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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report