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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 11:11:18 PM

way south: No engineer at ruger came to work on their mki II line thinking "what those gang bangers want is a massive metal framed pistol with a six inch barrel and limited magazine that weights a FARK ton and shoots a bullet barely strong enough to kill a dog".


Dude, that doesn't change the fact that it's a .22 semiautomatic pistol.  It's a weapon.  It may be built for target practice, but it's still a weapon just the same.  They lengthened the barrel to make it moreaccurate than a standard pistol over a longer range.  Their engineers weren't thinking about gang bangers, they were thinking about improving the accuracy of a pistol at more than 15 feet.  And a .22 bullet is plenty dangerous.  I'm tired of this talking point that a .22 is the same as firing a pellet gun.  It's not.  And futhermore, even a pellet gun can do substantial damage if you fire it close enough to someone.
 
2013-01-20 11:11:37 PM

Wulfman: Wasn't the whole rationale behind the ban that your Big Gulps and Snickers bars affect the rest of us because healthcare? It was? OK. Just checking.


Money for healthcare =/= bullets killing people. The obese only physically hurt themselves. Bullets physically hurt anyone they go inside.

way south: Some guns are not designed to be weapons


There are guns that weren't designed to injure/kill things?
 
2013-01-20 11:16:37 PM
Well creative headline there, subby.

/just put that anywhere, pal
 
2013-01-20 11:17:16 PM

CADMonkey79: By the way thanks for the reminder of why I don't call myself a liberal.


If you believe in American Exceptionalism, then you are, by definition, not a liberal.
 
2013-01-20 11:22:32 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Money for healthcare =/= bullets killing people. The obese only physically hurt themselves. Bullets physically hurt anyone they go inside.


I think y'all missed the point of the Big Gulp comparison, it certainly wasn't that soda and guns are related.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:02 PM

TheJoe03: Keizer_Ghidorah: Money for healthcare =/= bullets killing people. The obese only physically hurt themselves. Bullets physically hurt anyone they go inside.

I think y'all missed the point of the Big Gulp comparison, it certainly wasn't that soda and guns are related.


I know the comparison is "liberals banning things because 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'". And it's a stupid comparison either way.
 
2013-01-20 11:31:28 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I know the comparison is "liberals banning things because 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'". And it's a stupid comparison either way.


Yeah, you missed the point. It's about bad laws intended to solve a real problem (obesity and gun violence). Instead of a thoughtful approach, morons like Bloomberg create stupid laws that fail to address the actual problem. Nothing about liberals or children. Please explain how the comparison is stupid, talking down isn't helping me understand your problem with what I'm saying.
 
2013-01-20 11:32:28 PM

Xcott: vygramul: Primary purpose of a gun, throughout history, was to kill people.  Most guns are the children of guns being improved to kill people.  They figured out how to do breech-loaders to kill people faster.  They figured out how to make bolt-actions because they wanted to kill people faster.  The M-16 was developed in order to figure out how to kill people faster.

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of firearms evolved for killing animals of different kinds. Hunting wasn't just a tangental use for firearms like target shooting, but one major driver of rifle and shotgun design.

It's probably better to say that guns are for killing things. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment is ostensibly justified by the utility of firearms for killing people, unless they meant the security of a free state from an invasion of rabbits or paper targets.


The major innovations were for killing people.  Hunting took advantage of the new tech, but the first flint-lock was not a hunting rifle.  The first breech-loader was not a hunting rifle.  The first bolt-action was not a hunting rifle.  The first semi-auto gun was not a hunting rifle.  The first gun to take external magazines was not a hunting rifle.  The first belt-fed machine gun wasn't a hunting rifle.  (OK, NO belt-fed guns are hunting rifles.)

Sure, those were all adapted and made more useful for hunting based on a variety of factors.  But the important innovations that truly made the weapons more capable were the result of a desire to kill people.

As far as the second goes, it's clear that the intent was for individuals to be armed so that they could form militias, and the reason for that was to enable the militias to carry out the mission of combating a domestic usurpation of power.  It wasn't about hunting, and it wasn't about self-defense, although that is, in and of itself, irrelevant to whether we have that right.
 
