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 218
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16570 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-20 01:37:51 AM
16 votes:

Lsherm: gun show loophole


The term "gun show loophole" demonstrates a lack of understanding of gun laws and is an emotionally loaded propaganda term, made to make private sales seem criminal and secretive, when in fact non-FFLs are legally not permitted to access the NICS. There is no loophole, the law was never intended for private sales.

/supports expanding the NICS
2013-01-20 01:29:36 AM
12 votes:
Can we ban gun threads?
2013-01-20 01:13:54 AM
10 votes:
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...
2013-01-20 06:01:30 AM
7 votes:
There's also something to be said about the way public opinion polls ask questions: I'd be surprised if a poll that asked something like "do you support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines like those used in The Newtown shooting?" got less than the majority of people saying "yes, they should be banned".

But, if the question were asked like "do you support banning the most common types of civilian firearms, even if they're used in only 0.6% of gun-related homicides and this rate has been decreasing for years?", I think the answer would be different.

It's not uncommon for non-gun-owners (and even some gun owners) to think "assault weapons" = "machine guns" when this isn't the case at all. There's a lot of misconceptions about such guns.
2013-01-20 02:25:02 AM
7 votes:

The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.


He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.
2013-01-20 01:42:28 AM
6 votes:

vernonFL: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


FOUL! Jumping to conclusions. 5 yard penalty, lose the down.
2013-01-20 07:40:59 AM
5 votes:

Alphax: unamused: You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.

They always say lots of untrue things. That won't change.


Do you not get the part where gay marriage and gun ownership are on the same side of coin called rights? Do you not see your own hypocrisy by saying "These rights I want are good. These rights I don't want are bad." and then criticizing the other guys for doing the same but disagreeing with you?

Some people don't want gay rights. They're straight and married. They don't need you to be happy. They don't care. So they pander to the haters and get elected in gerrymandered little counties full of xenophobic old people who think gay and pedophile are the same thing.

Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim. You forgot the rule of fighting monsters, and that's not to become that which you fight. If you are pro rights, you must be pro rights. If you are only pro the rights you like, you're no different than a Republican senator who's against the rights you like that don't matter to him.
2013-01-20 06:22:54 AM
5 votes:

doglover: They're not just for killing.


Wow. That's some mental gymnastics shiat right there. Silver medal, at least. Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose. The fact that you can use them for other things doesn't change their purpose. Managing animals in the wild? Killing them. Target practice? Training for killing. Don't sugar coat it in your mind. At least have the honesty to admit that your little adult toy is supposed to kill stuff, whether you use it to play at killing things or actually kill them. It is a tool designed, made, sold, and used to kill. And one can argue that there is very little wrong with such a tool, but you can't honestly say it is for anything else.
2013-01-20 02:29:14 AM
5 votes:

violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.


This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.
2013-01-20 07:35:19 AM
4 votes:
The "issue," after loughner, holmes, and lanza, has been described as both "gun culture" and "mental health." while symptomatic, these are not the whole story.

First, loughner went after a politician, which is high profile. Holmes went big in a movie theater, with a high number of casualties. And lanza did this same, going after kids, which, in no uncertains terms, is a catastrophe of the highest order. Yet these high profile, high impact incidents make up a small percentage of overall gun deaths ( which does not negate them by any means).

There is no single "gun culture," although guns are a common uniting factor across said cultures. Inner city gun culture is differnt from country gun culture, which is different than white suburban middle class gun culture, and so on. The gun does not represent freedom, as in consitutional rights, as much is it does fear. It is not so much a symbol of protection as it is provocation. Guns do not minimize fear, but rathet create it an exploit it.

Fear transcends mental health and mental illness, although it is evident in paranoia, phobias, and anxiety. It refers to self preservation, and survival, however far removed the surface of our dialogues about gun violence. Therefore, what needs to be addressed is what people are afraid of, and you will find it is their way of life, their very existence... which is why it is so goddamned hard to change. But until there can be a rational appraisal of it, were stuck in the same
loop.

Loughner, holmes, and lanza may be viewed as extreme examples of gun violence, outside the scope of rational discourse about guns, because of their alleged mental states and their atrocities...but they are prime examples of how we handle outcasts, loners, and marginalized persons. We just call them "mentally ill," because its a term we can bandy about in an attempt to make the inexplicable explicable. They alone are, or were, resonsible for their acts and must face the consequences. Yet it is up to us to address, within each of our psyches and with each other, what fear compels to create the conditions of possibilty, the ground for gun violence, or any violence for that matter. This is where the discussion must turn. What must be faced in order to be freed, what must be lost in order to be gained.
2013-01-20 07:33:31 AM
4 votes:
The other quarters are SHTF survivalists - who are making a poor risk assessment of the remote possibility of dangers that might exist in the future compared to the very real dangers that exist for many Americans today - and people who actually are hoping for the collapse of the government because they don't like it very much.

