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

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

16578 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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
 
2013-01-20 09:40:17 AM

heypete: 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.


Makes sense.
 
2013-01-20 09:40:45 AM
Yes, yes, why would we want to trivialize a bunch of pussies. Seriously, please find something better to do, hicks.

//my desire (not demand) for you to do something else is in no way, shape or form a violation of your 2nd amendment rights, and if you think it is, you aren't a pussy, you are a retarded pussy.
 
2013-01-20 09:41:04 AM
IlGreven ,
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.


Believe it or not I want to see the right of reasonable people to keep guns maintained. If assholes keep on blowing away grade schools with guns derived from the footprint of the mp-44 and the NRA is the only organization in the mix not giving an inch assholes in congress will find a way to remove it for a specific random set of people because the NRA would not give a farking inch for good people to keep them.

/If it comes down to say, per your example, Jews locked up in ghettos, or whatever, then the good people use the pistols to blow up our fellow countrymen in the back of their skulls because they chose the wrong side, then take their full auto weapons.
 
2013-01-20 09:41:43 AM

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


Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:00 AM

Click Click D'oh: The vast majority of .223 ammunition won't tumble unless you've been buying milsurp.


It also depends on the velocity of the round in question: .223/5.56mm has significantly lower velocity out of shorter-barreled firearms and doesn't fragment reliably. The M855 mil-spec ammo (which is widely available as cheap target practice ammo) is also considerably less fragmentation-prone than the older M193.

Commercial .223, as you've noted, essentially doesn't fragment at all.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:12 AM

Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.


Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes
 
2013-01-20 09:42:45 AM

JRoo: 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.


Funny how demmocrats seem to be taking a lot of time dealig with this rather than those "grown-up" things. Obama has managed to fast track action on gun control but still has not acted on the budget, fiscal cliff or unempolyment etc. Suddenly it has become a priority..

Long-Term Unemployment Highest Since WWII

Got ahead and trivialaize:

"An astonishing 25% of all voters voted primarily on the gun issue." --Connie Chung, CBS News, November 10, 1994.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
"Exit poll show data showed that more than a third of all voters who cast ballots Tuesday said they supported the National Rifle Association -- and two-thirds of those voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates." -- Washington Post, November 10, 1994, p. A33.

NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S.

Obama approval rating at 48%

Poll: Majority of Young People Considering Gun Ownership

So please go ahead and make guns an election issue.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:51 AM

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

Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.


How would you like to diagnose and manage this prohibition to the Mentally Ill?
 
2013-01-20 09:43:16 AM

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


By that rational, yo-yos are only meant to kill things, despite the fact that an entire economy has sprung up around yo-yos that are less good at killing things.
 
2013-01-20 09:43:48 AM
FTFA: the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states

I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.

I find it bizarre that people get to emotionally invested in this. The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life. But they're not. Hunting for food, and not game, can make that argument. But even then damn near no one needs to hunt in order to stay alive anymore.

Some people would say, "It's emotional because people are trying to deny them a constitutional right. Wouldn't you get mad if someone tried to take your rights away." Well, for one, no reasonable person is trying to remove all guns. And for two, although some genuinely do, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are emotional over their rights as a principle. It's the right of what that is the issue. Guns are the issue, calling it a rights fight is a vehicle to defend it. Like slavery in the civil war.

It's farking weird. People treat guns as a member of their family. The thing that makes the most sense to be is that they love the power rush that holding a gun gives them. They feel badass. They feel as if no one can get in their way. They have fantasies of someone trying to rob them and they'd be able to blow their head off and feel so damn powerful in the process. They love the feeling of walking up to a critter, or tin can, and destroying it with a single trigger press. Being able to put a hole in things makes them squirm with delight.

I can see how the thought of having that feeling removed can illicit an emotional response. But having that as the reason is so damn childish. And dangerous.
 
2013-01-20 09:43:51 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.


And the Republicans had absolutely no role in this. It's all Clinton's fault.
 
pc
2013-01-20 09:45:15 AM

doglover:

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.



media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:45:36 AM

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

...

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.

Makes sense.


It's also worth noting that if the "DELAY" response goes on for more than 3 days, the dealer has the right (if not the obligation) to sell you the gun anyway. That is a mitigation for the possibility of the government(s) in question interfering with due process by just never coming back with an answer.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:44 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.


There's an awful lot of extremists and fundamentalists, and you would agree, that's really what's gone wrong with the planet right now. It's the fundamentalists, whether they're right, left, center, whatever they are, if they're fundamentalists, they're dangerous. -Jane Goodall

This applies just as much to someone like you as it does the NRA.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:49 AM

TotesCrayCray: The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life.


They're afraid that they may need to defend themselves one day, and so they desire the tools to do so.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.

Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes


I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants.  Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.  That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.
 
2013-01-20 09:46:30 AM

heypete: 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.


A bench-rest scope is not the same as your generic telescopic sight. For one thing, a decent one costs more than the rifle. Usually a lot more.

It's had to tell from the picture what the scope really is since there is so much cheap junk made to look like the real thing.
 
2013-01-20 09:46:37 AM
Culture? i guess we can call pork rinds and kool aid culture.. sure, if you want.
 
2013-01-20 09:49:12 AM

Enemabag Jones: If assholes keep on blowing away grade schools with guns derived from the footprint of the mp-44


Ah, that's the thing. Have assholes shot up schools, theaters, malls, and other public places? Yes.

However, with few exceptions (like Newtown and Aurora [until the gun jammed]), most of the mass shooters have used handguns. The use of rifles in any firearm-related crime is very rare, and the use of so-called "assault weapons" is even less common: according to FBI statistics and Senator Feinstein's own numbers "assault weapons" are used in only 0.6% of all firearm-related homicide. This number has decreased year-over-year for decades. Indeed, firearm-related homicides rates are at their lowest level since 1964.

Does that mean that mass shootings should be trivialized? No, of course not. However, claiming that "assault weapons" are somehow more often used in crime (even rare crimes like mass shootings) simply isn't supported by the facts.
 
2013-01-20 09:49:45 AM

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

Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.

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


A national registry of people who are mentally ill, duh. But there already is one: The NRA member list.
 
2013-01-20 09:52:44 AM

IlGreven: 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.


While on principle I agree with you... there is a vast difference between practicing a faith and a mental disorder that puts society at risk if certain people are allowed to have weapons that can kill allot of people quite efficiently. I think (hope) you are intelligent to know this. The test of one's mental stability would have to be formulated by a panel of both pro and anti gun people and would determine the exact mental disorder(s) to ban from having a gun. Personally, I think anyone who has any of the following conditions should not own a gun:

Intermittent Explosive Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder (also called psychopath or sociopath)

The list is not all inclusive or extensive in any way obviously, but this still only accounts for a small portion... it seems that the most prominent trait among all mass murderers, according to what i have read, are actually societal problems, for example:

withdrawal from society, alienation, bullying, lack of emotion and empathy (big one)

That is kind of hard to track... so how do we remedy that? I don't think it's possible without violating damn near every right an individual has.
 
2013-01-20 09:52:58 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...


This is the point I have been trying to make with the gun-grabbers (for lack of a better term), just not as articulate in my argument as Bill. Still amazes me that the left has not learned most of the people in this country don't like extremism one way or the other. All or nothing policy with zero regard for the other sides beliefs (or lack of) does not work anymore.
 
2013-01-20 09:53:07 AM

jake_lex: Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.

Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes

I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants.  Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.  That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


I was against those, too.
 
2013-01-20 09:55:18 AM
Let's fully legalize cannabis. (a) More would-be crazies are sedentary instead of acting like Yosemite Sam while high. Reduced carnage. (b) The black market for it is curtailed. For a lot of people, weed is all they'd need, and fewer gang-banging activities would be supported with money. Reduced carnage. (c) I could go to the store on Friday and get pot instead of alcohol to unwind on the weekends. Reduced carnage.

I am convinced that the way to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries is to reduce existing crazy people from acting crazy. Let them get high. Let me get high, too, without having to enter the criminal arena to obtain it.
/tipping point is near, Nixon-voters are dying off one by one
 
2013-01-20 09:55:47 AM

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

it's slightly better than "cracker culture".


You should see the amount of non-whites at the shooting range I go to.
 
2013-01-20 09:56:05 AM
heili skrimsli ,
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.


I don't know what Article 1, of PA and SCOTUS refer to. I think 30 round mags are legally and ethically in play.

heypete,
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).


I agree with you, if nothing else get a mini-14. Put new furniture on it if you want to make it more taticool. Little difference between an ar15 and mini 14 when it comes to gunning down people. Hell, some segment of the military went back to an enhanced mini-14 over the m4 recently.

Click Click D'oh,
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.

Let me know when a .22 lr is approved by the hunting community for shooting deer. And assassins love the .22 round. Confused with the .25 and like to bounce around at the proper range.

Don't quote specific exceptions to me.
 
2013-01-20 09:57:55 AM

dofus: A bench-rest scope is not the same as your generic telescopic sight. For one thing, a decent one costs more than the rifle. Usually a lot more.

It's had to tell from the picture what the scope really is since there is so much cheap junk made to look like the real thing.


Fair enough. I generally prefer red dot sights on stuff used for shorter range (e.g. my .22LR rifle, one of my shorter ARs, etc.) and Leupold scopes on the longer-range stuff. Life's too short to deal with cheap crap.

jake_lex: If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.


Hi there. I'm a member of the NRA, the EFF, and the ACLU. I routinely write my congressmen about issues relating to individual rights and liberties. I'm all for gay marriage (it shouldn't even need that qualifier, as it should just be called "marriage"), oppose the TSA and their nude-o-scopes, am outspoken against warrantless wiretapping and internet snooping, and think the DHS is a massive risk to liberty. I've been encouraging my congressmen to repeal the PATRIOT ACT and other outrageous laws for years.

/doesn't really fit into any particular political category
 
2013-01-20 09:58:24 AM
I agree with the ex-prez. The guns are already out there, and almost everyone that owns one doesn't go murdering schools of children.
Gun control is a picket fence trying to stop a storm surge.
What we need to do is create more employment, get rid of the crazy war on drug users, and start talking to our kids.
Look at it this way, who's going to invade the US, knowing that every person here will shoot you? I, personally, like the reputation we have around the world. We're the crazy drunk muttering to himself at the end of the bar.
 
2013-01-20 09:58:41 AM

TotesCrayCray: FTFA: the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states

I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.

I find it bizarre that people get to emotionally invested in this. The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life. But they're not. Hunting for food, and not game, can make that argument. But even then damn near no one needs to hunt in order to stay alive anymore.

Some people would say, "It's emotional because people are trying to deny them a constitutional right. Wouldn't you get mad if someone tried to take your rights away." Well, for one, no reasonable person is trying to remove all guns. And for two, although some genuinely do, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are emotional over their rights as a principle. It's the right of what that is the issue. Guns are the issue, calling it a rights fight is a vehicle to defend it. Like slavery in the civil war.

It's farking weird. People treat guns as a member of their family. The thing that makes the most sense to be is that they love the power rush that holding a gun gives them. They feel badass. They feel as if no one can get in their way. They have fantasies of someone trying to rob them and they'd be able to blow their head off and feel so damn powerful in the process. They love the feeling of walking up to a critter, or tin can, and destroying it with a single trigger press. Being able to put a hole in things makes them squirm with delight.