2013-01-20 11:34:08 PM

Alonjar: Statistics manipulation is fun.

You hear someone breaking into your home. Are they there to impregnate your wife, fark your daughters throat until she chokes to death, and set you on fire while you are still alive... or are they just there for your TV? No way to tell? OK, so you must automatically assume that anybody who breaks into your home is accepting the fact that a person could be home, or come home, during the robbery, and thus are prepared to deal with said residents, which requires violence. So we must go with the full 3.7m incident number, not your filtered 7% statistic.

So there are currently 310 million people living in the united states. Using your statistic of 3.7m burglaries, that means 1.1% of the population is burglarized every year. On average, americans live 2.6 people per household. So you actually have a 2.86% chance of having your household broken into in any given year.

Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

Go ahead, check my math.


Jesus, you need to go back and take a statistics class.  You are compounding the risk of being burglarized for every year you are alive.  The risk of being burglarized doesn't change the longer you are alive.  Someone who lives their entire life in an area with a 2% annual burglary rate has a 2% chance of being burglarized every year.

Or just use what my thermodynamics prof used to call the "idiot test":  your 223% result means every single person in the US who lives to be 78 will be burglarized at least twice.  Does that sound right to you?
 
2013-01-20 11:37:02 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Wulfman: Wasn't the whole rationale behind the ban that your Big Gulps and Snickers bars affect the rest of us because healthcare? It was? OK. Just checking.

Money for healthcare =/= bullets killing people. The obese only physically hurt themselves. Bullets physically hurt anyone they go inside.



Yeah, of course. But the argument used to enact those restrictions was exactly that... when you drink a big soda, it is detrimental to the City, County, and State of New York. You said that "Big Gulps and Snickers bars only affect you", and that it was a fallacy to in any way relate the restriction of these things to the restriction of handguns. And yet that's exactly the rationale that is used... that restrictions on all of these are justified by the greater good, because (they say) it doesn't just affect you, thinkofthechildren.jpg.

Any government that will restrict the size of your soda is clearly and ludicrously not in the least bit interested in the liberty of its citizens, and if left unchecked it really would plow down the slippery slopes that reasonable people think they never would. In the name of public health.
 
2013-01-20 11:49:36 PM
Here's some interesting info on the recent mass murderers.

Ft Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat; Muslim.
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; Progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Maybe we should ban Democrats.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:16 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: This says something interesting about you. Either, you can't follow basic statistics and understand what someone intended to convey with the numbers provided, or you followed along, knew what they meant, and decided to be a willfully obtuse dick for no real reason. Either way, I'm not remotely surprised.


Wouldn't it be tragic if the person you're purporting to defend issued a straightforward mea culpa just a few comments before you decided to post this, thereby causing this entire tangent to fall flat in suitably pathetic fashion?
 
2013-01-21 12:00:10 AM

ArmednHammered: Here's some interesting info on the recent mass murderers.

Ft Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat; Muslim.
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; Progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Maybe we should ban Democrats.


ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor
 
2013-01-21 12:07:50 AM

The Name: ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor


Actually, I've never been to World Net Daily.
Are you denying that what I posted is true? If so, prove me wrong or stfu.
 
2013-01-21 12:18:03 AM

ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor

Actually, I've never been to World Net Daily.
Are you denying that what I posted is true? If so, prove me wrong or stfu.


Heh, I believe the burden of proof is on you, Mr. "All serial killers are Democrats." At least provide a link to WND or something.
 
2013-01-21 12:20:12 AM

ArmednHammered: Here's some interesting info on the recent mass murderers.

Ft Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat; Muslim.
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; Progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Maybe we should ban Democrats.


I LOL'd.
 
2013-01-21 12:20:52 AM

TheJoe03: Keizer_Ghidorah: I know the comparison is "liberals banning things because 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'". And it's a stupid comparison either way.

Yeah, you missed the point. It's about bad laws intended to solve a real problem (obesity and gun violence). Instead of a thoughtful approach, morons like Bloomberg create stupid laws that fail to address the actual problem. Nothing about liberals or children. Please explain how the comparison is stupid, talking down isn't helping me understand your problem with what I'm saying.