Here's the problem with that statement. Once you add in self defense and possibly hunting, I think the risk assessment many responsible gun owners make is something like this (note I'm defining responsible gun owners as people who are somewhat intelligent, don't drink when they shoot, and follow the rules of safety at all times, which I admit may not be a majority of gun owners):

1) Will I accidentally shoot myself or someone else? No, because I practice safety
2) Will I shoot someone on purpose who doesn't deserve to be shot? No, because I am of sound mind and mild temperament, and I have a detailed understanding of my rights to self defense, and where they end.
3) Will someone in my family shoot someone or themselves accidentally or on purpose? No, because I'm careful to train those who are responsible, and I'm careful to secure weapons from those I believe irresponsible/immature. I'm also careful about who I let into my life, and who I trust my life (and those of my family members) with.
4) Will someone break in and shoot myself or someone in my family? No, because my guns are secure and I have a carefully planned strategy for self defense should this ever happen.
5) Could something happen that could relax the laws of society, i.e. natural disaster, fall of government, invasion, etc.? Probably not likely, but in the worst case scenario....

Of the 5 above possibilities, #5, no matter how remote, is the MOST likely possibility to the responsible, safe gun owner. When studies come out that say a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a member of the family, the responsible gun owner looks through the list above and says "not in my family". And, the VAST majority of the time (with over 300 million guns out there), the responsible gun owner is RIGHT. It's a calculated awareness, not denial.
2013-01-20 02:55:38 AM
4 votes:

GAT_00: 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...

I've been assured over and over again that the NRA does not speak for Real Gun Owners. If that is true, then they will do no such thing. If they flee to the NRA, they're only proving that they've been lying this whole time.

If they really cared about solutions, they'd form a new voice to shout down the NRA. I see no such thing happening. And so, the NRA is already speaking for them. They are the pro-gun voice. If they don't like that, that's their problem, not mine. If they didn't want the NRA speaking for them they'd do something.


Like not joining the NRA?  I'm a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. So even though I have never supported them I do by not be a vocal dissenter to their advocacy? Or is everyone guilty of whatever agenda a certain advocacy group is pushing if they fit in that category? Does the AARP speak for my Mom automatically even though she hasn't joined the group but she is old?  Does the NAACP speak for my roommate even though he isn't a member but he is black? And if they disagree with them on anything it doesn't matter unless they form a new voice to shout them down? How about Catholics? Or Muslims? Or Environmentalists?
2013-01-20 01:27:14 AM
4 votes:
Another reason why I still like Bill Clinton.
2013-01-20 12:18:57 AM
4 votes:
Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.
2013-01-20 11:44:12 AM
3 votes:

LasersHurt: Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: 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.


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?

I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes.



Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?
2013-01-20 08:15:41 AM
3 votes:
Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws. Slaves and subjects don't have the right to own guns. Free people do. Allowing citizens to have guns is not about hunting or protecting one's home. Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them. When politicians seek to control guns, we must ask ourselves why.

Governments do not write gun control laws to stop gun violence. No gun law ever proposed or enacted will stop an evil, deranged person from using whatever weapon he can devise to achieve his goal of destruction. Any thinking person can grasp that. Murder is against the law in every state, yet murder continues. Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation. Rather than 26 people killed in a single incident, however, there is a steady trickle of murder and injury day after day. That, apparently, makes it more palatable. Or, it makes it less useful in ginning up support for taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

One must ask himself why so many in government are so committed to taking away the 2nd Amendment. What are they afraid of?

One must also ask why so many of the governed are willing to give up their rights. What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? Obama supporters are apparently willing to let him rewrite the Constitution as he desires. Would they be so complacent if GW Bush were still in office? Biden, during the campaign, accused Republicans of wanting to put blacks back in chains. Can people be put in chains when they are armed?

Gun control laws are not an answer to gun violence. Controlling evil in the public square is. Evil will never be brought fully under control. We can attempt to ameliorate it and we can defend ourselves against it. Just as the locks on our homes have become more sophisticated as thieves have become more sophisticated, so our defenses against evil must become more sophisticated - be they arms, psychological profiling, or other tools.

So Clinton is correct. Be very careful about taking rights away from gun owners. The gun culture is not about a bunch of rednecks drinking and plinking. It's about a people who believe that their self-determination is permitted by their self-reliance.

It's the anti-gun culture that we should fear. People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.

If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.
2013-01-20 07:26:25 AM
3 votes:

Alphax: unamused: Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..

It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?

No sane person could type what you did.


Of course I can.  Pretty much all Americans understand what "...shall not be infringed" actually means, it's just that half of us lie about it.

You demonize the Republicans as rapists and bigots because they fight against abortion and gay marriage.  When you pass your gun ban they are going to return fire by calling you anti-American, pro criminal, pro child rapist, etc.

If the pubbies take the Senate in '14 and the WH in '16, your ban will be overturned along with "Obamacare."
Will the minor woodie you guys get by sticking it to the rubes be enough to risk making that bet?  What about Roe?  There are 4 states down to one clinic we are on the cusp of having an antiabortion state for the first time since the seventies.  And that is with the Dems in charge.  How much will you lose if the pubbies get the throttle back?
How much are you willing to lose?
Eight years of Duhbya didn't teach you; maybe it will take eight of Rick Perry followed by eight of Michelle.
2013-01-20 07:16:11 AM
3 votes:
These guns are the same, functionally.

i184.photobucket.com

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?
2013-01-20 07:10:03 AM
3 votes:

Warriors Warriors Warriors: Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.


pretty? Pretty!?!? It helped Newt become speaker. It was an outright disaster!

The kick in the face was that the assault weapon ban had a sunset, so the entire thing was for nothing.
2013-01-20 06:53:47 AM
3 votes:

Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?


