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 1115
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16591 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (2 years 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 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.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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