Well, that's a first. Usually everything is blamed on Obama, liberals, or both on Fark.

Maybe it was a stupid reaction to the problem, but I'll answer it as I'll answer:

Wulfman: Yeah, of course. But the argument used to enact those restrictions was exactly that... when you drink a big soda, it is detrimental to the City, County, and State of New York. You said that "Big Gulps and Snickers bars only affect you", and that it was a fallacy to in any way relate the restriction of these things to the restriction of handguns. And yet that's exactly the rationale that is used... that restrictions on all of these are justified by the greater good, because (they say) it doesn't just affect you, thinkofthechildren.jpg.

Any government that will restrict the size of your soda is clearly and ludicrously not in the least bit interested in the liberty of its citizens, and if left unchecked it really would plow down the slippery slopes that reasonable people think they never would. In the name of public health.


When the population in general doesn't seem to care about its health and well-being anymore, someone's got to take the step to kick it in the pants and do something. Yes, your "rights" may get ruffled a little, but is nationwide obesity/the blood of children really an acceptable price to pay for them? Especially when any and all suggestions to fix them are met with "I HAVE MY RIGHTS! I HAVE MY RIGHTS!"?
 
2013-01-21 12:24:33 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.

This says something interesting about you. Either, you can't follow basic statistics and understand what someone intended to convey with the numbers provided, or you followed along, knew what they meant, and decided to be a willfully obtuse dick for no real reason. Either way, I'm not remotely surprised.


Ha, "intended to convey." I'm sure he intended not to screw up basic math while bragging about being an engineer.

Apparently I'm an obtuse dick for refusing to overlook irrelevant egghead things like factual accuracy. If I was a loyal member of the uncle derp brigade, I'd just understand the point, and be a big enough man to ignore all the bogus steps needed to get there.
 
2013-01-21 12:26:54 AM

ArmednHammered: Here's some interesting info on the recent mass murderers.

Ft Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat; Muslim.
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; Progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Maybe we should ban Democrats.


You see, and If it wasn't for Internet Web Sites with these Internet Facts, we would never notice these patterns.
 
2013-01-21 12:32:07 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, that's a first. Usually everything is blamed on Obama, liberals, or both on Fark.


That's the world you live in but surprise mothafarka, I'm a lefty liberal!

Keizer_Ghidorah: When the population in general doesn't seem to care about its health and well-being anymore, someone's got to take the step to kick it in the pants and do something. Yes, your "rights" may get ruffled a little, but is nationwide obesity/the blood of children really an acceptable price to pay for them? Especially when any and all suggestions to fix them are met with "I HAVE MY RIGHTS! I HAVE MY RIGHTS!"?


Not everyone thinks it's the government's job to tell people how to live their lives. Saying, "big deal, so what if some rights get ruffled" is a very disturbing concept to me. Anyways, sure things must be done to solve the obesity problem and gun violence (blood of children? lol, what about all the other people getting killed by guns), but banning Big Gulps and assault weapons has not been proven to me (I've asked a couple times in the thread for proof) to solve obesity or gun violence. They are just silly laws done in order to make it look like a politician did something despite them being too cowardly to actually do something difficult that mattered. End the War on Drugs, start a war on poverty, improve the mental health system, enforce the current laws, beef up background checks, and close that gun show loophole, those are real solutions. Banning a certain type of gun (one not even used in any of these massacres and used substantially less in gun crimes) is the easy but pointless solution for the boneheads in Congress.
 
2013-01-21 12:32:19 AM

The Name: ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor

Actually, I've never been to World Net Daily.
Are you denying that what I posted is true? If so, prove me wrong or stfu.

Heh, I believe the burden of proof is on you, Mr. "All serial killers are Democrats." At least provide a link to WND or something.


Just what I thought, you got nothing. Do some research and get back to me.
 
2013-01-21 12:37:23 AM

ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor

Actually, I've never been to World Net Daily.
Are you denying that what I posted is true? If so, prove me wrong or stfu.

Heh, I believe the burden of proof is on you, Mr. "All serial killers are Democrats." At least provide a link to WND or something.