I wouldn't be voting for rape and bigotry.  I would be voting for the lesser of two evils.  This shiat might be just enough to tip the scales.  Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.
2013-01-20 06:26:57 AM
3 votes:
FTFA: Obama took 23 executive actions this week to curb gun violence, but his key proposals will need a vote from Congress to become law. With a GOP House unlikely to take up any new gun control measures - and even some Democrats expressing wariness - his only recourse is to make his case directly to the public.

Because the GOP will compromise if the public sides with the left?

BAHAHAHahAHAhahahAHHHAHAhahahAhAHhahahhhaHAHhahahahahahahAHHahaha

Article needs the Satire tag. The GOP wouldn't compromise if Jesus and Zombie St. Reagan, riding dinosaurs, delivered a hand written and signed letter from God, in his own blood and co-signed by Galactus and the WH40k corpse Emperor, telling them to.

The GOP will biatch and moan and generally obstruct any hope of any kind of progress, while Obama and the Democrats offer them increasingly watered down and conciliatory proposals that will finally culminate in something weaker than even the GOP and the NRA's own supporters wanted, and then the GOP will reject even that, all while publicly attacking Obama as a tyrant taking away your freedoms for even suggesting the topic.

Welcome to US politics of the 21st century.
2013-01-20 06:13:12 AM
3 votes:

thisispete: Alex Jones was not a stellar example in terms of PR


which is the reason they decided to interview him about it. They knew it would be a circus full of crazy, and it was.

thisispete: Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case.


I tried. No one cares to listen.
2013-01-20 06:08:22 AM
3 votes:
The Democrats ought to feel blessed they still have Clinton around to give perspective on voters they think of as rubes and morons. Well, Clinton knows how to get the votes of those rubes and morons, so you might want to pay attention.
2013-01-20 05:54:05 AM
3 votes:
It would be nice if the gun enthusiasts could involvethemselves in the process of crafting new legislation that would be genuinely effective and yet still palatable. Or they could just screech "second amendment!" and get what they're given.
2013-01-20 01:30:00 AM
3 votes:

vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else


Same with airplanes, I guess.
2013-01-20 12:58:34 AM
3 votes:
Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole
2013-01-20 12:17:14 AM
3 votes:
At this point, I think the gun show loophole has a real shot at getting closed.  As long as the Democrats don't stack a bill with a bunch of other unpopular proposals, it should be relatively easy to make the Republicans look ridiculous if they don't pass it.
2013-01-20 05:51:20 PM
2 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gimmegimme: Whoa, chill, daddy-o. I'm just amused by conservatives who only want to follow the rules when it suits them. (Or before they've had a chance to rig them.)

Yeah, I'm so conservative that wanted Bush and Cheney thrown in jail. Did you notice my name? Ever read a book? Jesus man, way to derp!


To be fair, your handle doesn't imply that immediately imply that Bush and Cheney should be locked up in The Hague. At least we agree on something.

I just don't understand why people are so reluctant to take positive action to address the gun problem and the culture of violence that is fostered by the crazy people.

cdn.crooksandliars.com
2013-01-20 04:02:23 PM
2 votes:

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.


Fortunately, we don't live in a world where we must prove that we have a "need" to exercise our rights.

Do you have a "need" to post ridiculously flawed assumptions on fark.com? No, you'll live if you don't, so obviously, you don't "need" to, goodbye first amendment.

Do you have a need to keep soldiers from being quartered in your house? No, I imagine you could still get by with them living in your house, so goodbye 3rd amendment.

The only reason you need a 4th amendment is if you're guilty of something. You're not guilty, are you? Only criminals "need" that one. Goodbye 4th amendment.

Your "logic" is laughable.  Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, look them up sometime.
2013-01-20 01:57:07 PM
2 votes:
"Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them," Clinton said.

If they didn't, they wouldn't be Democrats, though. C'mon, Bill, you know your party better than that.
2013-01-20 01:04:18 PM
2 votes:

Amos Quito: If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?


Your gun club and it's collection of semi-auto rifles isn't going to be able to stop a military-backed tyrant. Sorry to burst your Paul Revere fantasy, but with the disparity between arms available to civilians and the military, it's just not happening.

Which happens to be a big part of why the FF's largely didn't favor keeping a standing army.
2013-01-20 12:56:20 PM
2 votes:

Fart_Machine: GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Sure it does if you want to compare buses to firearms since buses don't drive themselves.

And that's a valid comparison because.... guns fire themselves? Not sure what you're getting at here...

So do you want gun owners to have license requirements and registration that bus drivers and their vehicles do?


No, I want asshat politicians to quit using false arguments and appeals to base emotion to force-feed us their underhanded agendas.
2013-01-20 12:35:51 PM
2 votes:

Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.


If gun owners don't give an inch, the gun grabbers will take a mile? What a cute notion. If gun grabbers could take more than an inch, the would take it. As it stands, they know they will get nothing, so they're trying to get gun owners to give in. We won't.
2013-01-20 11:39:35 AM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: Fark It: If I want to own a gun for home defense, I don't want some gimped shotgun that the Brady Campaign has signed off on, I want an AK with two 30-rounders taped together.

I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread about why people are skeptical and suspicious of gun control advocates, and have favorited you as such.

