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

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

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



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report