I can see how the thought of having that feeling removed can illicit an emotional response. But having that as the reason is so damn childish. And da ...


And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).
 
2013-01-20 10:00:11 AM
jake_lex

I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants. Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up. That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


I will patiently await the responses to your question.
 
2013-01-20 10:00:33 AM

jake_lex: If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up. That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


Amen!

'Course you could also demand that the politicians start doing their job instead of perpetuating the colossal circle jerk that's been going on for far too long.
 
2013-01-20 10:00:49 AM

Enemabag Jones: I don't know what Article 1, of PA and SCOTUS refer to. I think 30 round mags are legally and ethically in play.


They both state that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to those that are used for hunting game. You want to make a good case, with actual evidence, as to why banning 30 round magazines is necessary, go for it.

It's not incumbent upon me to prove that I do need them. It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.
 
2013-01-20 10:02:16 AM

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.


Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes


What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?

Serious question is serious.

Study it out.
 
2013-01-20 10:02:17 AM

Enemabag Jones: I agree with you, if nothing else get a mini-14. Put new furniture on it if you want to make it more taticool. Little difference between an ar15 and mini 14 when it comes to gunning down people. Hell, some segment of the military went back to an enhanced mini-14 over the m4 recently.


The M14 is hardly an "enhanced Mini-14". It's sort of the other way around: the Mini-14 is derived from the M14, but that's neither here nor there. The military is using M14s in 7.62mm NATO because of their longer reach and higher power compared to the 5.56mm NATO ammo used in the M16 -- the M14 makes a great "designated marksman" rifle.

My interest isn't in "gunning down people". I'm more interested in having a highly-modular rifle for sport and competition. While changing the furniture on the Mini-14 is relatively easy, changing calibers and other features isn't. The AR has a lot more options in that regard, is more modular, and easy to customize and maintain without the need for a gunsmith.
 
2013-01-20 10:02:55 AM

heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.


Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.
 
2013-01-20 10:03:14 AM

TotesCrayCray: I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.


I would have said this same thing until recently. I grew up in the cities where the government has something to say about pretty much everything I do - eating, recreation, sleeping, traveling, working, etc. Most people in the US have certain freedoms - including, importantly, the freedom to change their government - but that's a different type of freedom.

In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether they're right, but it's still a reasonable and rational position.

What I will say is that, as someone who is going to look like an easy target for criminals in remote parts of the country with little government presence for an extender period of time, it bothers me emotionally (more than I thought it would) that I might not have any recourse for protection.
 
2013-01-20 10:04:41 AM

heili skrimsli: Enemabag Jones: I don't know what Article 1, of PA and SCOTUS refer to. I think 30 round mags are legally and ethically in play.

They both state that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to those that are used for hunting game. You want to make a good case, with actual evidence, as to why banning 30 round magazines is necessary, go for it.

It's not incumbent upon me to prove that I do need them. It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.


Agreed. Give this man a rocket launcher.

//dude, everything is arbitrary, if you think banning 30 round mags is a restriction of liberty, you obviously have never thought about how much other crap is restricted, like what you can do with cars, alcohol, etc, etc. I.E., you'll get over it.
 
2013-01-20 10:05:58 AM
I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:40 AM

CADMonkey79: And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).


Daww. Aren't you just a cute little snarker. I'm not afraid of them. I don't own any guns but I've shot them. Lately I do most of my target shooting with my bow, but I'm looking at picking up a rifle for that. Hell, at one point the only reason I didn't take up the offer to visit a coworker at his rural home to fire off a Barrett 50 cal rifle was because I was concerned with him. He was ex military with PTSD and anger issues and he refused to get help for either. I really wanted to shoot that gun, though.

Anywho, I'm not afraid of them. But good job on your strawman and ad hominem there.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:57 AM

jofny: In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.


Are you serious?
 
2013-01-20 10:07:28 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).


Plenty of rational gun owners have spoke about what they think might work. I have posted in numerous threads about things I think would be reasonable. At this point I don't think people want rationale gun owners to exist, it's easier to argue against the crazed tea-tard gun-nut.

I think all of Obama's executive actions seem reasonable.

I do not think capacity limits or banning certain types of guns are as easily seen as reasonable. I feel that the AWB type legislation does nothing to address the lethality of weapons, it only address cosmetic features, without banning semi-automatic weapons there is nothing you can do about that. I think banning semi-automatic weapons would be unconstitutional and a reach into infringing on individual rights for a very small gain in social safety.

Capacity limits would address lethality to some degree. I would agree on a mag capacity limit of 30 or even 20. That, to me retains my ability to feel safe having enough ammunition for a home invasion type scenario, although the chance of that is close to zero. But it would get rid of drum mags and surefire mags of 50 and 100 rounds, that to me are only legitimately useful for military use in suppressive fire.

I think there should be a background check for every gun transfer, i.e. closing the "gun show loophole."

I think felons and those with unstable mental conditions should not have access to guns. I think people should be required to keep their guns in a safe when they are not under their immediate supervision or use. ( A gun in the nightstand is in use.) I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.

All this comes from somebody that is otherwise what would be considered liberal and has voted for Obama twice now.
 
2013-01-20 10:08:15 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.



The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.
 
2013-01-20 10:08:47 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.

But that being said, I still think people should be able to own guns even if I think they stand no chance against the US Government.
 
2013-01-20 10:09:28 AM
HindiDiscoMonster ,
While on principle I agree with you... there is a vast difference between practicing a faith and a mental disorder that puts society at risk if certain people are allowed to have weapons that can kill allot of people quite efficiently. I think (hope) you are intelligent to know this. The test of one's mental stability would have to be formulated by a panel of both pro and anti gun people and would determine the exact mental disorder(s) to ban from having a gun. Personally, I think anyone who has any of the following conditions should not own a gun:
Intermittent Explosive Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder (also called psychopath or sociopath)
The list is not all inclusive or extensive in any way obviously, but this still only accounts for a small portion... it seems that the most prominent trait among all mass murderers, according to what i have read, are actually societal problems, for example:
withdrawal from society, alienation, bullying, lack of emotion and empathy (big one)
That is kind of hard to track... so how do we remedy that? I don't think it's possible without violating damn near every right an individual has.


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

But if someone in control to say no can't see this or that below, then they are smart enough to pass anyway. Short of taking all guns away from everyone.

Then it becomes either people with a specific criminal record can't own guns, or people will be subject to an objective third party, psychologist or lie detector test of some type, to sort out the crazies.

Link

Link
 
2013-01-20 10:09:45 AM

Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.


Who are we talking about again?
 
2013-01-20 10:10:54 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.

But that being said, I still think people should be able to own guns even if I think they stand no chance against the US Government.


I think the best reason for them to own guns is for them to take on the US Government.... and lose.

//I'll take "2nd Amendment as a Darwinian tool" for $400, Bill.
 
2013-01-20 10:11:36 AM

manimal2878: I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.


Background checks can be completed near-instantly now. It's not like someone has to go rooting through documents in some archive somewhere, it's all computerized and has been for years.

Is there any evidence that waiting periods have any real effect on reducing firearm-related deaths?
 
2013-01-20 10:11:51 AM

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


Please cite the part of the 2nd amendment that explains that the purpose is for hunting.

GAT_00: And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


Since Sandy Hook there have been 8109 deaths... from alcohol. Let us know when you're willing to attack everyone's freedom to drink.
 
2013-01-20 10:12:12 AM

Mr. Right: 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 oursel ...


It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th. Seems to me you phony patriots are really just concerned about maintaining your fantasy of some day getting to kill someone. if its not about hunting and its not about protecting person and property.. and it really is all about defending against tyrrany.. then i need an F-16. oh and an Abrahms tank.. and maybe on of those humvees with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on top. The brilliance of our constitution is that it set up a system of government that effectively allows for the people to defend against tyranny and bring about radical change in the government without there being even a drop of blood shed.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:17 AM

manimal2878: [Good Ideas]


Yup. I'd throw in mandatory recertification and registration for all semi-autos, but that's the only change I'd make.
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:14:39 AM
I'm starting to think that all this gun control hype is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.

How many times during the election did you hear people say, Obama doesn't want gun control, all you guys who think he's anti gun are just paranoid. How many D voters are going to vote R during the midterms and next presidential election now that Obama's made this stupid aggressive grab at gun control? If he'd done this before the election, he'd have lost.

Clinton remembers that after the 1994 federal assault weapon ban the Democrats lost control of Congress for an entire decade.

Obama's not going to get the ban he wants. He's already failed. At most, they'll pass a law to require all person-to-person transfers to go through a dealer for a background check. But even with that, he's reminded everybody that Democrats desperately want gun control ... and it's going to hurt his party.

How ironic it would be if all this Democrat momentum (fueled by shiatty Republican candidates) the last 4-5 years was pissed away by the Democrats themselves with this stupid, shrill, doomed-to-fail push for gun control. Kind of brings a smile to my face. But then I kind of like watching stupid people shoot their own feet.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:50 AM
heypete,,
The M14 is hardly an "enhanced Mini-14". It's sort of the other way around: the Mini-14 is derived from the M14, but that's neither here nor there. The military is using M14s in 7.62mm NATO because of their longer reach and higher power compared to the 5.56mm NATO ammo used in the M16 -- the M14 makes a great "designated marksman" rifle.
My interest isn't in "gunning down people". I'm more interested in having a highly-modular rifle for sport and competition. While changing the furniture on the Mini-14 is relatively easy, changing calibers and other features isn't. The AR has a lot more options in that regard, is more modular, and easy to customize and maintain without the need for a gunsmith.


I think I had read the mini-14 has been re-introduced in dessert environment for being more robust in specific missions. But I don't know the specifics behind that.

I hope responsible people like you would be able to keep that gun.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:59 AM

heypete: manimal2878: I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.

Background checks can be completed near-instantly now. It's not like someone has to go rooting through documents in some archive somewhere, it's all computerized and has been for years.

Is there any evidence that waiting periods have any real effect on reducing firearm-related deaths?


No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.

//if it doesn't solve the problem immediately on its own.... get the f*ck rid of it!
///most firearm related studies are too narrow in scope and don't take into effect all the other variables that could be the cause of trending changes, so some asshole could see an increase in deaths correlated with when waiting periods went into effect, and viola, they actually come to my original sarcastic conclusion, yet they're serious about it.
 
2013-01-20 10:15:45 AM

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

Good.  Now how does that apply to the issue at hand?


I think many people deeply involved in "gun culture" are mentally ill.

Clear enough for you now?
 
2013-01-20 10:15:53 AM

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


"Give in inch" in what way?

I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.

Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.
 
2013-01-20 10:16:14 AM

violentsalvation: vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


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

Same with airplanes, I guess.


Guess again.
 
2013-01-20 10:16:42 AM

violentsalvation: 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.


THIS
 
2013-01-20 10:17:03 AM

drp: I'm starting to think that all this gun control hype is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.

How many times during the election did you hear people say, Obama doesn't want gun control, all you guys who think he's anti gun are just paranoid. How many D voters are going to vote R during the midterms and next presidential election now that Obama's made this stupid aggressive grab at gun control? If he'd done this before the election, he'd have lost.

Clinton remembers that after the 1994 federal assault weapon ban the Democrats lost control of Congress for an entire decade.