Just what I thought, you got nothing. Do some research and get back to me.


Ah the old "Prove me wrong" troll.
 
2013-01-21 12:44:13 AM

ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered: The Name: ArmednHammered ~~~ World Net Daily contributor

Actually, I've never been to World Net Daily.
Are you denying that what I posted is true? If so, prove me wrong or stfu.

Heh, I believe the burden of proof is on you, Mr. "All serial killers are Democrats." At least provide a link to WND or something.

Just what I thought, you got nothing. Do some research and get back to me.


I actually tried to find the VT shooter's political affiliation but I couldn't find anything about it. I have no reason to believe you, since I've never heard this talking point from anyone other than you, so you really should provide some kind of evidence for your hard to believe claims.
 
2013-01-21 12:45:55 AM

Fart_Machine: Ah the old "Prove me wrong" troll.


Shhh! you're harshing my buzz! ;-)
But he still can't....
 
2013-01-21 12:52:12 AM

TheJoe03: Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, that's a first. Usually everything is blamed on Obama, liberals, or both on Fark.

That's the world you live in but surprise mothafarka, I'm a lefty liberal!

Keizer_Ghidorah: When the population in general doesn't seem to care about its health and well-being anymore, someone's got to take the step to kick it in the pants and do something. Yes, your "rights" may get ruffled a little, but is nationwide obesity/the blood of children really an acceptable price to pay for them? Especially when any and all suggestions to fix them are met with "I HAVE MY RIGHTS! I HAVE MY RIGHTS!"?

Not everyone thinks it's the government's job to tell people how to live their lives. Saying, "big deal, so what if some rights get ruffled" is a very disturbing concept to me. Anyways, sure things must be done to solve the obesity problem and gun violence (blood of children? lol, what about all the other people getting killed by guns), but banning Big Gulps and assault weapons has not been proven to me (I've asked a couple times in the thread for proof) to solve obesity or gun violence. They are just silly laws done in order to make it look like a politician did something despite them being too cowardly to actually do something difficult that mattered. End the War on Drugs, start a war on poverty, improve the mental health system, enforce the current laws, beef up background checks, and close that gun show loophole, those are real solutions. Banning a certain type of gun (one not even used in any of these massacres and used substantially less in gun crimes) is the easy but pointless solution for the boneheads in Congress.


True, yes. But compared to the "solutions" from the other side (Arm everyone, everywhere, all the time), they're the pinnacle of logic.

But, in the end, what can we do? Extremists on one side think doing anything = destroying our rights, extremists on the other think total bans are the only solution, bureaucrats don't have a clue either way, and the normal sane people get ignored or their solutions mocked.
 
2013-01-21 12:58:43 AM

ArmednHammered: Here's some interesting info on the recent mass murderers.

Ft Hood ~~~ Registered Democrat; Muslim.
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; Progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Maybe we should ban Democrats.


Yes, all the recent mass murders have a common thread... they were all democratic operatives! You could just see how political they all were, even through the unmitigated insanity, they were all essentially political pundits and worked for the democratic campaigns. I always said, Democrats are serial killers, and you have compiled a nice little list affirming this notion. Bravo!

/now I'm gonna go listen to some more Ted Nugent
//he's totally not unbalanced and crazy
 
2013-01-21 01:01:52 AM

TheJoe03: surprise mothafarka


Apropos of nothing.
 
2013-01-21 01:06:02 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: True, yes. But compared to the "solutions" from the other side (Arm everyone, everywhere, all the time), they're the pinnacle of logic.


I really think the NRA has done a disservice to those that support the 2nd Amendment, and they are more about backing the GOP than they are about promoting the rights of gun owners. This was made clear to me when they backed Romney.

Keizer_Ghidorah: But, in the end, what can we do? Extremists on one side think doing anything = destroying our rights, extremists on the other think total bans are the only solution, bureaucrats don't have a clue either way, and the normal sane people get ignored or their solutions mocked.


There's more of us than there are extremists. It might sound corny, but writing to your Congressman might help.
 
