They don't seem to have much of a problem despite the huge power difference between that and the "wimpy" .223... which in every other case is described as "high powered"

OK, so we have... the .223/the 5.56 nato, the 22 mag and the .22lr and lesser rounds.
The point .223/5.56, which are comparable except in specific older rifles. These are lesser but have a 'tumble effect' designed to injure people people and take resources of medics. It is argable that these are less effective the ak47 round, except it was replaced in about 1974 with some comparable round with the ak74. [not a typo].

The .22 mag is very specific and not used as much, I don't know that much about it, but it is a lesser common round for self-defense against homo-sapiens in revolvers and semi-autos.

The .22 lr is a cheap critter, fun and target round that is portable and low-powered round that has very little to do with the.223.

The .223 is designed to take out creature in the 150 pound range so it may work against wild boars but was designed to take out other humans. Real hunting rounds blow up skulls and watermelons.

Did I pass your exam?
 
2013-01-20 09:18:25 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:20:38 AM  

hasty ambush: JRoo: hasty ambush:

Using children to further your political goals?

I've been told that's like something Obama and Hitler would do.

You mean like taking guns


Did the scary man frighten you? Don't worry little one, no one is coming to take your toys. We just have some grown-up things to work out.

Take your guns, go play.
 
2013-01-20 09:20:40 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: If you ban 30rd. mags and I want to buy one, you have infringed on my right to bear that arm.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to 30 round magazines? It just says you have the right to bare arms in general.

You're making it sound like people are proposing to ban guns completely.

Now THAT would actually be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.


I don't know maybe the part that say " shall not be infringed"
 
2013-01-20 09:21:05 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:21:20 AM  

numb3r5ev3n: It's hard not to look down at folks who obviously harbor Red Dawn fantasies, and are willing to possibly endanger others for the sake of those fantasies. The problem is the gun business/gun lobby playing upon those fantasies in order to make a buck. The Red Dawn fantasies are unfortunately ingrained in our culture. The type of folks who keep bleating that we need access to high capacity magazines and assault weapons are not going to be convinced overnight (if at all) that we won't become a fascist dictatorship the very second gun reform is enacted - because a lot of them have been drinking the Kool-aid (via faux news, Free Republic, etc) that says we already are. They're not going to listen to anyone who tells them that other countries that have instituted assault weapons bans or full-on gun bans haven't imploded/become socialist/facist dictatorships, because in their minds, 'this is MURICA! goddammit.'


Those are government supported Red Dawn fantasies thank you very much. Or did you not know that there's a government created program that provides civilians with military weaponry, based on the premise that America Citizens were falling behind the killing potential curve.
 
2013-01-20 09:21:45 AM  

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 429x420]
[25.media.tumblr.com image 850x638]


She's doing it wrong.

And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?
 
2013-01-20 09:22:00 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Uncle Tractor,
What a tool made for killing might look like:

You could argue that second tool could could with put holes in a book report, a target, an unknown person in your home at 3am or anybody you don't like on a college campus. That is the tough part.

I would like to see that second tool used to punch holes in a book report, just because.

Any tool you don't know how to use effectively at the moment you need it is pretty useless.


crow202.org
 
2013-01-20 09:23:50 AM  

numb3r5ev3n: GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.

I am of two minds on this (as I am with most things.) But I do think assault weapons belong in the hands of the military, any any hunter who needs high-capacity magazines is a shiatty hunter.

It's hard not to look down at folks who obviously harbor Red Dawn fantasies, and are willing to possibly endanger others for the sake of those fantasies. The problem is the gun business/gun lobby playing upon those fantasies in order to make a buck. The Red Dawn fantasies are unfortunately ingrained in our culture. The type of folks who keep bleating that we need access to high capacity magazines and assault weapons are not going to be convinced overnight (if at all) that we won't become a fascist dictatorship the very second gun reform is enacted - because a lot of them have been drinking the Kool-aid (via faux news, Free Republic, etc) that says we already are. They're not going to listen to anyone who tells them that other countries that have instituted assault weapons bans or full-on gun bans haven't imploded/become socialist/facist dictatorships, because in their minds, 'this is MURICA! goddammit.'

A lot of these people are folks who are willing to believe that Sandy Hook is a 'ZOMG GUBMINT CONSPIRACEE' rather than face the fact that we have a real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

How do you reason with people like that?