Obama's not going to get the ban he wants. He's already failed. At most, they'll pass a law to require all person-to-person transfers to go through a dealer for a background check. But even with that, he's reminded everybody that Democrats desperately want gun control ... and it's going to hurt his party.

How ironic it would be if all this Democrat momentum (fueled by shiatty Republican candidates) the last 4-5 years was pissed away by the Democrats themselves with this stupid, shrill, doomed-to-fail push for gun control. Kind of brings a smile to my face. But then I kind of like watching stupid people shoot their own feet.


I don't have enough energy to pick apart everything that was incorrect with this post. I put it back on you, poster, to find it in your heart to hate yourself for unleashing such derp on humanity.
 
2013-01-20 10:17:03 AM

TotesCrayCray: CADMonkey79: And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).

Daww. Aren't you just a cute little snarker. I'm not afraid of them. I don't own any guns but I've shot them. Lately I do most of my target shooting with my bow, but I'm looking at picking up a rifle for that. Hell, at one point the only reason I didn't take up the offer to visit a coworker at his rural home to fire off a Barrett 50 cal rifle was because I was concerned with him. He was ex military with PTSD and anger issues and he refused to get help for either. I really wanted to shoot that gun, though.

Anywho, I'm not afraid of them. But good job on your strawman and ad hominem there.


How is that a strawman exactly? Are you saying that you don't think there is a large percentage of the gun control proponents that do not have an irrational fear of guns? Also, your frame a reference for your previous email is one wingnut you happen to know that lives in the country?
 
2013-01-20 10:18:30 AM

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

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


How the hell is a yo-yo meant to kill people? Is there some history of yo-yo yielding gangs roaming the streets? What you're saying lacks even the slightest bit of logic
 
2013-01-20 10:18:45 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.



And what was the function of a local militia when not fighting France, Spain and Britain? I believe they were voluntary and unpaid, so it wasn't a dole for unemployed men like the National Guard in France.

Their job was to disperse any Indians still around (unless they were armed Indians, in which case Federal troops would be called in) and to supress slave revolts (unless they were armed slave revolts, in which case Federal troops would be called in).

So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?

Because how would an unarmed lynch mob work, exactly?
 
2013-01-20 10:19:19 AM

Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.

Who are we talking about again?



Ladies and gentlemen, your President has turned off the fasten chains light. You are free to move around the plantation."
 
2013-01-20 10:20:44 AM

Mrtraveler01: jofny: In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.

Are you serious?


Quite. Poorly written with one eye still closed from sleep, but there really are large legitimate swaths of culture in the US that strongly differ on the role of government - and where the presence and influence of the government is felt less than elsewhere - and guns are one of the material rights at play in those differences.

Also, to reiterate, if you've ever been in a position in the US, in unsafe circumstances, for a long period of time, where you don't have state power (law enforcement) only a few miles away to assist you or protect you, you would probably feel emotionally different about your gun rights.
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:21:05 AM

LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th.


Every libertarian in the country just waved.

Republicans like to trample the 1st & 4th, Democrats get excited about trampling the 2nd. Two sides to the same coin.


http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Too bad he didn't win the election.
 
2013-01-20 10:21:19 AM

doglover: Target shooting is a thing in and of itself, and more than enough fun to justify legal firearms.


I'd say "fetishist" is a more accurate term than "gun nut".

Interestingly, the NRA hates video games because they compete with guns.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:15 AM

macadamnut: Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.


And what was the function of a local militia when not fighting France, Spain and Britain? I believe they were voluntary and unpaid, so it wasn't a dole for unemployed men like the National Guard in France.

Their job was to disperse any Indians still around (unless they were armed Indians, in which case Federal troops would be called in) and to supress slave revolts (unless they were armed slave revolts, in which case Federal troops would be called in).

So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?

Because how would an unarmed lynch mob work, exactly?


I'm not following your point.

Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.

Who are we talking about again?


Ladies and gentlemen, your President has turned off the fasten chains light. You are free to move around the plantation."


And I have no idea where you're going with that either.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:21 AM
adamgreeney
How the hell is a yo-yo meant to kill people? Is there some history of yo-yo yielding gangs roaming the streets? What you're saying lacks even the slightest bit of logic.


Have you have not heard about the new assault razor yo-yo trend in gangs?
 
2013-01-20 10:22:35 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.


Why should we fear "foreign invaders"?

I mean, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that our form of government is somehow better than that which they would impose on us is?
 
2013-01-20 10:22:37 AM

vernonFL: Every time I've been to a gun range, most of the people there are either current or former law enforcement or military.


Yet another excellent reason to cut military spending.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:51 AM

coeyagi: No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.


I didn't imply that it did. I apologize for any confusion.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if a waiting period had any effect at all.

I'm simply saying that while the intention behind a waiting period may be good, that's no assurance that it would have any effect at all. I'd love to see some meaningful studies done on such subjects, as I think it'd allow people to focus more intently on solutions that would actually have an effect rather than "feel-good" measures that don't really accomplish much -- see New York's recent law that prohibits new magazines over 7 rounds. You can still keep 10-round magazines but are only allowed to legally put 7 rounds into them...as if criminals would really bother with that.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:08 AM
Now that you got the right on the ropes you want to give them an issue to gain traction and reform the base?

Are you shiatting me?

Look ahead people. How much health care reform and other social issues are you willing to sacrifice for a law that won't keep a single gun out of the hand of a single criminal?

This will be a rally point like gay marriage was 9 years ago.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:24 AM

drp: LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th.

Every libertarian in the country just waved.

Republicans like to trample the 1st & 4th, Democrats get excited about trampling the 2nd. Two sides to the same coin.


http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Too bad he didn't win the election.


Too bad he embraced Paul Ryan's abortion of a budget plan or else more people would've taken him more seriously.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:40 AM

CADMonkey79: How is that a strawman exactly? Are you saying that you don't think there is a large percentage of the gun control proponents that do not have an irrational fear of guns? Also, your frame a reference for your previous email is one wingnut you happen to know that lives in the country?


What in the bloody hell are you talking about? For one, what non owners think about guns is completely irrelevant to the emotional attachment that owners have to their guns. It has NO bearing on the point in hand.

And what? I was saying that I have no problem with guns and even wanted to get my hands on a BFG. But I didn't. Not because the gun was scary but because the owner was scary. Also, show me where I said that all gun owners are like him. Since I also said that I don't personally own any gun then that means that when I shot them in the past I used the ones owned by actual owners. Owners, who I had no problem with.

You seem like you're in full on derp mode here, friend. If you don't make sense in your next post I'm not going to respond anymore.
 
2013-01-20 10:27:49 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


which is why the 2nd was repealed once slavery was outlawed....

oh wait...
 
2013-01-20 10:28:09 AM

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

"Give in inch" in what way?

I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.

Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.


Unfortunately the NRA is painting all gun owners in a poor light because they're not exactly acting concerned about gun violence, just selling guns. And since they're the loudest voice on the matter, that's all a lot of people hear. While I agree with your point about the ACLU, you'll note we have put limits on free speech. Our rights are not absolute. I, for one, wish the NRA would come forth with reasonable gun-control legislation and encourage its members to get on board. If bans won't work, that's fine, but at least put forth something reasonable.
 
2013-01-20 10:28:10 AM

macadamnut: So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?


I think we can thank John Wilkes Boothe for the survival of this and some other antiquated bits of the constitution.
 
2013-01-20 10:29:18 AM

LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.


So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

Not my problem.

coeyagi: Agreed. Give this man a rocket launcher.

//dude, everything is arbitrary, if you think banning 30 round mags is a restriction of liberty, you obviously have never thought about how much other crap is restricted, like what you can do with cars, alcohol, etc, etc. I.E., you'll get over it.


Wow, people get downright indignant at the idea that they need to prove that banning something is actually necessary. I've thought about all of those things, and I still think that the people who want more laws that ban more things need to prove why those laws and those bans are necessary, especially when they apply to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
2013-01-20 10:29:52 AM

Amos Quito: What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?


*Me! Me!*

(raises hand)

The best safeguard against tyranny is an informed population, as opposed to an infromed one.

i560.photobucket.com

/god that font is ugly
 
2013-01-20 10:30:15 AM
heypete
Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.
"Give in inch" in what way?
I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.
Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.


I disagree with you on magazine sizes. The 'assault weapon', when it comes to crazed fruit-loops gunning down grade schools, they will shift to the next best thing, a mini-14 or an sks with detachable mag, which is meters better then what other have in a school or office.

I guess we don't disagree that much.
 
2013-01-20 10:32:20 AM

heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?


No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
2013-01-20 10:32:29 AM

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

Please cite the part of the 2nd amendment that explains that the purpose is for hunting.


What part of my post led you to think I was saying the 2nd amendment was about hunting?
 
2013-01-20 10:32:34 AM

heypete: coeyagi: No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.

I didn't imply that it did. I apologize for any confusion.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if a waiting period had any effect at all.

I'm simply saying that while the intention behind a waiting period may be good, that's no assurance that it would have any effect at all. I'd love to see some meaningful studies done on such subjects, as I think it'd allow people to focus more intently on solutions that would actually have an effect rather than "feel-good" measures that don't really accomplish much -- see New York's recent law that prohibits new magazines over 7 rounds. You can still keep 10-round magazines but are only allowed to legally put 7 rounds into them...as if criminals would really bother with that.


I am not advocating for more gun rights or gun control, and I come in here to attack both sides who think that gun laws of any sort are going to solve anything. Again, for the 1000th time, my 4 pillars of reducing gun violence, in no particular order:

1) Deal with sensationalization of these crimes
2) Deal with the gun trade
3) Deal with "gun culture"
4) Deal with mental health

The gun culture piece is actually the toughest of the 4. We glorify guns in this culture. Other countries that use guns for hunting or other legal means do not glorify guns. They don't talk incessantly about guns like it's their wooden / metal / plastic dick. Don't f*cking fool yourselves - guns were invented to kill things, and as long as you accept that awesome power that a gun holds, you understand the awesome responsibility you have as a user of said firearm. Here, though we collect them, we post on Facebook every 20 minutes about them, we go to gun shows every month, we go to gun dinners held by the NRA, we have movies that glorify them, we constantly look through catalogs for accessories. Other places, they respect the gun and use it when necessary, but they don't look upon guns as the f*cking end all, be all of existence.
 
2013-01-20 10:33:10 AM

coeyagi: heypete: coeyagi: No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.

I didn't imply that it did. I apologize for any confusion.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if a waiting period had any effect at all.

I'm simply saying that while the intention behind a waiting period may be good, that's no assurance that it would have any effect at all. I'd love to see some meaningful studies done on such subjects, as I think it'd allow people to focus more intently on solutions that would actually have an effect rather than "feel-good" measures that don't really accomplish much -- see New York's recent law that prohibits new magazines over 7 rounds. You can still keep 10-round magazines but are only allowed to legally put 7 rounds into them...as if criminals would really bother with that.

