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  
•       •       •

16580 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 | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 02:27:00 PM
Why is the "tyrant" always a person with full access to all the might of the US Military? Why can't he just be a local LEO or two, with all the armaments of a police cruiser, that one day decides all your daughters (or wife) are belong to them?
 
2013-01-20 02:27:26 PM
Trivialize it?

There's nothing trivial about several million mentally unstable and dangerously paranoid people who believe it's their god-given right to indiscriminately wield high-powered weaponry with impunity.

That's kind of the point.
 
2013-01-20 02:28:44 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Why is the "tyrant" always a person with full access to all the might of the US Military? Why can't he just be a local LEO or two, with all the armaments of a police cruiser, that one day decides all your daughters (or wife) are belong to them?


Because "state police".

Any more insanely stupid questions?
 
2013-01-20 02:29:18 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Why is the "tyrant" always a person with full access to all the might of the US Military? Why can't he just be a local LEO or two, with all the armaments of a police cruiser, that one day decides all your daughters (or wife) are belong to them?


There is no evidence of paranoia in this post.
 
2013-01-20 02:31:46 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: GoldSpider: Uranus Is Huge!: lol

That's a compelling rebuttal.

Sorry. I forget that gun-nuts are almost autistic in their literal-mindedness. Hint: My Weeners contained a double entendre that, apparently, sailed right passed you.


No I saw it, and chose to ignore it.  See I have been having a good time actually DISCUSSING this vs. just screaming OMFGDEYCOMINTOTAKEMYGUNZ or whatever.

Sorry but a 22 is not worth making some pudding over.  An original Thompson?  An original Ma Deuce?  Pudding coming right up!

Funny how you are instantly pointing fingers yet aren't contributing anything but background noise.
 
2013-01-20 02:33:16 PM
A male juvenile is in custody this morning following a shooting in the South Valley that left five people dead.
In an email from Bernalillo County officials, a shooting took place on Long Lane SW Saturday evening. Deputies were dispatched and found an adult male, an adult female and three children dead.
All victims appeared to have suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Multiple weapons appeared to have been used including an assault-type rifle. The investigation is ongoing and the identities of the victims have not been release, officials said.



heypete: cryinoutloud: Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one.
Need has nothing to do with it. In the US, rights default to "on"
and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.
Care to explain?


No, they don't. The Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right to bear arms--but it has not said that limits put on guns are illegal or unconstitutional. Funny how none of the gun nuts ever mention that part of their ruling--you can own guns, but restrictions put on your ownership and use of those guns are entirely constitutional. That was how they interpreted it the very last time the 2nd amendment was in front of them, and that is how it stands.

Saying that you should be able to have anything you want, just because, is greedy. No, you don't get to have everything you want, there are restrictions put on you and how you live your life every single day. Most people live within those restrictions, realizing that we all have to cooperate somewhat to get along in our society. But somehow, an assault rifle should be exempt from all that.

sorry, but the Supreme Court has not said that. And as far as I know, they get the final word. Unless you think your gun is big enough to take them on.
 
2013-01-20 02:35:26 PM

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

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


I always wonder what's going through that guy's mind when he makes sure to not simply pose for a photo while holding a gun, but feels it necessary to have these euphoric looks on his face while he does it. It's like a mentally challenged child's reaction to getting a medal when he beats two trees in an athletic competition.
 
2013-01-20 02:38:02 PM

heypete: PsiChick: Our current system has more gun murders, far as I'm aware, than any other civilized nation on the planet. And you're okay with that because of your hobby.

You're assuming that legally-owned firearms are somehow responsible for (or otherwise a major contributing factor to) violent crime in the US. If so, there'd be some correlation between the number of guns legally sold/owned and violent crime, right? According to FBI crime statistics, firearm-related homicides are at their lowest point since 1964 (and have been trending downwards since the 1980s). The number of legally-owned guns in the country is at an all-time-high.

Outside of major "hotspots" of violent crime (mostly city centers, where drug trafficking and gangs are common), firearm-related homicide in the US is reasonably similar to other modern countries. These hotspots disproportionately skew national statistics.