However I do have to wonder why you would choose to live in a place where you believed such hardware was required to protect yourself. Personally if I lived somewhere where I felt a 410 revolver was inadequate defense, I'd probably find somewhere else to live.


Not everybody has the luxury to choose to live in crime-free utopias. A Glock 19 is $500. Moving, let alone some place safer, is much more expensive and just not an option for many people, most of them poor. As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods. I believe in protecting women, the infirm and elderly, and the disabled. Most "reasonable" gun control laws I have seen proposed fly completely in the face of my beliefs as a liberal. Yes, women, you're equal in the eyes of the law. You are not the physical equal of the lawless, and relegating them to unwieldy shotguns that can crack the shoulders of grown men is not my idea of a reasonable, commonsense gun control idea.

I think you may be letting your privilege give you the idea that people really have a choice (at least economically) of where to live.
2013-01-20 11:19:16 AM
2 votes:
coeyagi

That, and the fact that sh*tty kids who would have been born in 1973 or later DID NOT come of age in the early 90s because of Roe v. Wade.

The switch to unleaded gasoline may also have been a factor.
drp
2013-01-20 10:14:39 AM
2 votes:
I'm starting to think that all this gun control hype is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.

How many times during the election did you hear people say, Obama doesn't want gun control, all you guys who think he's anti gun are just paranoid. How many D voters are going to vote R during the midterms and next presidential election now that Obama's made this stupid aggressive grab at gun control? If he'd done this before the election, he'd have lost.

Clinton remembers that after the 1994 federal assault weapon ban the Democrats lost control of Congress for an entire decade.

Obama's not going to get the ban he wants. He's already failed. At most, they'll pass a law to require all person-to-person transfers to go through a dealer for a background check. But even with that, he's reminded everybody that Democrats desperately want gun control ... and it's going to hurt his party.

How ironic it would be if all this Democrat momentum (fueled by shiatty Republican candidates) the last 4-5 years was pissed away by the Democrats themselves with this stupid, shrill, doomed-to-fail push for gun control. Kind of brings a smile to my face. But then I kind of like watching stupid people shoot their own feet.
2013-01-20 10:08:15 AM
2 votes:

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.



The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.
2013-01-20 09:08:04 AM
2 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-20 09:01:48 AM
2 votes:

BigBooper: Warriors Warriors Warriors: Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.

pretty? Pretty!?!? It helped Newt become speaker. It was an outright disaster!

The kick in the face was that the assault weapon ban had a sunset, so the entire thing was for nothing.


That, and it didn't have any impact on crime.

Gun owners typically see gun control regulation as a one-way street, and it has been, despite the anti-gun advocates insistence on "commonsense," "compromise," and "believing in your right to hunt." They believe in deliberately confusing the general public with emotionally-loaded terms like "assault weapons" and "gun show loophole." In 1934, the NFA went into act. It had the effect of nearly outlawing machine guns, creating a lengthy registration system that was expensive in order to go after organized crime and bank robbers (a side effect of prohibition). It also punitively attacked gun ownership by heavily regulating short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors. Gun owners got nothing in return. The GCA of 1968 created the FFL system and criminalized interstate transfer of guns between non-licensed parties and restricted the importation of firearms. Of course it created prohibited classes of people, but again had punitive, anti-gun measures (no mail-order ammunition). Gun owners got nothing in return. FOPA in 1986 was the same deal, although a bipartisan group of lawmakers said, in response to allegations of abusive practices by the ATF:

--"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."--

They repealed the ban on mail-order ammunition and clarified parts of the 1968 GCA that were poorly drafted. Gun owners actually got something in return. They were punished with the arbitrary and improper passage of the Hughes Amendment which closed the machine gun registry.

If I have a pie, and someone comes up and tells me to give them a piece, and I ask why, and they say I should do it to be reasonable and compromise, and that I'll still get to keep some of my pie, and they keep doing this, eventually I'm going to be left with crumbs. I was watching an MSNBC panel the other day, where one of the panelists, a former politician (forget his name) was actually trying to be reasonable, and telling the other guests not to discount the 2nd Amendment and gun owners (much like Clinton did). He was still woefully misinformed. He "compromised" by saying no one needs "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" and if they did they can leave them at the range, locked up. Never mind that for millions of people, the range is their backyard, a neighbors land, or an empty stretch of BLM property, and that gun ranges are not storage lockers with 24/7 security. The people pushing for new laws fundamentally don't get it, and they have a pile of dead children on which to climb and use as a pulpit to claim the moral high ground.

You care about hunters? Great. Most gun owners don't hunt. I think people who cover themselves in deer piss and climb into a tree in order to take a bunch of deer at feeders with high-powered rifles (you know, pets) while drinking are idiots. The people who poach and trespass during hunting season and cause property damage are not responsible gun owners. Neither are the people who go bird-"hunting" by shooting birds out of traps that have had their wings clipped to make them easy targets. Hunters are the fudds and Dick Cheney's of the world, and the fact that their guns have wood and 5-shot magazines do not make them more responsible than someone with an AR.