I am not advocating for more gun rights or gun control, and I come in here to attack both sides who think that gun laws of any sort are going to solve anything. Again, for the 1000th time, my 4 pillars of reducing gun violence, in no particular order:

1) Deal with sensationalization of these crimes
2) Deal with the drug trade
3) Deal with "gun culture"
4) Deal with mental health

The gun culture piece is actually the toughest of the 4. We glorify guns in this culture. Other countries that use guns for hunting or other legal means do not glorify guns. They don't talk incessantly about guns like it's their wooden / metal / plastic dick. Don't f*cking fool yourselves - guns were invented to kill things, and as long as you accept that awesome power that a gun holds, you understand the awesome responsibility you have as a user of said firearm. Here, though we collect them, we post on Facebook every 20 minutes about them, we go to gun shows every month, we go to gun dinners held by the NRA, we have movies that glorify them, we constantly look through catalogs for accessories. Other places, they respect the gun and use it when necessary, but they don't look upon guns as the f*cking end all, ...


FTFM
 
2013-01-20 10:33:53 AM

LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.


I don't consider my Constitutional rights to be tiny things. I'm sorry that you do.
 
2013-01-20 10:34:22 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?


Or lived in Chicago.
 
2013-01-20 10:35:09 AM

heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't consider my Constitutional rights to be tiny things. I'm sorry that you do.


I'm not talking about your right to own a gun. I'm talking about having to get by with a smaller magazine when you want a larger one. I think you're being extremely dramatic and overblown about it.
 
2013-01-20 10:35:18 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

which is why the 2nd was repealed once slavery was outlawed....

oh wait...

www.secretsofthefed.com
 
2013-01-20 10:36:06 AM
Says guns are the problem and that the citizens don't need them.

webpages.charter.net

Sends his kids to school protected by lots of guns. Has a vacant house in Chicago protected by guns. Owns guns.
 
2013-01-20 10:36:09 AM

Mrtraveler01: And I have no idea where you're going with that either.


Probably something to do with Jews.
 
2013-01-20 10:36:20 AM

heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't consider my Constitutional rights to be tiny things. I'm sorry that you do.


The 2nd Amendment also wasn't put in there so you could buy any weapon your little heart desires. If the government was trying to make guns in general illegal, then you'd have a point. But no one is seriously considering that.

Sorry but stuff like this comes off a cheesy and corny to me.
 
2013-01-20 10:36:25 AM

smitty04: 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?

Or lived in Chicago.


You're saying a drug dealer has no greater need for a gun than the average owner? Know how I know neither you or the previous poster thought this through?
 
2013-01-20 10:36:47 AM

TotesCrayCray: CADMonkey79: How is that a strawman exactly? Are you saying that you don't think there is a large percentage of the gun control proponents that do not have an irrational fear of guns? Also, your frame a reference for your previous email is one wingnut you happen to know that lives in the country?

What in the bloody hell are you talking about? For one, what non owners think about guns is completely irrelevant to the emotional attachment that owners have to their guns. It has NO bearing on the point in hand.

And what? I was saying that I have no problem with guns and even wanted to get my hands on a BFG. But I didn't. Not because the gun was scary but because the owner was scary. Also, show me where I said that all gun owners are like him. Since I also said that I don't personally own any gun then that means that when I shot them in the past I used the ones owned by actual owners. Owners, who I had no problem with.

You seem like you're in full on derp mode here, friend. If you don't make sense in your next post I'm not going to respond anymore.


You questioned the emotional connection people have to guns and I equated irrational fear that those on the other side of the argument seem to have. Point being both sides have "emotions" about the issue and they are not just limited to the crazy rural gun nuts. You called that a strawman, which now seems to be the go to line when someone makes a valid point these days or maybe just a point they don't understand.

So what you are saying is you like gun owners and you don't mind them having guns, you just don't understand why the like guns and have them. Got it.
 
2013-01-20 10:37:55 AM

LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't consider my Constitutional rights to be tiny things. I'm sorry that you do.

I'm not talking about your right to own a gun. I'm talking about having to get by with a smaller magazine when you want a larger one. I think you're being extremely dramatic and overblown about it.


Typical gun nut philosophy: I have rights, damn it, and they can't be regulated! If you regulate that right, it's no longer a right!

Tards, the lot of 'em.
 
2013-01-20 10:39:48 AM

Mrtraveler01: The 2nd Amendment also wasn't put in there so you could buy any weapon your little heart desires. If the government was trying to make guns in general illegal, then you'd have a point. But no one is seriously considering that.

Sorry but stuff like this comes off a cheesy and corny to me.


Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:40:13 AM

coeyagi: I don't have enough energy to pick apart everything that was incorrect with this post. I put it back on you, poster, to find it in your heart to hate yourself for unleashing such derp on humanity.


Obama waited until after he was re-elected to open the gun control debate precisely because he knew how poisonous it is to his party.

He doesn't have the votes in the House to pass anything sweeping. It's wasted effort that hurts his party. Clinton is a smart guy; he gets it. He recognizes the political risk.

You really think this won't mobilize the right? It already has. Whatever you think of the NRA, 250K new members in a month says something about motivation. States like Florida and Virginia have a lot of moderate and independent voters, and very permissive gun laws, because that's what most residents of those states want. How many of them voted for Obama last November because they felt comfortable that he wouldn't support more gun control? How many will break the other way next election?

In contrast, how many Romney voters do you think will break away and vote D next time because they agree with Obama's push for gun control?

Midterm elections tend to go toward the party not in the White House. House districts have a Republican bias; the R majority in the House is forseeably secure for a few election cycles, though demographic changes may overtake them in the long run if they continue to cling to anti-minority and anti-immigration policies.

The GOP has been in total disarray for a few years now. Clinton recognizes that reopening this issue has potential to give them some life. Why don't you?
 
2013-01-20 10:41:17 AM
I know most of you won't believe this, but I am a middle of the ground independent. I voted on Democrats this last election because of the rhetoric the republicans used to debate gay marriage and abortions. I do not like being told I am godless, evil, a murderer, or anti-american because I feel people deserve civil rights, all people. I do not like being called names when I suggest that maybe the government has no business deciding who does and doesn't love each other enough to get married.

The same goes for gun control. I will now vote independent or republican based on how you insufferable coonts behaved in the gun debate. Not a single Democrat has behaved like a civilized person. Asking me why I hate children is no less then republicans asking me why I hate freedom. Saying that I have a small penis because I believe individuals have a right to home and self defense on equal terms with an attacker is no different then republicans saying that I am a godless evil because I do not care what the bible says about gay marriage. I hope this entire little crusade of emotional insanity based on fabrications was worth democratic seats and political positions, because I am willing to bet a large portion of individuals now feel the same way as I do.

My only hope is that we can cast off both extremes, ultra-libs and neo-conservatives, and tell you both to fark off. maybe get a good middle ground common sense type of government that does not rush to the raving opinions of people so afraid of noisy guns that they would waiver rights, and be rid of politicians that make political decisions based on 2000 year old jew dogma. A political party that thinks every human has a right to defend himself, on equal terms and power, with a firearm. A political party that believes maybe god should stay out of government and we stop trying to legislate morality and utopia.
 
2013-01-20 10:41:54 AM

Fark It: Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."


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

There is some wiggle room between that and destroying the 2nd amendment, I think.
 
2013-01-20 10:42:14 AM

Fark It: Mrtraveler01: The 2nd Amendment also wasn't put in there so you could buy any weapon your little heart desires. If the government was trying to make guns in general illegal, then you'd have a point. But no one is seriously considering that.

Sorry but stuff like this comes off a cheesy and corny to me.

Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."


The kid a VT used a Walther P22.
 
2013-01-20 10:42:39 AM

atomicmask: Not a single Democrat has behaved like a civilized person.


Okay, no. Get some perspective, dude.
 
2013-01-20 10:43:34 AM

CADMonkey79: So what you are saying is you like gun owners and you don't mind them having guns, you just don't understand why the like guns and have them. Got it.


Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.
 
2013-01-20 10:43:54 AM

LasersHurt: Fark It: Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."

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

There is some wiggle room between that and destroying the 2nd amendment, I think.


The gun nuts apparently think that a slippery slope applies in a democracy so beholden to private interest money.

Again, tards, the lot of 'em.
 
2013-01-20 10:44:48 AM

Tomahawk513: Unfortunately the NRA is painting all gun owners in a poor light because they're not exactly acting concerned about gun violence, just selling guns. And since they're the loudest voice on the matter, that's all a lot of people hear. While I agree with your point about the ACLU, you'll note we have put limits on free speech. Our rights are not absolute. I, for one, wish the NRA would come forth with reasonable gun-control legislation and encourage its members to get on board. If bans won't work, that's fine, but at least put forth something reasonable.


Who says the NRA isn't concerned about gun violence? They've supported things like Project Exile and other measures that focused on the criminal use of firearms. While many of the suggestions from the President have indeed been reasonable and have a good chance of being effective, there's several proposals (such as the "assault weapons ban" or magazine limits) that many believe go too far and should be opposed.

And yes, our rights are not absolute. However, just as one is not legally protected by the First Amendment for falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (or when using speech to incite violence, riots, etc.), one is not legally protected by the Second Amendment when using firearms to commit murder, assault, or other crimes. Those are reasonable restrictions that benefit public safety while only minimally infringing on the rights of law-abiding people.

Still, the ACLU and EFF actively resist what they believe to be unreasonable restrictions on people's rights. The NRA does the same. Why should they "give an inch" on issues that they (and many other Americans) think are unreasonable restrictions?

What suggestions would you have for "reasonable gun-control legislation" that you'd like the NRA to support?

Enemabag Jones: I disagree with you on magazine sizes. The 'assault weapon', when it comes to crazed fruit-loops gunning down grade schools, they will shift to the next best thing, a mini-14 or an sks with detachable mag, which is meters better then what other have in a school or office.


How so? Is a Mini-14 or SKS with a 20-round magazine any different than an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine? Both rifles can accept magazines of arbitrary capacity. The Mini-14 and AR-15 fire the same ammunition (and the SKS fires roughly comparable ammunition).

The majority of the mass shootings in the last 30 years have used handguns, and in nearly all cases the shooters were not the least bit inconvenienced by needing to reload (and many of them reloaded frequently) as they didn't meet any real resistance during their rampages.

I guess we don't disagree that much.

True. :)
 
2013-01-20 10:46:39 AM
Not our fault that men think a gun rack for their penis helps.
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:46:42 AM

Mrtraveler01: Too bad [Gary Johnson] embraced Paul Ryan's abortion of a budget plan or else more people would've taken him more seriously.


Yes. Too bad.

He was excellent in the 3rd party debate. He would've destroyed both Romney and Obama had he been allowed to share the stage with them. Wacky budget or no wacky budget.

And he was a great governor.
 
2013-01-20 10:46:44 AM

coeyagi: I am not advocating for more gun rights or gun control, and I come in here to attack both sides who think that gun laws of any sort are going to solve anything. Again, for the 1000th time, my 4 pillars of reducing gun violence, in no particular order:

1) Deal with sensationalization of these crimes
2) Deal with the drug trade
3) Deal with "gun culture"
4) Deal with mental health


Fair enough. While I do have some minor disagreements with the "gun culture" thing, I am in general agreement with your position.
 
2013-01-20 10:47:23 AM

drp: Obama waited until after he was re-elected to open the gun control debate precisely because he knew how poisonous it is to his party.


I'm pretty sure twenty dead kindergarteners had something to do with it too.
 
2013-01-20 10:47:33 AM

ilambiquated: I think we can thank John Wilkes Boothe for the survival of this and some other antiquated bits of the constitution.