Put another way, legal gun ownership and use is almost entirely unconnected with the criminal use of guns in the country. Someone owning a gun for a hobby, for self-protection, or for other lawful purposes does not (except in very rare circumstances) contribute to criminal violence in any meaningful way.


And at least 3 of the "hotspots" are cities that legal possession of a handgun for defense is almost outright impossible (Chicago, NYC and DC)
 
2013-01-20 02:39:59 PM
Here's something I never understood. Most of the guys that I know that are big gun enthusiasts and talk of nothing else did not serve in the military. I wonder why that is? Of course the ones who did are MUCH more radical about their love of weapons.
 
2013-01-20 02:45:05 PM

cryinoutloud: Saying that you should be able to have anything you want, just because, is greedy. No, you don't get to have everything you want, there are restrictions put on you and how you live your life every single day. Most people live within those restrictions, realizing that we all have to cooperate somewhat to get along in our society. But somehow, an assault rifle should be exempt from all that.


I never said that the right was unlimited, I was simply saying that the right defaults to "on" and that in general one does not need to justify their purchase of an otherwise legal item. Naturally, there are laws and limitations on all rights, but absent those limitations a right defaults to "on".

True "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted to the point of being effectively banned. That's in line with the Supreme Court rulings, as machine guns (and things like grenades, rocket launchers, artillery, etc.) are neither "in common use" and could reasonably be described as "dangerous or unusual". Nobody's really arguing with that.

When you say "assault rifle", it appears that you're referring to a very common semi-auto firearm (the AR-15) that's functionally identical to the zillions of other semi-auto firearms out there and differs only appearance. As the most popular rifle in the country, it's "in common use" and has been sold for decades. Like other civilian-legal firearms, it fires one shot per pull of the trigger and most come chambered in the very common .223 Remington cartridge. As such, it's neither "dangerous" or "unusual" compared to other civilian-legal firearms. Such guns are used exceptionally rarely in crime -- numbers provided by Senator Feinstein (a lawmaker who has proposed dramatic restrictions on such guns) indicate that such guns are used in only 0.6% of firearm-related homicides.

In short, it looks like such guns would be protected under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and, legal arguments aside, that there's no particularly compelling reason for restricting their sale.
 
2013-01-20 02:46:23 PM
FTA: "But, Clinton warned, the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states - and simply dismissing pro-gun arguments is counterproductive."

This... this right here is why such a rational debate can never really be had about gun control in this country.
I have relatives in the south and was born there myself. Thankfully none of the kin I know of is into guns as a culture, I but I've known some of their friends and neighbors who are. Life without a gun for them is not just about not being able to hunt or target practice, it's as if you asked them to shoot off a limb. There is an actual fear (and I do not exaggerate) that they have of life without guns.

And before the "sekund ammmendmunt" squauks start this is not about the constitution or your rights thereof, but a discussion about the desire for such objects, almost like a fetish. That is where I see the emotion coming from.

I don't even pretend to understand this.
 
2013-01-20 02:47:43 PM

heypete: Such guns are used exceptionally rarely in crime -- numbers provided by Senator Feinstein (a lawmaker who has proposed dramatic restrictions on such guns) indicate that such guns are used in only 0.6% of firearm-related homicides.


Jeez. I just realized I used the words "such guns" way too many times in that post. Sorry for sounding like a broken record. I blame the beer. :)
 
2013-01-20 02:48:38 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Zeb Hesselgresser: Why is the "tyrant" always a person with full access to all the might of the US Military? Why can't he just be a local LEO or two, with all the armaments of a police cruiser, that one day decides all your daughters (or wife) are belong to them?

Because "state police".

Any more insanely stupid questions?


Yes, how many State Troopers do you personally know?
 
2013-01-20 02:55:02 PM

cryinoutloud: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Amos Quito: Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?
There is none. Not a single person has presented a reasoned argument for any kind of ban on assault weapons. And I don't just mean on fark, I mean anywhere. Every single argument is founded in emotionalism.