It's interesting too that at least here on Fark, there is this desire to make the NRA and individual gun owners responsible for gun legislation, that we have to answer to people. It's funny how we don't do that for other Constitutional Rights. Do we demand the ACLU come up with counter-terrorism legislation when they oppose unconstitutional abuses of power? Is the onus on them? Do they have to answer for victims of terrorism? Do they have an outdated view of the constitution that doesn't take into account 21st century realities? Does anyone really need the 4th Amendment who doesn't plan on blowing things up?

Anyway, I'm just asking what gun owners will be getting in return this time, besides Diane Feinstein's dick up our asses.
2013-01-20 08:33:29 AM
2 votes:

Enemabag Jones: And let's consider basic psych evaluations as a precondition.

It isn't perfect, but would screen out nutbags who clearly don't get empathy.


...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.

The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.
2013-01-20 08:25:49 AM
2 votes:

doglover: Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?

Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


Before the revolution printing presses also had to be licensed. By it's very nature a license implies something that is not a right. You don't have a right to drive for example.

The only purpose of a license is to restrict something. If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied. It's no different than trying to license a printing press.
2013-01-20 08:22:30 AM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


Pawn shops need a Federal Firearms License to sell guns. They are required to perform background checks, just like standard "gun shops".

Ordering guns online doesn't mean that one gets the gun shipped to their house -- it's more like "ship to store" services available from a lot of merchants in that one buys the gun online, the gun is shipped to the local gun shop (they have to get a copy of the dealer's license and can verify its validity on the ATF site), and one goes through the background check there. It's a useful thing when the local gun shop or their regular distributors don't have something in stock (I'm a lefty and many shops don't have lefty-specific rifles due to the low volume of sales).

Bill_Z_Bub: However it does beg the question why


I rather like the AR platform because it's easy to customize and adjust for specific needs. I'm 6'0" and my wife is 5'4" -- we can both shoot the same rifle comfortably because the stock is adjustable. She has a history of carpal tunnel issues with her wrists and finds the pistol grip to be more comfortable than the more traditional stock. I like the fact that I can pop off the standard .223 upper and put on a .22LR upper for cheap target practice, and that pretty much all the internal parts are user-maintainable -- I don't need to go to a gunsmith to have a match-grade trigger installed or to change calibers. I like the modularity and ease of maintenance/service -- to use a computer analogy, it's the "custom-built PC" of rifles, compared to more appliance-like guns that aren't really meant to be used in anything but the default configuration.

I've never understood all the "tacticool" stuff that people do with their firearms, but they don't really harm anyone, so why not?
2013-01-20 08:14:04 AM
2 votes:
No one is trivializing something that kills thousands of Americans a year. If anything, the pro-gun people are trivializing it.
2013-01-20 07:32:40 AM
2 votes:
If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.
It kills far more people per year then guns. the media is all about making headlines when a nut case kills a couple of people with a gun (not to trivialize Newtown), but on the same day, a drunk driver can wipe out a family of 5, and only the local news will cover that story.
No one talks about the 'alcohol culture'. Why is that? If I own a gun, somehow Liberals think I'm a crazed monster. But it's cool if I go out drinking with friends.
There is a far, far greater greater chance that I could have one to many drinks, and kill someone with my car, then killing someone with a gun.
2013-01-20 07:26:14 AM
2 votes:
abhorrent1,
These guns are the same, functionally.
Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?


I am game. Granted you can swap out hardware to a greater or lesser degree on either, or just get a mini-14 if you are sick fark that wants to take out a grade school or a movie theater.

Perceptive.
1-One has wood, the other is black and evil.
2-One has a flash hider at the end of the barrel, making it more taticool.

Real:
1-One has a scope indicating it might be for hunting, the other has iron sites making it less useful for hunting. Spray and Pray might mean something to some people.
2-One has smaller magazine indicating it is probably used for hunting, the other has a large magazine making it more capable for battle and more scary in the media after 21 grade school kids just were shot. Please argue the 30 round is useful for hunting.
2013-01-20 07:17:21 AM
2 votes:

gadian: Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose


No. Guns accelerate projectiles with expanding gas out of a tube. What you do with the projectiles is up to you.

I like target shooting. It's harmless fun and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have an AR-15 and a banana clip because I've never done anything violent to anyone in my life that wasn't part of a sport and controlled. I've never even shot a squirrel, and god knows that's a common enough rite of passage for children with their first .22 or pellet gun all over PA.

Yes, you can also shoot living things. But that's merely a technicality. There's no mental gymnastics required to say you can shoot other things, because as a lifelong shooter other things are all I've ever shot or thought about shooting.
2013-01-20 07:05:39 AM
2 votes:
Listen to your boy, folks.

Clinton has been down this road. It wasn't pretty.
2013-01-20 06:31:09 AM
2 votes:

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.


Would you also vote for, say, segregationists if you thought that was the best way to "keep your guns around"?
2013-01-20 06:29:45 AM
2 votes:

unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS


You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?
2013-01-20 06:26:48 AM
2 votes:
The people I know all terrified about the guvmint taking their guns also tend to be ex-military. Why do they think the current military would suddenly go all fascist if Americans lost their guns?

"Now go round up all those agitators and lock them in camps to get re-edumakated!"

"uh, no, sir."


duh.
2013-01-20 06:04:00 AM
2 votes:

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...