2013-01-21 01:08:07 AM

Mr. Eugenides: ...most of my shooting is at paper targets because I might shoot 1 or 2 deer a year but I need to be able to hit my target with some certainty. And when practicing it is quite convenient and helpful to be able to shoot multiple rounds without reloading.


Well by all means then, let's allow unfettered access to 30 round magazines to every person in the country. I'd hate to think our burdensome legislation made your target practice take longer than it otherwise should.
 
2013-01-21 01:09:54 AM

TheJoe03: Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, that's a first. Usually everything is blamed on Obama, liberals, or both on Fark.

That's the world you live in but surprise mothafarka, I'm a lefty liberal!

Keizer_Ghidorah: When the population in general doesn't seem to care about its health and well-being anymore, someone's got to take the step to kick it in the pants and do something. Yes, your "rights" may get ruffled a little, but is nationwide obesity/the blood of children really an acceptable price to pay for them? Especially when any and all suggestions to fix them are met with "I HAVE MY RIGHTS! I HAVE MY RIGHTS!"?

Not everyone thinks it's the government's job to tell people how to live their lives. Saying, "big deal, so what if some rights get ruffled" is a very disturbing concept to me. Anyways, sure things must be done to solve the obesity problem and gun violence (blood of children? lol, what about all the other people getting killed by guns), but banning Big Gulps and assault weapons has not been proven to me (I've asked a couple times in the thread for proof) to solve obesity or gun violence. They are just silly laws done in order to make it look like a politician did something despite them being too cowardly to actually do something difficult that mattered. End the War on Drugs, start a war on poverty, improve the mental health system, enforce the current laws, beef up background checks, and close that gun show loophole, those are real solutions. Banning a certain type of gun (one not even used in any of these massacres and used substantially less in gun crimes) is the easy but pointless solution for the boneheads in Congress.


I agree with the all the above, it's sensible and rational as opposed to the frothing do anything that looks good crap coming out of our legislators. Sorry for the earlier semi-troll but I'm getting tired of the broad brush all gun owners are being painted with. Should we apply the same brush to freedom of speech or any of the other unalienable rights spelled out in the Constitution? Re: Gun show Loophole, No gun show I've ever been to has had full auto arms for sale to anyone without a class 3 FFL (at least in the western U.S.). One vendor that had an old .45 cal "Tommy" gun wouldn't even let me touch the damn thing without showing the license.
 
2013-01-21 01:14:58 AM

Biological Ali: Apropos of nothing.


That was awesome.
 
2013-01-21 01:18:08 AM

NathanJ37: Well by all means then, let's allow unfettered access to 30 round magazines to every person in the country. I'd hate to think our burdensome legislation made your target practice take longer than it otherwise should.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.
 
2013-01-21 01:25:25 AM

catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.


Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.
 
2013-01-21 01:31:20 AM

Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.


That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.
 
2013-01-21 01:37:43 AM

Biological Ali: TheJoe03: surprise mothafarka

Apropos of nothing.


OK, I lol'd!
 
2013-01-21 01:39:25 AM

catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.

That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.


I feel the same way, but I'll go one further and say there shouldn't be any laws on the books banning access to hand grenades or rocket launchers... I mean really, when was the last time someone used a rocket launcher to kill another person in this country? and it's silly to keep FULLY automatic weapons banned from the public, more murders are committed with simple handguns than anything else, why discriminate against other weapons just because they hold more bullets or fire faster or more accurately? It doesn't make a difference, really. why have gun laws at all? it doesn't really make a difference at all, so we shouldn't have any.
 
2013-01-21 01:43:41 AM

OscarTamerz: Please Chimpbama, repass the "assault" weapons because it did absolutely nothing the first time around...."


You know, I keep hearing this, but I have to say: [citation needed].
 
2013-01-21 01:44:12 AM

NathanJ37: Well by all means then, let's allow unfettered access to 30 round magazines to every person in the country. I'd hate to think our burdensome legislation made your target practice take longer than it otherwise should.


NV or AZ recently removed the restriction on hunting with more than 5 rounds in a semi auto rifle because hunters would need more than 5 rounds if they were attacked by drug smugglers while they were hunting.