Explain the logic behind why anyone needs to own one. And no, "defending myself against the government" isn't a good reason, unless you live in some fantasy land.

and "because I want one" isn't good enough either. Greed isn't logical. It's an emotion.


No one needs testicles either.

Testicles demonstrably cause more crime than any other factor. With modern technology, your 'nads can be removed, and the genetic material stored for reproductive use (IF you meet government established genetic criteria, of course).

Now, give me one logical reason why you be allowed to keep your balls.

and "because I want to" isn't good enough either. Selfishness isn't logical. It's an emotion.
 
2013-01-20 02:57:55 PM

rewind2846: FTA: "But, Clinton warned, the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states - and simply dismissing pro-gun arguments is counterproductive."

This... this right here is why such a rational debate can never really be had about gun control in this country.
I have relatives in the south and was born there myself. Thankfully none of the kin I know of is into guns as a culture, I but I've known some of their friends and neighbors who are. Life without a gun for them is not just about not being able to hunt or target practice, it's as if you asked them to shoot off a limb. There is an actual fear (and I do not exaggerate) that they have of life without guns.

And before the "sekund ammmendmunt" squauks start this is not about the constitution or your rights thereof, but a discussion about the desire for such objects, almost like a fetish. That is where I see the emotion coming from.

I don't even pretend to understand this.


Maybe its because they look at guns a simply a tool, something the grow up around learn to respect and not fear. Something akin to people that love John Deere tractors or 57 Chevy's. My question is, do you have to understand it before they are allowed the right to feel that way? Is vilifying and mocking people who have done nothing illegal a good way to get them to come to a compromise or understanding when it comes to background checks or magazine restrictions?
 
2013-01-20 02:58:06 PM
25.media.tumblr.com


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 03:00:52 PM
Just leave that to these guys.

www.lilligren.com
 
2013-01-20 03:01:56 PM

adragontattoo: Uranus Is Huge!: GoldSpider: Uranus Is Huge!: lol

That's a compelling rebuttal.

Sorry. I forget that gun-nuts are almost autistic in their literal-mindedness. Hint: My Weeners contained a double entendre that, apparently, sailed right passed you.

No I saw it, and chose to ignore it.  See I have been having a good time actually DISCUSSING this vs. just screaming OMFGDEYCOMINTOTAKEMYGUNZ or whatever.

Sorry but a 22 is not worth making some pudding over.  An original Thompson?  An original Ma Deuce?  Pudding coming right up!

Funny how you are instantly pointing fingers yet aren't contributing anything but background noise.


Yeah. I've made very few salient points in any gun threads in the last few weeks. Listen, you're not in a House Committee. You're in a Fark comments thread.
 
2013-01-20 03:02:06 PM

Gato Blanco: Bill Clinton is right. There is a huge gun culture in this country, tightly wrapped in the culture of religion.

If you've ever had to face down a religious nut, you can now compare this to gun nuts. You have the same chances of convincing the idiot of evolution as you are of saying that you want to regulate certain guns and/or simply restrict clips sizes, etc.

My friend grew up in the south and is a very well-educated man, has a bachelor of science in geology, is an agnostic, and very socially liberal. I was shocked when he wouldn't listen to a damn word I said regarding what goals should be made for guns-- not to get rid of them, not to get rid of the 2nd amendment, but to simply have background checks, restrict guns that are obviously made for killing multiple targets at a very quick rate, etc.

To be fair, the situation made me think differently of him. How could a man so rational, so thoughtful, and so open to things suddenly shut down when I attempted a compromise and an understanding of guns with him? Well, his parents grew up as farmers, and his dad goes hunting as well as the rest of his family. Heck, I've used some of their shotguns before for shooting clay pigeons. To them, this whole debate is a slippery slope, and any sort of compromise with DA LIBS is a death knell for their guns and an invitation for god knows what. It frustrates me to no end, and seriously makes me want to get out of this area and go further north, and leave these damn people behind.