Maybe the wrong people are arguing for the gun enthusiasts' cause. Alex Jones was not a stellar example in terms of PR and the NRA is now widely regarded as a lobbyist group for the arms industry, therefore lacking credibility. The other quarters are SHTF survivalists - who are making a poor risk assessment of the remote possibility of dangers that might exist in the future compared to the very real dangers that exist for many Americans today - and people who actually are hoping for the collapse of the government because they don't like it very much.

Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case. And yes, the libertarians too, although even many of them acknowledge there are limits to freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech (unless there actually is one).
2013-01-20 05:57:18 AM
2 votes:
First I hear "Don't demonize guns. A gun is just a tool like any other."
Then I hear "Don't trivialize gun culture."

Why is there no circle saw culture?
2013-01-20 04:16:45 AM
2 votes:
Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture

Yeah, that's Ted's job!
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
2013-01-20 02:37:11 AM
2 votes:

doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.


You are an example of President Clinton's point.
2013-01-20 02:05:25 AM
2 votes:

Babwa Wawa: doglover: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person living being in order to incapacitate or kill them.

Does that work for you?


No.

I've never shot a living creature. They're not just for killing.

Target shooting is a thing in and of itself, and more than enough fun to justify legal firearms. Also, do you think Marine Sniper Scouts just magically train up in six weeks of basic? You want good soldiers, you kids growing up shooting. On top of that hunting is a good way to manage game levels now that apex predators are mostly dead in the wild. Self defense is an added bonus, but unless you're a cop or a gangster, the chances of it actually happening for you are nil. But the one time you need a gun, if it ever happens, you'll be glad you had it or sorry you didn't.
2013-01-20 02:00:38 AM
2 votes:
Guns are designed to launch a projectile in a straight line, that when paired with the pull of gravity, forms a parabolic arc-shaped path. It has no conscience or discretion, it is a tool. When the individual refuses to apply discretion, the state will do it for him.

You were warned, Teatards.
2013-01-20 01:59:18 AM
2 votes:
ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.
2013-01-20 01:58:31 AM
2 votes:

doglover: vernonFL: Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.

FOUL! Jumping to conclusions. 5 yard penalty, lose the down.


Okay, you're right. . Obama is not going to take away your Benelli. Every time I've been to a gun range, most of the people there are either current or former law enforcement or military.

48 year old Marines who like to shoot on the weekends are not having their guns taken away.

LOL Sorry I m drunk,
2013-01-20 01:41:40 AM
2 votes:

violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.


No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.
2013-01-20 12:24:55 AM
2 votes:

Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.


And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.
2013-01-21 05:43:57 PM
1 votes:

heili skrimsli: Fart_Machine: That's a wonderful strawman you've got there. My point was the AWB was cosmetic and pointless. You're the one with panty-problems over a simple word which doesn't detract from anything I've said. Go change your tampon.

Seems I was right. You really are butthurt because firearms manufacturers were still able to make and sell a legal product and weren't put out of business by removing all those scary cosmetic features from their rifles.

If anybody's tampon needs to be changed, it's yours.


Then you really can't comprehend what you read then or you're a habitual liar. Since the "scary changes" didn't ban the guns themselves or reduce their utility why are you pissing your pants on having it renewed?
2013-01-21 01:10:42 PM
1 votes:

heili skrimsli: You're lying out your ass by claiming that they 'bypassed' the law by producing semi-automatic rifles that did not have any of the banned cosmetic features.


Again you're getting pedantic with terminology. Did they continue to still produce guns without those features or not?

Unless of course you're trying to claim that the only way they could comply with the law is to stop producing semi-automatic rifles entirely, which seems to be what your kind actually means by the oft repeated disingenuous claim that the manufacturers 'got around' or 'bypassed' the ban by .. not manufacturing banned items.

Is that it? Your panties are in a wad because Colt and Bushmaster chose to comply with the law as written and continue production instead of cease to exist?


That's a wonderful strawman you've got there. My point was the AWB was cosmetic and pointless. You're the one with panty-problems over a simple word which doesn't detract from anything I've said. Go change your tampon.
2013-01-21 08:43:10 AM
1 votes:

L82DPRT: An AWB has nothing to do with reducing gun violence as semi-auto rifles are used in a statistically low number of crimes.

DC and their masters are going after the firearms that are most threatening to them.

If DC wanted to reduce gun violence they would go after hand guns.

That's next.


The problem being that most gun sales are self defense sales (60%, if I recall the stat), and handguns make up a massive number of those. Handgun fans also include current and returned cops as well as many in the security industry and politicians themselves.
Going for handguns is beartrap that politicians have run into before, because its a group a lot better represented than hunters or plinkers.

The AWB wasn't about going for the guns that do the most harm, it was about splitting the gun owning base by going for the least popular class of guns first.

Why AWB 2.0 is failing is because, due to modern machining, guns like the AR 15 became more affordable and far more popular. Many of the same self defense crowd started to invest in long guns, buying them by the millions.

The gun grabbers are unwittingly shoving both paws into the same beartrap they wanted to dance around.
Republicans, desperate to be on the winning side of any issue, are unlikely to let this opportunity pass.
2013-01-21 08:19:09 AM
1 votes:
Step 1) Remove Habeas corpus.
Step 2) Remove Fourth amendment rights.
Step 3) Arrest anyone exercising their first amendment rights in protest over steps 1 &2.
Step 4) Remove second amendment rights.
Step 5) See step 3.
2013-01-21 07:45:32 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Sorry, but the fact that our precious lawmakers are targeting a group of weapons that will have no appreciable effect on the overall firearms murder rate makes me doubt the legitimacy of their purported motives.