Maybe some of those people think that tyranny can come from places besides the government, as in anarchy or from the mob (not the "Mob" proper). Maybe some people don't think a bunch of plutocrats and advocates of disarmament should have a say in how people choose to defend themselves, their families, and their property. If I want to own a gun for home defense, I don't want some gimped shotgun that the Brady Campaign has signed off on, I want an AK with two 30-rounders taped together. Maybe some of these people live far away from any police response, or think that the police have no obligation to provide any kind of protection. Maybe some of those people aren't afraid of Obama, despite his drone strikes and zealous continuation of George Bush's war on terror. Maybe they're afraid of who comes after who comes after Obama. Maybe people who oppose your gun control ideas (not really yours, but that's nit-picky) don't conform to your media-narrative stereotypes.
 
2013-01-20 09:24:56 AM  

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.

[dl.dropbox.com image 415x249]

You know how I know you know nothing of history?

Clinton not only led the fight to kill Glass Steagall, he also killed an attempt to regulate derivatives.  Here's the PBS Frontline episode detailing this.

Giving his Wall Street buddies exactly what they wanted has been very lucrative for Clinton.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.


OUCH!

That was a cold slap in the face.

Well done.
 
2013-01-20 09:25:25 AM  

dofus: And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?


Why? What's wrong with a telescopic sight on an AR? The angle's not so good, but it looks like the rifle might have one of the free-floated match barrels so it may be quite well-suited for precision shooting.

AR's are commonly used in all manner of shooting competitions, including the National Matches.
 
2013-01-20 09:25:26 AM  

Mrtraveler01: heili skrimsli: He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance

Except campus police.


Who, much like every other kind of police, can't possibly be everywhere. I don't know about where you went to university, but where I did, the university cops were almost never in any building other than the student union.

Enemabag Jones: In the case of critters, a .223/5.56 where you might want multiple rounds without a site required, the round is overkill.


They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.

Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.
 
2013-01-20 09:27:05 AM  
dofus,
hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 429x420]
[25.media.tumblr.com image 850x638]
She's doing it wrong.
And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?


Why not put an 18" barrel on that mug and you have a sniper rifle, which aka, could be called a hunting rifle.

/Not that it couldn't be replaced easily by a remington 700 by any other name.
 
2013-01-20 09:27:34 AM  

doglover: mksmith: You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.

You don't hunt people with them either. They're for target ranges and self defense. But self defense is so rare. I know a man who's owned a handgun of one kind or another for defense for 60 odd years and was a long haul trucker. He's never needed to use it. And violent crime rates were a lot higher back in his day. But our families have hung out and put a lot of holes in milk jugs together.

Guns aren't evil, people are.


hotdogprofits.com
 
2013-01-20 09:30:24 AM  
heili skrimsli ,
They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.
Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.

OK, I don't know about hunting in all regions of the country. Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?
 
2013-01-20 09:30:38 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: No one talks about the 'alcohol culture'. Why is that? If I own a gun, somehow Liberals think I'm a crazed monster. But it's cool if I go out drinking with friends.
There is a far, far greater greater chance that I could have one to many drinks, and kill someone with my car, then killing someone with a gun.


THIS^(6.02x10^23)
 
2013-01-20 09:30:51 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.

Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.

And people like you are why there can not be a reasonable debate. If I shoot and kill you, it's homicide. If I kill you with a car while driving drunk, it's a homicide. Both have the end result. Someone is dead.

2010 numbers:

Number of Gun Homicides: 11,078

People who died in drunk driving crashes: 10,228

Both numbers are far too great, and yet we are only aggressively addressing one of them.

I'm not seriously proposing a ban on alcohol. I'm making a point that there are other things out there killing people.
The public is fed crap by the media. The media makes a living selling crap. It's a lot scarier to hold up a gun and say it's a killing monster, then to hold up a bottle of vodka and say the same.

You apparently can't tell the difference between the use of an intoxicant to impair oneself and the use of a weapon to kill other people. Your analogy would be more sensible if you said you wanted to ban CARS because they are used to kill people. That would be stupid, but not as incoherent as comparing alcohol to guns.

And you compare drunk-driving homicide to gun homicide! Drunk driving is criminal even when no ...


And you join the list of fark morons.
 
2013-01-20 09:32:25 AM  

doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.


Why? He's not wrong, and most people agree with him.
 
2013-01-20 09:34:13 AM  

Enemabag Jones: IlGreven
...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.
The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.