What's this all about? John Wilkes Boothe saved the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-01-20 10:47:51 AM
Yeah... We don't want to alienate people cuz that would be like..., Republican.
 
2013-01-20 10:48:14 AM

Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: So what you are saying is you like gun owners and you don't mind them having guns, you just don't understand why the like guns and have them. Got it.

Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.


Do you think that applies to everyone that owns a gun?
 
2013-01-20 10:48:22 AM

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


Yup, the AWB was a joke the first time. Manufacturers just made cosmetic changes to get around it.
 
2013-01-20 10:49:05 AM
heypete
Enemabag Jones: I disagree with you on magazine sizes. The 'assault weapon', when it comes to crazed fruit-loops gunning down grade schools, they will shift to the next best thing, a mini-14 or an sks with detachable mag, which is meters better then what other have in a school or office.
How so? Is a Mini-14 or SKS with a 20-round magazine any different than an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine? Both rifles can accept magazines of arbitrary capacity. The Mini-14 and AR-15 fire the same ammunition (and the SKS fires roughly comparable ammunition).
The majority of the mass shootings in the last 30 years have used handguns, and in nearly all cases the shooters were not the least bit inconvenienced by needing to reload (and many of them reloaded frequently) as they didn't meet any real resistance during their rampages.

Like I said, we agree on most things except magazine sizes.
 
2013-01-20 10:51:13 AM
I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?
 
2013-01-20 10:51:17 AM

CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: So what you are saying is you like gun owners and you don't mind them having guns, you just don't understand why the like guns and have them. Got it.

Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.

Do you think that applies to everyone that owns a gun?


No, were did I say that?
 
2013-01-20 10:52:09 AM

Fart_Machine: where


H went AWOL apparently from my keyboard.
 
2013-01-20 10:53:14 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?


Missouri was one of the first states to allow CCW and look at how safe St. Louis has become.
 
2013-01-20 10:54:35 AM

LasersHurt: Fark It: Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."

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

There is some wiggle room between that and destroying the 2nd amendment, I think.


A bit disingenuous...

Nearly all semi-automatic weapons will be affected by this legislation, as would many pump-action shotguns.

If it's such a small subset, and if they are pointless aesthetics, why the effort to ban them? You can't on the one hand justify a sweeping AWB while lying about its scope and calling it "pointless."
 
2013-01-20 10:55:15 AM

Uncle Tractor: Amos Quito: What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?

*Me! Me!*

(raises hand)

The best safeguard against tyranny is an informed population, as opposed to an infromed one.

[i560.photobucket.com image 256x242]

/god that font is ugly



Indeed:


"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."


-- T. Jefferson


Sadly, the "press" has fallen into the hands of a few, and has become a powerful tool for manipulating public opinion to serve their interests.
 
2013-01-20 10:55:30 AM

Uncle Tractor: 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 image 548x480]

What a tool made for killing might look like:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x425]

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.


Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
www.smith-wesson.com

Different from

www.mossberg.com
 
2013-01-20 10:56:08 AM

Fart_Machine: Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.


Pretty much that.

As for the previous guy, wow. You're avoiding addressing the point by trying to shift the focus to a different group. A group which exists only as you imagine them and has no connection to the origin of the question asked, me. So you avoid that in question by trying to shift the focus back on the questioner while simultaneously misrepresenting the questioner's viewpoint as illogical, and thus irrelevant, by pulling said viewpoint out of your ass. Strawman.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You also tried the ad hominem attack of trying to discredit me with a, "you're just afraid of guns, so there."

So, goodbye.
 
2013-01-20 10:56:52 AM

Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: So what you are saying is you like gun owners and you don't mind them having guns, you just don't understand why the like guns and have them. Got it.

Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.

Do you think that applies to everyone that owns a gun?

No, were did I say that?


It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.
 
2013-01-20 10:58:36 AM

Enemabag Jones: 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?


Google: How can I change my party affiliation voter registration XXXXX

where xxxx is your state. I already sent in my application to change my registration to Republican.

Congrats Democrats. I've voted a straight party line in all elections, even piss-ant local ones, for decades.
 
2013-01-20 10:59:04 AM

CADMonkey79: You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group


You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.

If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.
 
2013-01-20 10:59:52 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.


Why not address the problem of there existing a violent crime-ridden inner city by working to reduce the factors that contribute to such crime (poverty, drug trafficking, gangs, etc.) rather than trying to pass more laws that would only affect law-abiding people?

Away from areas with "hotspots" of violent crime (like DC, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, etc.), violent crime rates in the country are quite low and seem to not have any correlation with the presence or absence of firearms available to the general public.
 
2013-01-20 11:00:59 AM

halB: Enemabag Jones: 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?

Google: How can I change my party affiliation voter registration XXXXX

where xxxx is your state. I already sent in my application to change my registration to Republican.

Congrats Democrats. I've voted a straight party line in all elections, even piss-ant local ones, for decades.


All because of this?

Talk about some whacked perspective. Nothing is even being proposed in Congress yet.
 
2013-01-20 11:01:01 AM
We should be addressing Mental health issues in this country, not gun control.

A screening is a perfectly good start that isn't as scary or expensive as overhauling other practices, like psych hospitals, treatment, and the value of counselors.
 
2013-01-20 11:02:00 AM

CADMonkey79: It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.


So I didn't. You're just overly-sensitive.
 
2013-01-20 11:02:18 AM

Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.
 
2013-01-20 11:02:52 AM

adragontattoo: Uncle Tractor: 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 image 548x480]

What a tool made for killing might look like:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x425]

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.

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

Different from

[www.mossberg.com image 850x240]


one is a rectangle, and one is a quadrilateral??
sorry my internet connection sucks
 
2013-01-20 11:03:50 AM

Fark It: There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.


That must be why they use Wayne LaPierre too.
 
2013-01-20 11:03:57 AM

doglover: 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.


If by "great idea" you mean "terrible idea", then yeah. Let's turn this proposal around and start letting people exercise their First Amendment rights only if they consent to a licensing and registration process controlled by the government. Otherwise you have to STFU and GBTW. No stump speeches. No petitioning Congress. No unpopular religions. No posting on Fark. No letters to the editor without an accompanying license.

Local politicians don't like the tone or content of your speech? (The semantic equivalent of a particular firearm's color, superficial features or magazine capacity.) Your license is revoked and your mere exercise of this basic right is terminated upon pain of imprisonment or even death.

Is ANY farker here willing to submit themselves to this lunacy? I thought not. So why throw your fellow Americans under the bus over the rights conferred by the 2nd?
 
2013-01-20 11:04:28 AM

Jim_Callahan: And by point of contention I mean it's the actual arguable one. Closing the gun-show loophole basically everyone agrees is a good idea, it's like 99% likely to happen, the one-test AWB basically everyone agrees is a stupid idea worth opposing, it's kind of a snowball in hell. Magazine size limits are sort of the part that can go either way without much trouble.


Aaaaaaarrrrgh

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

How many farking times does this have to be explained. You have zero knowledge on gun laws, or why the laws are the way they are. Therefore, you should shut your mouth about things you have absolutely no knowledge about, and leave decision making to people that bother to be diligent.

Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET. Thats all a gunshow is... a giant swap meet. You want to outlaw too many people from congregating together in the same place? Because thats all you would be doing.
 
2013-01-20 11:04:32 AM

Fark It: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.


Yeah, it's called "calling out the assholes on the right who speaker louder than the reasonable ones", not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.
 
2013-01-20 11:06:00 AM

Mrtraveler01: You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.

If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


Guess what? That can be said for almost any group. Christians. Muslims. Atheists. Vegans (see article about crazy UK vegan lady.)  Cat hoarders. Whatever.  Usually when someone is obsessively passionate about something, they are pretty nuts.  Most gun owners are likely to not talk much about their guns (unless they're at a shooting range or hunting or it comes up, like someone is thinking of getting a gun and asks someone knowledgeable.) They don't want attention for it. They don't need to talk about it. And they wouldn't know how to go out there and shout down the crazy people, even if they did want to.

And that's the problem. the craziest people in any group are usuallythe loudest, and also (due to the crazy) the most interesting to the media.  Nobody is going to tune into the unspectacular tale of normal Joe, who keeps his gun locked away safely and  is trained in how to use it (and hopes to never have to use it on another human). A ranting and raving maniac, however? RATINGS.
 
2013-01-20 11:06:45 AM

Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


What's to say we haven't?

Mr. Jones, even though a crazed nutjob, still has as much right to speak as anyone else. People can (and have) loudly denounced his speech as absurd and crazy, but he still can speak unimpeded.

I wrote a letter to the NRA explaining that I felt, as a member and as a reasonably decent person, that the recent "Obama's kids are protected by armed guards in schools, but he doesn't want your kids to have the same protection" ad they released crossed a line and got personal and they should not have done such a thing. How much they listen to a single member is entirely up to them.
 
2013-01-20 11:07:03 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?


Yes, pretty much.

geekpolitics.com
 
2013-01-20 11:07:36 AM

Fark It: LasersHurt: Fark It: Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."

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

There is some wiggle room between that and destroying the 2nd amendment, I think.

A bit disingenuous...

Nearly all semi-automatic weapons will be affected by this legislation, as would many pump-action shotguns.

If it's such a small subset, and if they are pointless aesthetics, why the effort to ban them? You can't on the one hand justify a sweeping AWB while lying about its scope and calling it "pointless."


I'm not justifying anything, I'm just saying what the situation is. This legislation is on the table. It has majority support in the public, for better or worse. Whether or not it passes remains to be seen.

That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?
 
2013-01-20 11:08:25 AM

Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]


Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.
 
2013-01-20 11:08:39 AM

Stone Meadow: If by "great idea" you mean "terrible idea", then yeah. Let's turn this proposal around and start letting people exercise their First Amendment rights only if they consent to a licensing and registration process controlled by the government.


I can't start my own TV or radio station without filing for a license with the FCC.

Obviously this is an infringement of my 1st Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-20 11:08:59 AM

Alonjar: Thats all a gunshow is... a giant swap meet.


What do they swap?
 
2013-01-20 11:09:18 AM

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


They are slightly different, but not in the way you imagine. The guns used for hunting are much more powerful than what you would need to kill a human. The .556 used in the AR-15 is nothing compared to a .762 hunting/sniping round.

thumbs.newschoolers.com

I like how you idiots think that people will break out the big guns against other people but use pea-shooters to take down moose and elk. It always makes me laugh because you have no idea how ignorant it makes you look.
 
2013-01-20 11:10:34 AM

coeyagi: Fark It: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.

Yeah, it's called "calling out the assholes on the right who speaker louder than the reasonable ones", not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.


Obviously it's a conspiracy.
 
2013-01-20 11:12:33 AM
adragontattoo,

That is a trick question making the point that all guns that look scary are not as the ar-15 looking thing is a lr22 with a ten round clip.

I accept that point, where as this with an extended clip does not matter to those receiving the bullet.

I get that point.

Link
 
2013-01-20 11:12:59 AM

Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]


You mean crime tends to go down during good economic times? Nah, that's crazy, it's obviously because there's more guns on the street.
 
2013-01-20 11:12:59 AM

Alonjar: Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET.


That's the problem, Cletus.
 
2013-01-20 11:13:13 AM

heypete: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

Why not address the problem of there existing a violent crime-ridden inner city by working to reduce the factors that contribute to such crime (poverty, drug trafficking, gangs, etc.) rather than trying to pass more laws that would only affect law-abiding people?