The woman in GA who hid in her closet with her kids shot a guy who broke into her house 5 times....she was lucky only 1 guy broke into her home.

It is not up to you to dictate a reasonable round count or magazine capacity when it comes to people defending themselves.

When the cops show up to respond(sometimes minutes, sometimes as much as an hour later) to an event like that they bring more cops....with more patrol rifles that have 30 round mags.....why shouldn't a citizen be allowed to defend themselves with a weapon that utilizes a 30 round magazine?
 
2013-01-21 01:44:58 AM

catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.

That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.


I don't see what would be so tough about it. You just ban 30-round magazines, maybe even certain classes of semiautomatic weapons, and the public still has the right to keep and bear arms. A law would have to be pretty ham-handed to suppress the right to keep and bear arms in the process of banning 30-round magazines.

If you think that violates the second amendment, then what do you have to worry about? Let it go to the supreme court, and if you're right then they'll find it unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-21 01:48:41 AM

Crapinoleum: OscarTamerz: Please Chimpbama, repass the "assault" weapons because it did absolutely nothing the first time around...."

You know, I keep hearing this, but I have to say: [citation needed].


A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_a n d_effect_on_crime

Other cites are given under Expiration and effect on crime
 
2013-01-21 01:50:18 AM

enochianwolf: and it's silly to keep FULLY automatic weapons banned from the public,


They are not banned.

Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.
 
2013-01-21 01:51:10 AM

Giltric: NathanJ37: Well by all means then, let's allow unfettered access to 30 round magazines to every person in the country. I'd hate to think our burdensome legislation made your target practice take longer than it otherwise should.

NV or AZ recently removed the restriction on hunting with more than 5 rounds in a semi auto rifle because hunters would need more than 5 rounds if they were attacked by drug smugglers while they were hunting.

The woman in GA who hid in her closet with her kids shot a guy who broke into her house 5 times....she was lucky only 1 guy broke into her home.

It is not up to you to dictate a reasonable round count or magazine capacity when it comes to people defending themselves.

When the cops show up to respond(sometimes minutes, sometimes as much as an hour later) to an event like that they bring more cops....with more patrol rifles that have 30 round mags.....why shouldn't a citizen be allowed to defend themselves with a weapon that utilizes a 30 round magazine?


Didn't she have a revolver?
 
2013-01-21 01:54:40 AM

Xcott: catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.

That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.

I don't see what would be so tough about it. You just ban 30-round magazines, maybe even certain classes of semiautomatic weapons, and the public still has the right to keep and bear arms. A law would have to be pretty ham-handed to suppress the right to keep and bear arms in the process of banning 30-round magazines.

If you think that violates the second amendment, then what do you have to worry about? Let it go to the supreme court, and if you're right then they'll find it unconstitutional.


I'm very interested in seeing this issue go to the supreme court. In my view, if you view the second amendment as being a protection against an overzealous government as stated in the Federalist No. 28, then access to these magazines is important to fulfill the purpose of the second amendment. If limiting access to 30 round magazines is upheld, the next time a shooting occurs the nation will be shocked at how fast some people can reload their weapons. What's next? My mag well helps me reload faster than I can blink. Will that need to be banned? A semi-automatic weapon stills fires as fast as I can squeeze. If we head down this road, all of the teeth will be taken out of the bill of rights.
 
2013-01-21 01:57:13 AM

Lsherm: Giltric: NathanJ37: Well by all means then, let's allow unfettered access to 30 round magazines to every person in the country. I'd hate to think our burdensome legislation made your target practice take longer than it otherwise should.

NV or AZ recently removed the restriction on hunting with more than 5 rounds in a semi auto rifle because hunters would need more than 5 rounds if they were attacked by drug smugglers while they were hunting.

The woman in GA who hid in her closet with her kids shot a guy who broke into her house 5 times....she was lucky only 1 guy broke into her home.

It is not up to you to dictate a reasonable round count or magazine capacity when it comes to people defending themselves.

When the cops show up to respond(sometimes minutes, sometimes as much as an hour later) to an event like that they bring more cops....with more patrol rifles that have 30 round mags.....why shouldn't a citizen be allowed to defend themselves with a weapon that utilizes a 30 round magazine?