The point is, Bill Clinton is right. Don't trivialize gun culture-- not because I necessarily support it, but because it has a cult-like following, and no one ever won going up against God. Even if it's a false idol.


So how do you explain gun nuts who are atheist/agnostic?  It never dawned on you that your friend could be intransigent because he is right?
 
2013-01-20 03:03:27 PM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 379x757]


[25.media.tumblr.com image 620x480]


Stick with the IDF, everyone knows the brady stuff is fake.
 
2013-01-20 03:05:00 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Yes, how many State Troopers do you personally know?


One. He lives seven houses down from me. But it doesn't matter because I'd just call 911 like a normal person if I needed to report a kidnapping.

Any more insanely stupid questions?
 
2013-01-20 03:08:44 PM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 379x757]


[25.media.tumblr.com image 620x480]


The funny thing about the Brady Campaign is that I can never tell if those images are faked or real.
 
2013-01-20 03:10:07 PM
I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.
 
2013-01-20 03:12:14 PM

doglover: vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


"God & Guns"

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

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

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

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

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

For that peace maker
And the joy

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

Yeaaa
Ooh
God and guns

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

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

Wohoho
God and guns
Wohohoo
Ooh


Please tell me you aren't equating the mediocre cover band with one original member that recorded this song with the actual Lynyrd Skynrd
 
2013-01-20 03:13:43 PM

unamused: Gato Blanco: Bill Clinton is right. There is a huge gun culture in this country, tightly wrapped in the culture of religion.

If you've ever had to face down a religious nut, you can now compare this to gun nuts. You have the same chances of convincing the idiot of evolution as you are of saying that you want to regulate certain guns and/or simply restrict clips sizes, etc.

My friend grew up in the south and is a very well-educated man, has a bachelor of science in geology, is an agnostic, and very socially liberal. I was shocked when he wouldn't listen to a damn word I said regarding what goals should be made for guns-- not to get rid of them, not to get rid of the 2nd amendment, but to simply have background checks, restrict guns that are obviously made for killing multiple targets at a very quick rate, etc.

To be fair, the situation made me think differently of him. How could a man so rational, so thoughtful, and so open to things suddenly shut down when I attempted a compromise and an understanding of guns with him? Well, his parents grew up as farmers, and his dad goes hunting as well as the rest of his family. Heck, I've used some of their shotguns before for shooting clay pigeons. To them, this whole debate is a slippery slope, and any sort of compromise with DA LIBS is a death knell for their guns and an invitation for god knows what. It frustrates me to no end, and seriously makes me want to get out of this area and go further north, and leave these damn people behind.

The point is, Bill Clinton is right. Don't trivialize gun culture-- not because I necessarily support it, but because it has a cult-like following, and no one ever won going up against God. Even if it's a false idol.

So how do you explain gun nuts who are atheist/agnostic?  It never dawned on you that your friend could be intransigent because he is right?


SHHHH....we don't exist.
 
2013-01-20 03:13:54 PM

unamused: The point is, Bill Clinton is right. Don't trivialize gun culture-- not because I necessarily support it, but because it has a cult-like following, and no one ever won going up against God. Even if it's a false idol.

So how do you explain gun nuts who are atheist/agnostic?


images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-01-20 03:13:57 PM

Zeno-25: I love how one side in this debate conveniently forgets a little things like insurgencies and asymmetrical warfare, especially after all of the problems they caused us in Iraq for 10 years, and which are currently causing us problems in Afghanistan. Oh, and how's that modern military working out for the government in Syria putting down that little rebellion?


Insurgency is only good when authorities do it.

/as is gun ownership
//"When my boys stick this shotgun up your ass and pull the trigger, then you'll get the point of gun control." - Chicago mayor Richard Daley
 
2013-01-20 03:16:04 PM
We're all slaves to the Government...or something.
 
2013-01-20 03:17:13 PM

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

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


Yup. When you talk about mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc the reasonable gun owner is willing to listen. However once you throw the AWB (or Feinstien's retarded idea of the day) in the mix, I start to draw back. Making it harder for crazies to get guns is fine, but when the movement talks about the AWD being the "first step" or "omg it is black and scary looking", then you can kindly fark off.
 