Away from areas with "hotspots" of violent crime (like DC, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, etc.), violent crime rates in the country are quite low and seem to not have any correlation with the presence or absence of firearms available to the general public.


I don't understand how this can be true. The Fark Militia has repeatedly assured me that an armed society is a polite society, and that only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
 
2013-01-20 11:13:47 AM

Mrtraveler01: coeyagi: Fark It: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.

Yeah, it's called "calling out the assholes on the right who speaker louder than the reasonable ones", not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Obviously it's a conspiracy.


Alex Jones is in on it because he created the petition to have Morgan deported.
 
2013-01-20 11:14:12 AM
We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?
 
2013-01-20 11:14:23 AM

Mrtraveler01: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Missouri was one of the first states to allow CCW and look at how safe St. Louis has become.


St. Louis has been a cesspool of crime for a hell of a lot longer than the CCW permits. And the crimes in STL are committed by people who don't have CCW permits. Your strawman is burning.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:07 AM

coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.


That's not even a correlation.

geekpolitics.com

Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:10 AM

Mrtraveler01: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

You mean crime tends to go down during good economic times? Nah, that's crazy, it's obviously because there's more guns on the street.


That, and the fact that sh*tty kids who would have been born in 1973 or later DID NOT come of age in the early 90s because of Roe v. Wade.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:24 AM

coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.


Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:52 AM

Alonjar: We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?


And if it will save the life of one child, it's worth it.
 
2013-01-20 11:16:50 AM

shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Missouri was one of the first states to allow CCW and look at how safe St. Louis has become.

St. Louis has been a cesspool of crime for a hell of a lot longer than the CCW permits. And the crimes in STL are committed by people who don't have CCW permits. Your strawman is burning.


That's kinda my whole point, we don't have strict gun laws in St. Louis and we're still a crime-ridden hellhole.

So it's stupid to blame Chicago's gun laws for it's crime either. It certainly doesn't help the crime situation, but it's foolish to think it's resulted in more crime than there already would be if gun laws were not so strict.
 
2013-01-20 11:16:58 AM

macadamnut: ilambiquated: I think we can thank John Wilkes Boothe for the survival of this and some other antiquated bits of the constitution.

What's this all about? John Wilkes Boothe saved the 2nd Amendment?


He saved the constitution in its older form, I think.I don't actually have any evidence of his opinion of the 2nd amendment, but he was more interested in the DoI than the constitution, as the Gettysburg Address and many other quotes show. He would have been hugely powerful after the war. Also before the 1970s people thought of the 2nd in terms of "orderly" local militias, and that is an issue that would have been very interesting to a president that had just won a nasty civil war.
 
2013-01-20 11:17:00 AM

The Name: Alonjar: Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET.

That's the problem, Cletus.


... so whats your proposal, smart guy? How are you going to alter the current laws to close the "loophole"? Outlaw private gun sales?

Whats your objective? Are you trying to prevent mass shootings? How would preventing the private sale of guns stop a guy who has decided to sacrifice his life in order to murder a bunch of people?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:06 AM

TotesCrayCray: Fart_Machine: Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.

Pretty much that.

As for the previous guy, wow. You're avoiding addressing the point by trying to shift the focus to a different group. A group which exists only as you imagine them and has no connection to the origin of the question asked, me. So you avoid that in question by trying to shift the focus back on the questioner while simultaneously misrepresenting the questioner's viewpoint as illogical, and thus irrelevant, by pulling said viewpoint out of your ass. Strawman.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You also tried the ad hominem attack of trying to discredit me with a, "you're just afraid of guns, so there."

So, goodbye.


Funny I have never seen the "its a stawman so goodbye" argument work in a debate or court of law. You wrote a multi-paragraph post belittling gun owners because of their emotional tie to guns. I point out most proponents of gun control have just a strong emotion as well, theirs just seems to be fear. Your post implied that you think this applies to all gun owners. I own guns and have zero emotional connection to them. Your post assumes a group of people that exist only as you imagine them, No?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:35 AM

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

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



Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:49 AM

Stone Meadow: coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.

Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.


Relax, Francis... no one claimed that either. We're too busy debunking non-sensical derp from the right to make outrageous claims of our own.
 
2013-01-20 11:18:09 AM

coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.


Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that won't infringe on anybody's right to hunt, which is the only reason to really own a gun.

We can forget discussing the drug war, the police state, and our growing income inequality.
 
2013-01-20 11:19:16 AM
coeyagi

That, and the fact that sh*tty kids who would have been born in 1973 or later DID NOT come of age in the early 90s because of Roe v. Wade.

The switch to unleaded gasoline may also have been a factor.
 
2013-01-20 11:19:32 AM

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

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


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?


I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes. What things do you support to that end (before you misunderstand, I'm not under any impression the AWB is good for this)?
 
2013-01-20 11:20:21 AM

LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either.


Why not? Banning a commonly-owned, legal group of firearms that is used extremely rarely in crime is indeed "pointless" when it comes to the stated purpose of reducing violent crime.

At the same time, such a restriction can indeed infringe on people's rights.
 
2013-01-20 11:20:28 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.


What the hell are you talking about? Marriage isn't completely banned either. The comparison is spot-on.
 
2013-01-20 11:20:45 AM

Stone Meadow: coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.

Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.


Seemed to imply that between 1970-1980.

/Just sayin'
//Honestly believes there's no relation between the two
 
2013-01-20 11:20:49 AM

Fark It: coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that won't inf ...


tl;dr

But I did skim, and you didn't provide any facts. So, yeah, pure conjecture on your part, bro. Just like I could say you think that all liberals and Dems are gun grabbers, although, if I let you go long enough, you'll probably insinuate it.
 
2013-01-20 11:22:53 AM

Mrtraveler01: CADMonkey79: You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group

You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.


If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


I agree, but I think it applies to both sides.
 
2013-01-20 11:23:04 AM

LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?


Of course. Gun control advocates and people who believe in gun rights don't think this legislation is pointless. Where we differ is on the Constitutionality front. I think it is unconstitutional, and if this kind of ban is allowed, then there really is no limit to how much further the disarmament advocates will push things. If we end up mimicking countries where gun ownership is a privilege then how can it be called a right? How can we square that with the Constitution? What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?
 
2013-01-20 11:23:07 AM

Alonjar: Outlaw private gun sales?


Yup. Or regulate them by requiring the buyer to submit to a background check.


Alonjar: How would preventing the private sale of guns stop a guy who has decided to sacrifice his life in order to murder a bunch of people?


By making it such that he would have to use a knife or a hammer to murder those bunches of people, thereby making him easier to stop in the course of his rampage than he would be if he had a gun. The same rationale applies to bans on high-capacity clips.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:10 AM

coeyagi: Relax, Francis... no one claimed that either. We're too busy debunking non-sensical derp from the right to make outrageous claims of our own.


"Debunking" implies that you have some sort of evidence. What is that evidence you have that shows more guns leads to more serious crime? The US Dept of Justice has voluminous amounts of data showing that there is no correlation between the two, and in the years since the data I showed earlier the trend has become only more clear.

Show me your data. Otherwise it's just your whiny opinion.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:13 AM

Fark It: 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.


I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread about why people are skeptical and suspicious of gun control advocates, and have favorited you as such.

However I do have to wonder why you would choose to live in a place where you believed such hardware was required to protect yourself. Personally if I lived somewhere where I felt a 410 revolver was inadequate defense, I'd probably find somewhere else to live.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:45 AM
You can tell American hunters aren't really interested in getting food, because hunters interested in food always collect mushrooms as well. Hunting without mushroom collection is trophy hunting.

For example, mushroom sauce is chasseur in French, Jaeger in German and cacciatore in Italian. In Murkin it's Campbell's soup.
 
2013-01-20 11:25:34 AM

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


Just lowering the artificially enhanced testosterone permeating our culture would make a bit of difference. Nobody wants to take everyone's guns. Just the fantasy pieces.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:08 AM

Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.

So I didn't. You're just overly-sensitive.


I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion. The NRA only has 4.3 million members, how many people own guns.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:35 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.


The children who die to diverse forms of domestic violence every year totally support your argument that's its all because of guns.

/the sarcasm is because you're being foolish
 
2013-01-20 11:26:38 AM
I am in favor of keeping the Second Amendment. Not because it is a God-given right, or because it stands as the last bastion of liberty from a tyrannical government, or because the Founding Fathers wanted it that way, or because people have a right to defend themselves in their homes or on the streets; but because that is the way we have always done it. It's a tradition, we've been doing it for 225 years. We Americans put up with a whole heck of a lot in the name of tradition.

The Constitution is our version of the Crown Jewels. We don't mess with it lightly. We'd rather put up with clumsy, out-dated provisions like the Electoral College than go to the trouble of, or take the chance, of actually fixing things. We're sentimental about it. So long as a provision doesn't interfere with the proper administration of the nation, it is tolerated. The Second Amendment, or rather the improper and self-serving manner in which is now being interpreted, is starting to interfere with the proper administration of the nation.

Accept some reasonable restrictions in the types of guns you can own, the process you go through to purchase one, and the size of the magazine you can use with it. The American people want you to keep your gun rights, but the insanity must stop.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:53 AM

shotglasss: Says guns are the problem and that the citizens don't need them.

[webpages.charter.net image 420x320]

Sends his kids to school protected by lots of guns. Has a vacant house in Chicago protected by guns. Owns guns.


Is POTUSA,

upload.wikimedia.org

...which makes him and his family a favored target for nutters of all flavors, unlike your average Joe nobody's ever heard of.

See the difference?
 
2013-01-20 11:26:59 AM

Fark It: LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?

Of course. Gun control advocates and people who believe in gun rights don't think this legislation is pointless. Where we differ is on the Constitutionality front. I think it is unconstitutional, and if this kind of ban is allowed, then there really is no limit to how much further the disarmament advocates will push things. If we end up mimicking countries where gun ownership is a privilege then how can it be called a right? How can we square that with the Constitution? What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?


Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.
 
2013-01-20 11:27:58 AM

zenobia: Nobody wants to take everyone's guns. Just the fantasy pieces.


You mean the ones that are overwhelmingly used for sporting and competition use, and which are used extremely rarely in crime? Why?
 
2013-01-20 11:28:24 AM

clambam: It's a tradition, we've been doing it for 225 years.


Yeah, so was slavery.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:25 AM

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

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


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?


wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com

I think you are overfitting.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:48 AM

coeyagi: Fark It: coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that ...


A straw-man and an ad hominem, while proving my point about the assumptions that are being made about gun ownership and the nature of this debate. I'm impressed. I didn't see any facts in your posts either.
 
2013-01-20 11:29:01 AM

CADMonkey79: I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion.


That seems to be the assertion you have in your mind, yes.
 
2013-01-20 11:29:19 AM

serpent_sky: Mrtraveler01: You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.

If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

Guess what? That can be said for almost any group. Christians. Muslims. Atheists. Vegans (see article about crazy UK vegan lady.)  Cat hoarders. Whatever.  Usually when someone is obsessively passionate about something, they are pretty nuts.  Most gun owners are likely to not talk much about their guns (unless they're at a shooting range or hunting or it comes up, like someone is thinking of getting a gun and asks someone knowledgeable.) They don't want attention for it. They don't need to talk about it. And they wouldn't know how to go out there and shout down the crazy people, even if they did want to.