Didn't she have a revolver?


Yep and she should be able to use whatever firearm with however many rounds she wants.

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-s o n-of-deputy-97430719.html

Like the15 year old in the above link who defended himself and his sister with an AR and an evil 30 round magazine.
 
2013-01-21 02:08:02 AM

Xcott: catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.

That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.

I don't see what would be so tough about it. You just ban 30-round magazines, maybe even certain classes of semiautomatic weapons, and the public still has the right to keep and bear arms. A law would have to be pretty ham-handed to suppress the right to keep and bear arms in the process of banning 30-round magazines.

If you think that violates the second amendment, then what do you have to worry about? Let it go to the supreme court, and if you're right then they'll find it unconstitutional.


They're worried because by the time it got to the Supreme Court Fartbama might have appointed a few new justices and then we would be a Socialist gun-grabbing Communist state.
 
2013-01-21 02:31:11 AM

catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: Xcott: catpuncher: I wholeheartedly agree with you. There's absolutely no reason to restrict and entire nation's freedom based on the illegal misuse of these magazine by a handful of people. To do so wouldn't solve the problem. It would just placate a group of reactionary assholes who had this on their agenda for a long time.

Good point. They should make sure to ban 30-round magazines in a way that doesn't restrict anyone's freedom or constitutional rights.

That would be tough given the second amendment, but why? We've been down this road and it hasn't made a bit of difference.

I don't see what would be so tough about it. You just ban 30-round magazines, maybe even certain classes of semiautomatic weapons, and the public still has the right to keep and bear arms. A law would have to be pretty ham-handed to suppress the right to keep and bear arms in the process of banning 30-round magazines.

If you think that violates the second amendment, then what do you have to worry about? Let it go to the supreme court, and if you're right then they'll find it unconstitutional.

I'm very interested in seeing this issue go to the supreme court. In my view, if you view the second amendment as being a protection against an overzealous government as stated in the Federalist No. 28, then access to these magazines is important to fulfill the purpose of the second amendment. If limiting access to 30 round magazines is upheld, the next time a shooting occurs the nation will be shocked at how fast some people can reload their weapons. What's next? My mag well helps me reload faster than I can blink. Will that need to be banned? A semi-automatic weapon stills fires as fast as I can squeeze. If we head down this road, all of the teeth will be taken out of the bill of rights.


and where was the 2nd amendment-loving anti-tyrannical derp brigade when GWB passed the PATRIOT act? He clearly violated pieces of the bill of rights, but it seems for all the teeth the 2nd amendment gives, no one decided to bite. It seems like the rhetoric has turned up over the past few years and now people are speaking of armed revolt in defense of the constitution all of a sudden... I wonder what has changed.
 
2013-01-21 02:46:10 AM

enochianwolf: and where was the 2nd amendment-loving anti-tyrannical derp brigade when GWB passed the PATRIOT act?


Civil libertarians have been against the Patriot Act all along. Not everyone that supports the 2nd Amendment is a Fox News drone.
 
2013-01-21 02:47:18 AM

enochianwolf: He clearly violated pieces of the bill of rights,


They are still being violated fyi.....did you give the guy currently doing it a 2nd term?
 
2013-01-21 02:47:33 AM

Giltric: http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-s o n-of-deputy-97430719.html

Like the15 year old in the above link who defended himself and his sister with an AR and an evil 30 round magazine.


Kinda surprised he had an assault rifle.
At least, according to your link.
 
2013-01-21 02:54:02 AM

enochianwolf: and where was the 2nd amendment-loving anti-tyrannical derp brigade when GWB passed the PATRIOT act? He clearly violated pieces of the bill of rights, but it seems for all the teeth ...


Yup, I've always hated the PATRIOT act. What's your point? That a bigger fuss wasn't raised? The PATRIOT act is a big complex bill that isn't as high profile as something simple people can understand like guns, speech or religion. Just because a large part of the population didn't understand that they lost ground on the complex bill doesn't mean they should readily surrender on every other issue of their rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report