2013-01-20 03:20:02 PM

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

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

Yup. When you talk about mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc the reasonable gun owner is willing to listen. However once you throw the AWB (or Feinstien's retarded idea of the day) in the mix, I start to draw back. Making it harder for crazies to get guns is fine, but when the movement talks about the AWD being the "first step" or "omg it is black and scary looking", then you can kindly fark off.


So, answer me this: if an AWB were included in a bill that also addressed problems with mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc., would you rather that bill die altogether than get passed?
 
2013-01-20 03:21:59 PM

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

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

Yup. When you talk about mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc the reasonable gun owner is willing to listen. However once you throw the AWB (or Feinstien's retarded idea of the day) in the mix, I start to draw back. Making it harder for crazies to get guns is fine, but when the movement talks about the AWD being the "first step" or "omg it is black and scary looking", then you can kindly fark off.


I meant to favorite you in another thread. Thanks for injecting some rational intelligence in here.
 
2013-01-20 03:22:17 PM

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?


The right to buy and own specific products is pretty low down the list compared to something like equal protection under the law. It's why, for instance, people who say they're voting for Ron Paul for the sole purpose of getting their drugs legalized are rightfully laughed at by everyone sane.
 
2013-01-20 03:22:38 PM

Fart_Machine: Stone Meadow: If Democrats insist on pushing this issue to its logical conclusion, we will lose at the mid-terms, and erase all the gains we've made in recent years when the GOP has a unified government in '16.

Because everyone is a single issue voter.


It only took 538 single issue voters in Florida in 2000.
 
2013-01-20 03:23:55 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.


Oh sure you haven't "banned" anything, all that you've done is effectively banned it. It would be like the government issuing "freedom of speech" permits, making everyone take a 40 hour course on hate speech, and restrictive anyone from using hurtful of offensive language.
It wouldn't "ban" free speech, there are just a few reasonable restrictions.
The funny thing about "slippery slopes" is that gun owners have proof, Dianne Fienstien? You know who that is? She said on camera that if she could have gotten the votes, she would had banned handguns. In New York many of the firearms that I own are legally considered "assault weapons" now, Since I can only own magazines that hold 10 rounds, most of them are paperweights.

I really find it funny when people say shiat like "they won't take your guns away", yeah farking right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
 
2013-01-20 03:26:37 PM

coeyagi: Can you read the FBI report I linked to above? Do you think politicians are too stupid to read these reports? Because what they are proposing will effectively do NOTHING to address the problems that they are howling about.

73% of all gun homicides are committed with HANDGUNS, yet they are going after weapons that are responsible for less than 4% of all homicides.

Are they that STOOPID for proposing such a solution? Or are you that STOOPID for believing them?


Coeyagi: Wow, you can't read.

You really can't.

What is the underhanded agenda of gun control legislation? It might not be effective, but how is it an underhanded agenda?



Okay, so we (apparently) agree, the proposed legislation will NOT effectively address the issues that it pretends to "tackle".

But those that are using senseless emotional appeal to try to push the ban must have SOME reason for doing so, right?

Why don't you tell me what you believe their reasoning is? Is it just a "feel good" maneuver? Or might they have another goal in mind?
 
2013-01-20 03:27:15 PM

GUTSU: Uranus Is Huge!: I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.

Oh sure you haven't "banned" anything, all that you've done is effectively banned it. It would be like the government issuing "freedom of speech" permits, making everyone take a 40 hour course on hate speech, and restrictive anyone from using hurtful of offensive language.
It wouldn't "ban" free speech, there are just a few reasonable restrictions.
The funny thing about "slippery slopes" is that gun owners have proof, Dianne Fienstien? You know who that is? She said on camera that if she could have gotten the votes, she would had banned handguns. In New York many of the firearms that I own are legally considered "assault weapons" now, Since I can only own magazines that hold 10 rounds, most of them are paperweights.