Why? That's how most legislation ends up. It gets watered down. The changes made in the AWB were easily bypassed by gun manufacturers. Politicians got to say they were doing something. The NRA got something to scream about to raise funds. TA DA!


The banned features in the AWB weren't manufactured during the AWB because the manufacturers were complying with the law. It's very dishonest to paint manufacturing and selling a completely legal item as 'bypassing' the law.
HBK
2013-01-21 03:03:06 AM
1 votes:

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

Anyone who knows thing one about guns and what the ban actually did would be too embarrassed to actually argue it did anything.

Problem 1: it defined an assault weapon as having three of the following characteristics: flash suppressor (ok, removed); bayonet lug (ok, removed); folding stock (ok, put the original M-16 stock on, you're fine); pistol grip (kept it); semi-automatic (kept it).  Two of three characteristics were maintained.  So we STILL had AR-15s, they just don't have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding stocks.

THIS was LEGAL:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x118]

No funky stock, no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor.  But what about that magazine?  That brings us to...

Problem 2: magazine capacity.  The AWB banned the manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Of course, in the months before the ban took effect, manufacturers and importers glutted the market with pallets and pallets of 30-round mags.  So if you wanted a snazzy 30-round magazine, you just had to buy one that had been made or imported before the ban took effect.  And if you are Bushmaster, would YOU manufacture magazines around-the-clock until the ban took effect?  I would.  And so did they.  So the above gun was, in fact, legal, but only if you bought the magazine separately.  I witnessed a Republican friend purchase that rifle (came with a 10-round mag) and three spare 30-round mags.

The AWB is one of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever produced by Congress, and everyone who wants to do something about gun violence should be deeply, deeply wounded that the Democratic Party had anything to do with its passage.


But SCHOOLS!! CHILDREN!! EMOTIONAL STORIES!! Why are you so heartless?!?!
2013-01-21 02:57:25 AM
1 votes:

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


Anyone who knows thing one about guns and what the ban actually did would be too embarrassed to actually argue it did anything.

Problem 1: it defined an assault weapon as having three of the following characteristics: flash suppressor (ok, removed); bayonet lug (ok, removed); folding stock (ok, put the original M-16 stock on, you're fine); pistol grip (kept it); semi-automatic (kept it).  Two of three characteristics were maintained.  So we STILL had AR-15s, they just don't have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding stocks.

THIS was LEGAL:

3.bp.blogspot.com

No funky stock, no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor.  But what about that magazine?  That brings us to...

Problem 2: magazine capacity.  The AWB banned the manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Of course, in the months before the ban took effect, manufacturers and importers glutted the market with pallets and pallets of 30-round mags.  So if you wanted a snazzy 30-round magazine, you just had to buy one that had been made or imported before the ban took effect.  And if you are Bushmaster, would YOU manufacture magazines around-the-clock until the ban took effect?  I would.  And so did they.  So the above gun was, in fact, legal, but only if you bought the magazine separately.  I witnessed a Republican friend purchase that rifle (came with a 10-round mag) and three spare 30-round mags.

The AWB is one of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever produced by Congress, and everyone who wants to do something about gun violence should be deeply, deeply wounded that the Democratic Party had anything to do with its passage.
2013-01-21 02:46:10 AM
1 votes:

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 01:54:40 AM
1 votes:

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 01:48:41 AM
1 votes:

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 01:44:12 AM
1 votes:

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 01:18:08 AM
1 votes:

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 12:32:07 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-20 11:31:28 PM
1 votes:

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 11:05:36 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.

It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. 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.


Guess where my money is.


In Glenn Beck gold coins under your mattress?
2013-01-20 07:32:58 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: GUTSU: Keizer_Ghidorah: GUTSU:

At least they're not neon pink. I also find it amusing that two of them have guns nearly as big as they are.
True, at least they aren't completely tasteless.

Says you. If rifles were all pink with Hello Kitty decals, a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't.

Instead of banning weapons, we should simply mandate that firearms look as girly as possible. You can choose between pink or lilac, accessories will be made to look like dildos and have names like "the ticklemaster rabbit 3000."

Add to this the requirement that high-capacity magazines be renamed "handicap magazines" with big wheelchair logos printed on them, and you'll probably get all the ITGs to take up bowling instead. People who really do view a rifle as a tool, like a shovel, will just shrug whatever: this year's shovel is blue, last year's was yellow, and when I'm clearing my driveway at 6AM I couldn't give half a crap whether the shovel is pink with ponies on it.


www.glamguns.com

www.horsenation.com

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-01-20 07:28:34 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Keizer_Ghidorah: GUTSU:

At least they're not neon pink. I also find it amusing that two of them have guns nearly as big as they are.
True, at least they aren't completely tasteless.


Says you. If rifles were all pink with Hello Kitty decals, a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't.

Instead of banning weapons, we should simply mandate that firearms look as girly as possible. You can choose between pink or lilac, accessories will be made to look like dildos and have names like "the ticklemaster rabbit 3000."