And that's the problem. the craziest people in any group are usuallythe loudest, and also (due to the crazy) the most interesting to the media.  Nobody is going to tune into the unspectacular tale of normal Joe, who keeps his gun locked away safely and  is trained in how to use it (and hopes to never have to use it on another human). A ranting and raving maniac, however? RATINGS.


heypete: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

What's to say we haven't?

Mr. Jones, even though a crazed nutjob, still has as much right to speak as anyone else. People can (and have) loudly denounced his speech as absurd and crazy, but he still can speak unimpeded.

I wrote a letter to the NRA explaining that I felt, as a member and as a reasonably decent person, that the recent "Obama's kids are protected by armed guards in schools, but he doesn't want your kids to have the same protection" ad they released crossed a line and got personal and they should not have done such a thing. How much they listen to a single member is entirely up to them.


Vaild points.
 
2013-01-20 11:30:12 AM

The Name: By making it such that he would have to use a knife or a hammer to murder those bunches of people, thereby making him easier to stop in the course of his rampage than he would be if he had a gun. The same rationale applies to bans on high-capacity clips.


How does a criminal history check tell you someones intent to murder people in the future?

Oh, it doesnt.

Thats my whole point here... this is a giant show being put on to pander to peoples illogical and over-emotional responses to sensationalized events.

If I wanted to murder a bunch of people in a hail of glory murder/suicide rampage, and I failed a background check... I wouldnt really care. I'd break into your house and steal your guns... or id spend a grand total of 3 seconds breaking into the trunk of a cop car to steal his AR-15.

If I couldnt purchase extended magazines from the store, I would just fabricate my own. A gun magazine is just about the simplest device on the planet.. you can build one with tin snips.

These things might sound unreasonable to a normal person, but we arent worried about normal people, are we?
 
2013-01-20 11:30:56 AM
Fark It: What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?

RIP, Habeas Corpus 1789-2006
 
2013-01-20 11:32:19 AM

Alonjar: We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?


This is ample evidence that to gun fetishists, guns are more important than people. Another example is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The message is "Guns are perfect godlike objects above every form of criticism, and people are inherently evil".

www.nachtkabarett.com
 
2013-01-20 11:33:33 AM

Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion.

That seems to be the assertion you have in your mind, yes.


And there is no evidence of that in this thread? Come on.
 
2013-01-20 11:33:53 AM
How come just about every response the pro-gun crowd offers is an unironic endorsement of stricter gun control?

Except for 3D printers. That's the intersection of gun-fantasy and trekkie.
 
2013-01-20 11:34:19 AM

clambam: Accept some reasonable restrictions in the types of guns you can own, the process you go through to purchase one, and the size of the magazine you can use with it. The American people want you to keep your gun rights, but the insanity must stop.


We do. There's already restrictions on full-auto guns, artillery, explosives, etc. Pretty much nobody has any objections to background checks.

Where people do have issues with is when there are proposals to ban semi-auto guns that look scary but are otherwise functionally identical to other semi-auto guns. People have issues when these guns are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and are one of the least-used types of guns in crime. Why should people accept restrictions on the most common rifle in the country (the AR-15) when such restrictions would have essentially no effect on crime, as demonstrated by previous federal and state level restrictions?

Why should people accept restrictions on magazine capacity (which only ever seem to ratchet lower and lower, as evidenced by the recent New York law reducing the limit from "10" to "7") when such limits haven't been shown to be effective at reducing violent crime rates or the effectiveness of mass shooters? (Nobody's saying that they need to be 100% effective, but so far there's no real evidence that it would have any effect.)

Simply calling a restriction "reasonable" does not make it so.
 
2013-01-20 11:36:38 AM

heypete: I wrote a letter to the NRA explaining that I felt, as a member and as a reasonably decent person, that the recent "Obama's kids are protected by armed guards in schools, but he doesn't want your kids to have the same protection" ad they released crossed a line and got personal and they should not have done such a thing. How much they listen to a single member is entirely up to them.


Well, you put them in THEIR place. Your now totally on the side of the angels.

3.bp.blogspot.com
/send them your cut up membership card or STFU.
 
2013-01-20 11:37:44 AM
i.imgur.com
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.
 
2013-01-20 11:37:48 AM

adragontattoo: Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
Different from


I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

/I've only used one of those myself
 
2013-01-20 11:39:10 AM

ilambiquated: Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.


That's a terrible analogy for several reasons. I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why.
 
2013-01-20 11:39:35 AM

GoldSpider: Fark It: 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.

I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread about why people are skeptical and suspicious of gun control advocates, and have favorited you as such.

However I do have to wonder why you would choose to live in a place where you believed such hardware was required to protect yourself. Personally if I lived somewhere where I felt a 410 revolver was inadequate defense, I'd probably find somewhere else to live.


Not everybody has the luxury to choose to live in crime-free utopias. A Glock 19 is $500. Moving, let alone some place safer, is much more expensive and just not an option for many people, most of them poor. As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods. I believe in protecting women, the infirm and elderly, and the disabled. Most "reasonable" gun control laws I have seen proposed fly completely in the face of my beliefs as a liberal. Yes, women, you're equal in the eyes of the law. You are not the physical equal of the lawless, and relegating them to unwieldy shotguns that can crack the shoulders of grown men is not my idea of a reasonable, commonsense gun control idea.

I think you may be letting your privilege give you the idea that people really have a choice (at least economically) of where to live.
 
2013-01-20 11:39:37 AM

CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.

So I didn't. You're just overly-sensitive.

I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion. The NRA only has 4.3 million members, how many people own guns.


What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.
 
2013-01-20 11:40:07 AM
So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.
 
2013-01-20 11:40:29 AM

Uncle Tractor: I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?


D. None of the above.
 
2013-01-20 11:41:21 AM
When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?
 
2013-01-20 11:41:25 AM

CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion.

That seems to be the assertion you have in your mind, yes.

And there is no evidence of that in this thread? Come on.


Also, if this is not the case then why did Bill Clinton make a speech about that very topic?
 
2013-01-20 11:42:29 AM

Blathering Idjut: send them your cut up membership card or STFU.


Sarcasm aside, that's something I considered and mentioned it in the letter.

Still, they've been reasonably effective in the last few years at protecting people's rights to keep and bear arms, as well as promoting safety, training, and range management. I support those things and my membership dues further those purposes (I don't contribute money to the NRA-ILA, their lobbying arm). Additionally, I think that people can change a system for the better by working within it.
 
2013-01-20 11:42:37 AM

Alonjar: Thats my whole point here... this is a giant show being put on to pander to peoples illogical and over-emotional responses to sensationalized events.


What sensationalized events?
 
2013-01-20 11:43:07 AM

GAT_00: kids getting killed for supposed freedoms


Possibly the most brain dead thing I've ever seen you post. You would rightly mock the retorts like "so why dun't whee ban carsss?" but them you go and post something that says you think about as deeply before you type as they do. A post that is exactly as rich and nuanced as the cars ban retort.
 
2013-01-20 11:43:42 AM

umad: They are slightly different, but not in the way you imagine. The guns used for hunting are much more powerful than what you would need to kill a human. The .556 used in the AR-15 is nothing compared to a .762 hunting/sniping round.


May I hazard the guess that guns used for hunting are accurate and not so suitable for filling the air with bullets? Perhaps also not so easily tucked in a belt?

I like how you idiots think that people will break out the big guns against other people but use pea-shooters to take down moose and elk. It always makes me laugh because you have no idea how ignorant it makes you look.

Nice strawman. "umad" alright.
 
2013-01-20 11:43:58 AM
Uncle Tractor,
adragontattoo: Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
Different from
I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?


Depends on what your favored game is and where. The top one would be pretty good for hunting homo sapien in an urban environment through ambush methodology. Although any one of the tools listed would be moderately successful.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:00 AM

Alonjar: Jim_Callahan: And by point of contention I mean it's the actual arguable one. Closing the gun-show loophole basically everyone agrees is a good idea, it's like 99% likely to happen, the one-test AWB basically everyone agrees is a stupid idea worth opposing, it's kind of a snowball in hell. Magazine size limits are sort of the part that can go either way without much trouble.

Aaaaaaarrrrgh

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

How many farking times does this have to be explained. You have zero knowledge on gun laws, or why the laws are the way they are. Therefore, you should shut your mouth about things you have absolutely no knowledge about, and leave decision making to people that bother to be diligent.

Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET. Thats all a gunshow is... a giant swap meet. You want to outlaw too many people from congregating together in the same place? Because thats all you would be doing.


40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:06 AM

MylesHeartVodak: So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.


It turns out that's not true. That was in the original State Police report, but was later corrected. The murderer took the Bushmaster and 2 handguns into the school, and used them all. It was a shotgun the police found in the truck of the car.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:12 AM

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

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


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?

I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes.



Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?
 
2013-01-20 11:46:26 AM

Amos Quito: So what is their agenda?


To sell all of our national interests to Israel.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:01 AM

The Name: What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

And your point about having to preface gun control arguments with "Now, I support the second amendment," is dishonest because it leaves out the "...but" and gun owners mostly don't believe you.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:11 AM

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

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


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?

I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes.


Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?


You need a special license to operate a bus. If you're making that comparison, is it safe to assume you support a special license or some level higher standards to be allowed to own and fire a semi-automatic rifle?
 
2013-01-20 11:47:23 AM

Enemabag Jones: adragontattoo,

That is a trick question making the point that all guns that look scary are not as the ar-15 looking thing is a lr22 with a ten round clip.

I accept that point, where as this with an extended clip does not matter to those receiving the bullet.

I get that point.

Link


So now its a matter of caliber and NOT whether it is an "assault weapon" or not?  Interesting, so what calibers are now evil and should be banned? 

Fine, ban extended magazines, limit them to 10 rounds!  Here is the kicker though, either make your escape, or tackle the lunatic with the gun in the ~.5 to 1 second it takes him to drop a magazine and insert another one.  It isnt hard to learn to do it in that timeframe with simple practice.  This does of course assume that the crazy person who is shooting at living people has bothered to make sure that he is following the law and only using 10 round magazines though.  Dont want to break any laws based on the number of rounds in the magazine while he is commiting murder!

Here is a better idea, enforce the already existing laws.  Stop treating mental illness as something that if we whistle loud enough. will go away.  Stop giving the lunatic with the gun the front page.  Stop glorifying them, stop admitting that some people are broken mentally, stop using the victims as a banner in order to change what you dont like, stop trying to blame the numbers of rounds in the magazine, the furniture on the gun, the video games, movies, tv or books.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:45 AM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 570x381]
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.


You mean you're going to burn yourself up based on Armageddon theology?
 
2013-01-20 11:48:49 AM

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

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


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?

I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes.


Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?


So you're saying we don't regulate busses?
 
2013-01-20 11:49:21 AM

heypete: Blathering Idjut: send them your cut up membership card or STFU.

Sarcasm aside, that's something I considered and mentioned it in the letter.

Still, they've been reasonably effective in the last few years at protecting people's rights to keep and bear arms, as well as promoting safety, training, and range management. I support those things and my membership dues further those purposes (I don't contribute money to the NRA-ILA, their lobbying arm). Additionally, I think that people can change a system for the better by working within it.