I really find it funny when people say shiat like "they won't take your guns away", yeah farking right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo


What about the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence? The constitution guarantees your right to "keep and bear arms." You may do both with what I've proposed.

Use your 3D printer.
 
2013-01-20 03:28:26 PM

The Name: So, answer me this: if an AWB were included in a bill that also addressed problems with mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc., would you rather that bill die altogether than get passed?


Yes.

If the issue was about something other than guns (say privacy rights, where a bill that would expand warrantless wiretapping was contained within an otherwise-reasonable bill) I'd be opposed to it as well.
 
2013-01-20 03:31:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: We're all slaves to the Government...or something.



So tell us, Mrtraveler01, do you support disarming civilians everywhere, or just in the US?
 
2013-01-20 03:31:33 PM

Mrtraveler01: We're all slaves to the Government...or something.


"Freedom" is slavery. Didn't you get the memo?

"We are the priests of power," [O'Brien] said. "God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body - but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter, external reality, as you would call it - is not important."

/one does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution
//one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship
///the left would literally rather be the totalitarian dictator of a shiathole than a mere president in paradise
 
2013-01-20 03:33:09 PM

Tatterdemalian: Mrtraveler01: We're all slaves to the Government...or something.

"Freedom" is slavery. Didn't you get the memo?

"We are the priests of power," [O'Brien] said. "God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body - but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter, external reality, as you would call it - is not important."

/one does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution
//one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship
///the left would literally rather be the totalitarian dictator of a shiathole than a mere president in paradise


Crap. He's on to us.

What else does 'the left' want?
 
2013-01-20 03:34:16 PM

Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: We're all slaves to the Government...or something.


So tell us, Mrtraveler01, do you support disarming civilians everywhere, or just in the US?


Who said I support disarming civilians?

I'm just making fun of the claim that (insert scary quotes) "We're all slaves to the Government"...Oooga Booga.
 
2013-01-20 03:34:51 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: GUTSU: Uranus Is Huge!: I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.

Oh sure you haven't "banned" anything, all that you've done is effectively banned it. It would be like the government issuing "freedom of speech" permits, making everyone take a 40 hour course on hate speech, and restrictive anyone from using hurtful of offensive language.
It wouldn't "ban" free speech, there are just a few reasonable restrictions.
The funny thing about "slippery slopes" is that gun owners have proof, Dianne Fienstien? You know who that is? She said on camera that if she could have gotten the votes, she would had banned handguns. In New York many of the firearms that I own are legally considered "assault weapons" now, Since I can only own magazines that hold 10 rounds, most of them are paperweights.

I really find it funny when people say shiat like "they won't take your guns away", yeah farking right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo

What about the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence? The constitution guarantees your right to "keep and bear arms." You may do both with what I've proposed.

Use your 3D printer.


I've seen this term thrown around.

What the hell is a 3D printer?
 
2013-01-20 03:36:05 PM

abhorrent1: Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?


Good point. They both should be outlawed.
 
2013-01-20 03:36:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: What the hell is a 3D printer?


Look it up on youtube. It's worth it.
 
2013-01-20 03:36:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: Uranus Is Huge!: GUTSU: Uranus Is Huge!: I'm in favor of regulating the shiat out of firearms manufacturers to the point of making them almost impossible to operate and simultaneously jacking up tariffs on foreign firearms. They do it to abortion clinics in the name of safety. All remaining firearms are registered to an owner who assumes liability for any damage or crime tied to their weapons. Mandatory 40 hours of weapons safety training. All 40 hours of this training occur in a classroom.

Explain to me the constitutional conflict. Difficulty: I have proposed no bans. I have no interest in tired slippery slopes.