I would never questions your understanding the United States Constitution. I am sure you are the utmost scholar. The phrase right to bear arms means unlimited ownership of gun, I would not question that. Anyone can drive, people with multiple DWI's, medical conditions, people don't have any restrictions with regard to wearing lenses.

fark it, sorry I brought it up.


Yes, I'm sure we'll be comforted by the fact that a small percentage of the population can't own guns, due to some arbitrary trait. Also happened in a European country about 80 years ago, where some mustachioed guy made that arbitrary trait practicing Judaism.

/Hey, he already gave up the argument, so it's not a Godwin.
 
2013-01-20 09:35:31 AM  

Enemabag Jones: The point .223/5.56, which are comparable except in specific older rifles. These are lesser but have a 'tumble effect' designed to injure people people and take resources of medics. It is argable that these are less effective the ak47 round, except it was replaced in about 1974 with some comparable round with the ak74. [not a typo].


The "tumble effect" is specific to the design of the particular bullet loaded into the cartridge. It is not universal to the .223/5.56 cartridge. The vast majority of .223 ammunition won't tumble unless you've been buying milsurp.

Enemabag Jones: The .22 mag is very specific and not used as much, I don't know that much about it, but it is a lesser common round for self-defense against homo-sapiens in revolvers and semi-autos.


The .22mag is very common in revolvers. It's not common in semi-autos because it's rimmed design makes feeding unreliable... unless your firearm is manufactured by Kel-Tec. It's not common for self defense because it's more expensive than the easier to find 9mm and way more expensive than common .22.

Enemabag Jones: The .22 lr is a cheap critter, fun and target round that is portable and low-powered round that has very little to do with the.223.


Low-powered enough that it's used to kill game animals, including deer, and happens to be one of the most commonly used rounds for criminal activity?

This is the problem we run into when people try to classify firearms base on perceived power. Get shot in the face with a .223 or a .22, you're still dead. Ask the kids at VT about that.

I always have a standing challenge for people that dismiss the lowly .22. Can I shoot you then? Appropriate waivers to be signed ahead of time of course.

Have yet to have anyone take me up on the offer...

Enemabag Jones: The .223 is designed to take out creature in the 150 pound range so it may work against wild boars but was designed to take out other humans. Real hunting rounds blow up skulls and watermelons.

j

A .45-70 will pass clean through a watermelon without causing it to explode, yet I doubt you will find many people that will say the .45-70 isn't a "hunting round". Violent expansion of water filled objects such as skulls or watermelons is a function of the velocity of the bullet and the shock wave it creates in a non-compressible substance (water). Slower velocity bullets won't create a shock wave... but will kill just as well.

BTW: A .223 round will detonate a watermelon just fine... so it must be a "real hunting round".... right?

Enemabag Jones: Did I pass your exam?


Not even close.
 
2013-01-20 09:36:31 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?


It's irrelevant: most states already impose magazine capacity limitations when hunting.

There's no functional difference between a Browning BAR with a 5-shot magazine or an AR with a 5-shot magazine when hunting. They both fire the same cartridge at the same velocity. The difference is merely one of appearance and ergonomic features (like an adjustable stock or different shaped grip).
 
2013-01-20 09:36:36 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 you asked so:

Collapsable stock
Pistol grip
flame suppressor thing (forgot the right name)
magazine too large
 
2013-01-20 09:38:00 AM  

Enemabag Jones: heili skrimsli ,
They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.
Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.

OK, I don't know about hunting in all regions of the country. Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?


There are already rules regarding magazine (clip is not the word you're looking for) capacity for hunting. Those are part of the Fish & Game Commission regulations, and have fark-all to do with whether or not I can buy 30 round magazines for other purposes that are not hunting.

Or are you suggesting that the right to keep and bear firearms only applies to those that can legally be used for hunting? Because if so, Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the SCOTUS disagree with you.
 
2013-01-20 09:38:19 AM  

Alphax: doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.

Why? He's not wrong, and most people agree with him.


Most gun manufacturers are privately owned, they don't have shareholders. The NRA is a user group, it's the definition of grassroots and is often at odds with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is the actual lobbying arm of manufacturers. Manufacturing is not "extremely profitable" in this country, even if what you're selling is in demand. Gun shops are profitable at the moment because of an artificial bubble, but they are normally just as profitable as any other specialty retailer.
 
2013-01-20 09:39:23 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


The stupid...it burns.
 
2013-01-20 09:39:56 AM  
All extremism is bad. Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts are both farked.

/later