The NRA is not responsible for Heller or McDonald, they rode on Alan Gura's coattails.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:02 AM

MylesHeartVodak: So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.


That's factually untrue. There's ample evidence that you're wrong.

Uranus Is Huge!: When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.


True. Rifles are rarely used in crime. They are overwhelmingly used for perfectly lawful purposes.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

While it's true that handguns are more frequently in crime than rifles, that doesn't mean that pro-gun-rights people "don't like" the statistics. The vast majority of handguns are used for lawful purposes and are quite suitable for self-defense both in and out of the home. They are also more frequently targeted for restriction than rifles, so mentioning the legal aspects is a reasonable counter-argument.

Which argument is more logically sound?

Both.

What's your point?
 
2013-01-20 11:50:12 AM

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

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


There was a picture in this morning's paper of yesterday's local pro-gun rally -- including several fat, redneck women showing off their grinning six-year-olds who are decked out like Rambo (head rags and all) and waving toy machine guns. The next generation's crop of sociopaths.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:25 AM

GoldSpider: ilambiquated: Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.

That's a terrible analogy for several reasons. I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why.


Wow that's generous of you big guy.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:52 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?


[citation needed]

The problem is that most people are not able to properly comprehend statistics. 10,000 people only sounds like a lot to someone who doesn't have a proper frame of reference.

I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America. Statistically, 9/11 shouldn't have mattered at all... but its the same illogical, emotion-based thinking which results in horrible decisions like a bajillion trillion dollars spent blowing up sand in a desert.

How many more people were harmed by the response to 9/11 vs the event itself?

Gun advocates are just looking at the situation the same way. The response to a statistical anomaly like Sandy Hook is seen as having the potential to cause more long term harm to our rights and safety than its worth.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:55 AM

Fark It: A Glock 19 is $500.


The revolver I mentioned costs about the same. I would expect (correct me if I'm wrong) an AK would be somewhat pricier.

Fark It: As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods.


On board with all of that as well. And I wouldn't dictate to anyone how he or she would protect their family. Though I might offer that a semi-auto rifle isn't their safest/most effective option.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:59 AM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.

So I didn't. You're just overly-sensitive.

I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion. The NRA only has 4.3 million members, how many people own guns.

What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.
 
2013-01-20 11:53:44 AM

Wayne 985: You need a special license to operate a bus. If you're making that comparison, is it safe to assume you support a special license or some level higher standards to be allowed to own and fire a semi-automatic rifle?


Wow. "Completely Missing the Point" on Wayne 985. 15 yard penalty AND loss of down.
 
2013-01-20 11:54:02 AM

Amos Quito: o


I'm asking for your constructive ideas, not your complaints.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:06 AM

Alonjar: I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America.


OK, you're a loon. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:19 AM

Fark It: The NRA is not responsible for Heller or McDonald, they rode on Alan Gura's coattails.


I never said they were. There's more to "defending rights" than two specific Supreme Court cases.

Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.


How many of guns transferred (not necessarily sold) in that manner were used in crime, or were transferred to criminals? The oft-published 40% number is interesting in its own right, but is of limited usefulness without more context. What if most of the private transfers were from parent to a child (presumably of legal age and responsibility to own a firearm)? How many transfers were between good friends who knew that the recipient was not a criminal?
 
2013-01-20 11:55:35 AM

Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.


So call it what it is. You want to ban the private sale of firearms.

Calling it a gunshow loophole is disingenuous... if you asked ANYONE "Would you support closing X loophole" they will almost always say yes, because using the term "loophole" automatically suggests that they are getting away with something that they shouldnt be, which isnt the case.

Its a disgusting form of manipulation that I wouldnt support in ANY argument.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:40 AM

Fark It: gun owners mostly don't believe you.


Right, which I think speaks to a certain streak of paranoia that often causes people to become gun owners in the first place.

Fark It: I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.


This is absolutely correct, but I don't think it goes far enough. There's just something about guns or gun people that makes even "sane" gun owners a little . . . weird . . . about the gun thing. No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people. In any case, I think this is a cultural problem compounded by a legal problem. We're fixated on our guns to a point that is self-destructive, and the problem is virtually impossible to fix because of some archaic amendment to the Constitution and the power of the gun lobby.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:08 AM
Shut up Bill Clinton.

Southern Rednecks don't have rights.

/wondering if Obama is just posturing or is really determined on wrecking his second term over this
 
2013-01-20 11:57:36 AM
mksmith

There was a picture in this morning's paper of yesterday's local pro-gun rally -- including several fat, redneck women showing off their grinning six-year-olds who are decked out like Rambo (head rags and all) and waving toy machine guns. The next generation's crop of sociopaths.

Like the Big Dog said "don't trivialize gun culture."
 
2013-01-20 11:58:00 AM

Fart_Machine: One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 570x381]
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.

You mean you're going to burn yourself up based on Armageddon theology?


1999 is 666 upside down
 
2013-01-20 11:58:36 AM

CADMonkey79: When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.


Sorry, I honestly didn't mean the part you bolded to come off like that. I just meant, as I just said in another post, that gun owners are in general a little weird about gun control, even if they're not necessarily NRA-grade crazy.
 
2013-01-20 12:01:34 PM

The Name: Fark It: gun owners mostly don't believe you.

Right, which I think speaks to a certain streak of paranoia that often causes people to become gun owners in the first place.

Fark It: I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

This is absolutely correct, but I don't think it goes far enough. There's just something about guns or gun people that makes even "sane" gun owners a little . . . weird . . . about the gun thing. No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people. In any case, I think this is a cultural problem compounded by a legal problem. We're fixated on our guns to a point that is self-destructive, and the problem is virtually impossible to fix because of some archaic amendment to the Constitution and the power of the gun lobby.


Thanks for proving my point.
 
2013-01-20 12:01:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.

That's not even a correlation.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.


Seen or read Freakonomics? There's correlation between unwanted children and crime. Let's see, what happened 23 years before 1995 (the year where crime really started to drop)? Peak crime age is 20-25. Those unwanted children simply just didn't exist to commit those crimes.
 
2013-01-20 12:02:03 PM

Uncle Tractor: adragontattoo: Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
Different from

I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x160]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x213]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x114]

/I've only used one of those myself


Uzi fires 9mm
SigPro/Sig 2022 fires 9mm
Appears to be an FN-FAL or similar which fires .308/7.62

What is your point?  FYI, both the rifles I showed, fire the EXACT same round.  One of them is considered an "assault weapon" though because it is scary looking...
 
2013-01-20 12:02:37 PM

GoldSpider: Fark It: A Glock 19 is $500.

The revolver I mentioned costs about the same. I would expect (correct me if I'm wrong) an AK would be somewhat pricier.

Fark It: As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods.

On board with all of that as well. And I wouldn't dictate to anyone how he or she would protect their family. Though I might offer that a semi-auto rifle isn't their safest/most effective option.


Revolvers are nice, but at most they can hold 8 rounds (and those .357s are more than $500), they also generally kick more than semi-autos because they fire heavier ammunition and there is no slide-action to absorb recoil (.38 special +P typically kicks more than 9mm, due in part to the heavier bullet). In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." The police have no obligation to protect you and they are on average at least 10 minutes away, that's if they even bother showing up (Detroit). Their job is to take pictures and look for semen. A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.

Revolvers that are on par with the quality of equivalent modern semi-automatics are by their nature going to cost more, as they require more precise machining and more metal. Modern semi-autos use a ton of polymer. You can't get a good S&W (suitable for home defense) for less than $500, and Colt hasn't made revolvers in forever. And if you're relying on Taurus for home defense then, well, at least you got a free NRA membership to go along with that fine piece of Brazilian engineering. I've heard good things about Ruger though....
 
2013-01-20 12:03:48 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.

Sorry, I honestly didn't mean the part you bolded to come off like that. I just meant, as I just said in another post, that gun owners are in general a little weird about gun control, even if they're not necessarily NRA-grade crazy.


You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.
 
2013-01-20 12:04:05 PM

CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.


I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns.
 
2013-01-20 12:04:42 PM
adragontattoo
So now its a matter of caliber and NOT whether it is an "assault weapon" or not? Interesting, so what calibers are now evil and should be banned?
Fine, ban extended magazines, limit them to 10 rounds! Here is the kicker though, either make your escape, or tackle the lunatic with the gun in the ~.5 to 1 second it takes him to drop a magazine and insert another one. It isnt hard to learn to do it in that timeframe with simple practice. This does of course assume that the crazy person who is shooting at living people has bothered to make sure that he is following the law and only using 10 round magazines though. Dont want to break any laws based on the number of rounds in the magazine while he is commiting murder!
Here is a better idea, enforce the already existing laws. Stop treating mental illness as something that if we whistle loud enough. will go away. Stop giving the lunatic with the gun the front page. Stop glorifying them, stop admitting that some people are broken mentally, stop using the victims as a banner in order to change what you dont like, stop trying to blame the numbers of rounds in the magazine, the furniture on the gun, the video games, movies, tv or books.

I don't completely disagree with you, but how is that an different from the non-answer the NRA provides. It is pretty difficult to prosecute a guy who put a bullet in his own skull.
 
2013-01-20 12:05:52 PM

CADMonkey79: You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.


Sorry I hurt your feelings. You know what I meant, now stop your biatching.
 
2013-01-20 12:07:19 PM

Wayne 985: Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?

You need a special license to operate a bus. If you're making that comparison, is it safe to assume you support a special license or some level higher standards to be allowed to own and fire a semi-automatic rifle?


IF the goal was to reduce the number of firearms related deaths and injuries, one would THINK that we should start with those weapons that are actually related to such incidents.

FBI - Murder Circumstances 2011 - by weapon:

Total murder victims: 12,664
Total Firearm murders: 8,583
Total Handgun murders: 6,220  (73%)
Total Rifle murders: 323 (3.7% - and yes, this INCLUDES "Assault Weapons")

Obviously the reduction of murder rates and gun violence is NOT the primary goal of the gun grabbers. If it were, they'd be going after the weapons that cause the vast majority of the carnage.

So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?

Any thoughts on that?
 
2013-01-20 12:08:30 PM

The Name: No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people.


Birth control? Books? And I would hardly call it paranoia when there are people like Feinstein who on TV actually said she supported outright confiscation and would have gone with it if she had the votes. Or when confiscation has happened in New Orleans. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but" you should plug your grandfather's Garand because it has an 8-shot magazine and a bayonet lug, turn in your magazines, register all of your semi-autos, wait at least 6 months before we decide whether or not you're allowed to own a handgun, as in New York state, does not mean you actually support the 2nd Amendment.

adragontattoo: Appears to be an FN-FAL or similar which fires .308/7.62


G3 or similar variant.
 
2013-01-20 12:08:51 PM

clambam: because that is the way we have always done it. It's a tradition


Argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't a valid reason for anything.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:24 PM
Slick Willy knows what's good for the Dems. It's extremely frustrating to see them waste all of their political capital on a losing issue like gun control. All it will do is stir up the GOP base and push non-crazy gun owners who vote Democrat into the Republican fold. We're out there, I'm one of them.

Fark this BS, there's still plenty of problems left with the economy and gross income inequality.

Buh buh but
25.media.tumblr.com

Watch you dumb farkers hand the Senate to the GOP in 2016. It's happened before and the Teabaggers have gerrymandered things to hell this time around.