Oh sure you haven't "banned" anything, all that you've done is effectively banned it. It would be like the government issuing "freedom of speech" permits, making everyone take a 40 hour course on hate speech, and restrictive anyone from using hurtful of offensive language.
It wouldn't "ban" free speech, there are just a few reasonable restrictions.
The funny thing about "slippery slopes" is that gun owners have proof, Dianne Fienstien? You know who that is? She said on camera that if she could have gotten the votes, she would had banned handguns. In New York many of the firearms that I own are legally considered "assault weapons" now, Since I can only own magazines that hold 10 rounds, most of them are paperweights.

I really find it funny when people say shiat like "they won't take your guns away", yeah farking right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo

What about the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence? The constitution guarantees your right to "keep and bear arms." You may do both with what I've proposed.

Use your 3D printer.

I've seen this term thrown around.

What the hell is a 3D printer?


Link
 
2013-01-20 03:38:49 PM

heypete: The Name: So, answer me this: if an AWB were included in a bill that also addressed problems with mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc., would you rather that bill die altogether than get passed?

Yes.

If the issue was about something other than guns (say privacy rights, where a bill that would expand warrantless wiretapping was contained within an otherwise-reasonable bill) I'd be opposed to it as well.


I guess I just don't understand why so many people feel (note: I said "feel," not "logically consider in the context of constitutional law") as strongly about the second amendment as they do the fourth amendment. I mean -really? That hunk of metal is just as important to you as your protection against unlawful search and seizure? I know they're legally equivalent and all, but legal reasoning doesn't seem to be what's behind most people's stance on the issue. As someone else in this thread has indicated, it's more of a fetish than anything else.
 
2013-01-20 03:40:04 PM

Mrtraveler01: I've seen this term thrown around.

What the hell is a 3D printer?


Its a device that "prints" 3d objects, usually with plastic, although a variety of materials are used including metals.

Here is someone 3d printing a wrench and a few other things.

I bought mine for around 2 grand, and use it professionally for prototyping.
 
2013-01-20 03:40:18 PM

The Name: So, answer me this: if an AWB were included in a bill that also addressed problems with mental health checks, gun show loopholes, etc., would you rather that bill die altogether than get passed?


I would push against that and push for my Congressman to take basically that exactly same bill and introduce it sans AWB. That should take him all of five minutes with the whiteout to accomplish (or Control+X in Word). Moving beyond weapons, I hate how Congress tends to pass omnibus bills or attach all kinds of riders onto bills. Personally I would say introduce three bills, one for mental health, one for gun shows (and other loopholes the LEOs want addressed), and the AWB. The AWB will likely die a horrible death in Boehner's Congress. If the Reps are dumb enough to kill off the other two, hammer them for that. I don't have an issue with the AWB being used as a bargaining chip in a sense, so the Reps can go to their base and say "Hey we killed the AWB, just ignore the other two bills and vote for us instead of the Tea Party please". However fark whoever sticks the AWB in some bigger bill and if they do, I want that bill DOA.

CADMonkey79: I meant to favorite you in another thread. Thanks for injecting some rational intelligence in here.


Thanks. It's somewhat annoying in that this would be an excellent time to push the NRA over mental health and the like, since a lot of moderate gun owners don't support how extremist the NRA is. But if the AWB talk continues, odds a bunch of those same gun owners will just ally with the NRA on the grounds of the enemy of the enemy is my friend.

/one of the best things the left could do is come to the realization that the AWB was pointless with regard to rifles and shotguns, all it did was make it so I couldn't stick on a telescoping stock (so my wife could use the weapon by adjust the stock down) and other accessories
//you could make the argument the pistol restrictions were useful since the style of weapon those restrictions went after was popular in gang drive by shootings
 
2013-01-20 03:40:59 PM

lilbjorn: abhorrent1: Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

Good point. They both should be outlawed.



Why?

And what else "should be outlawed"?
 
2013-01-20 03:41:33 PM

Alonjar: Mrtraveler01: I've seen this term thrown around.

What the hell is a 3D printer?

Its a device that "prints" 3d objects, usually with plastic, although a variety of materials are used including metals.

Here is someone 3d printing a wrench and a few other things.

I bought mine for around 2 grand, and use it professionally for prototyping.


That's awesome!

Thanks for sharing guys.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report