Add to this the requirement that high-capacity magazines be renamed "handicap magazines" with big wheelchair logos printed on them, and you'll probably get all the ITGs to take up bowling instead. People who really do view a rifle as a tool, like a shovel, will just shrug whatever: this year's shovel is blue, last year's was yellow, and when I'm clearing my driveway at 6AM I couldn't give half a crap whether the shovel is pink with ponies on it.
2013-01-20 07:26:04 PM
1 votes:

onyxruby: 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.

All you have to do is swap 'printing' for 'gun' to see the absurdity of your statement. You do realize printing presses required licenses before the revolutionary war, right?


Not relevant. The SCOTUS ruled that women have the right to an abortion, but that hasn't prevented the derp states from severely curtailing access with regulations in the name of safety.

I don't care about pre-revolutionary laws regarding printing presses.
2013-01-20 07:26:00 PM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: gimmegimme: First, they came for the Big Gulps and I said nothing because I don't need that much soda. Then they came for the Snickers bars and I said nothing because I try not to each that much chocolate. Then they came for the handguns and there was no one to speak up for me.

Well Whidbey didn't answer the question, so I'll ask you, does a Big Gulp ban actually reduce obesity or is it window dressing? I'm obviously comparing that to banning assault weapons and the type of politicians that make these laws.


Yes, and I am pointing out how silly it is to compare Big Gulps to assault rifles.
2013-01-20 07:22:29 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: TheJoe03: The same people banning Big Gulp's are the same people trying to ban assault weapons, so it's clear the laws are going to be pointless and ineffective

Oh how horrible. No more Big Gulps.

Give me a break.


First, they came for the Big Gulps and I said nothing because I don't need that much soda. Then they came for the Snickers bars and I said nothing because I try not to each that much chocolate. Then they came for the handguns and there was no one to speak up for me.
2013-01-20 07:19:52 PM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: there have been multiple posters making valid arguments on both sides.


Yea?

Boy, hope they can convince the other 95% to come around to their views then.
2013-01-20 07:06:01 PM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: Two wrongs making a right isn't always the best justification.


Who said it was justification for anything? I'm not justifying anything.

These threads are entirely pointless since the gun nut side of the "debate" has made it clear they have no interest in having a debate at all. To them, the only acceptable solution to gun violence is no solution at all or to escalate it.

So fark them. I'll just harass them for my own amusement instead.
2013-01-20 07:03:16 PM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: Xcott: I thought that was supposed to be an unconstitutional communist power grab by the executive branch.

I don't think enforcing already existing laws is a bad thing and it's a lot better than politicians pushing pointless new laws because of a tragedy.


Good point. We need to make sure the laws aren't pointless. A lot of legislation gets watered down because of the insane people.
2013-01-20 07:00:13 PM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: Maybe you are the issue here, your tone does not welcome "honest and intelligent" debate.


No shiat?

It's almost like I'm mimicking certain people for effect.... who would they be though?

Nope, can't imagine.
2013-01-20 07:00:03 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,

Where is that, Somalia? Libya?


The Promised Land.


Ah, Israel.

Where every citizen is required to be in the military for a couple of years and receives training on how to properly handle a gun,

Brilliant comparison...(sarcasm)
2013-01-20 06:58:00 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,

Where is that, Somalia? Libya?


The Promised Land.


Wow. I've never met someone who would choose Libya over America. Fascinating. Please be careful.
2013-01-20 06:53:11 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)


People who think they need to walk around in public with a gun like that are the very people who need to kept from guns in the first place.
2013-01-20 06:44:27 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)


This is doubly true if you read gun "enthusiast" forums. There's always some mall ninjas who insist that they must keep their gun loaded with a round chambered, because the whole world might turn Mad Max in 2 seconds instead of 5 seconds.
2013-01-20 06:38:06 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,


The crucial difference, my friend, is that those women were smart enough to remove the magazine, unlike the man in the earlier picture.
2013-01-20 06:36:39 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,


Where is that, Somalia? Libya?
2013-01-20 06:29:14 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.


Yes, that's why we only had one Sandy Hook, compared to like five mass killings where a schizo kid forced his way into an elementary school and killed a couple dozen kids using dim mak, the touch of death.

That's why we have so many problems with murderers going on punching sprees in movie theaters. And then there was all those people who died in Tuscon when that guy started giving out noogies.

Clearly when we count up all the killing sprees of the last few years, almost all of them are accomplished using hands and feet, and maybe one of them might have involved a firearm. Anyone who stares at numbers on the Internet to the exclusion of all else can tell you that.

/I apologize for reminding you that Sandy Hook was a real thing that actually happened.
2013-01-20 06:23:44 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: gimmegimme: GUTSU: whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.

I'm not advocating a hand gun ban, all that I'm saying is that a firearms ban won't have any affect. The reason is that guns don't cause crimes, they merely make them slightly more expedient. Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"

To be fair, people don't want to ban certain firearms because they "look scary."

Yes, yes they do. Why do you think cosmetic features such as a pistol grip or a barrel shroud make a semi-automatic rifle magically turn into an "assault weapon"? The worst thing is that the people introducing these Assault weapon bans don't even know what the fark they are talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U


No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)

photos.lasvegassun.com
2013-01-20 06:13:48 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Getting rid of poverty


Hey now, that actually would take effort, America ain't got time for that!
2013-01-20 05:56:21 PM
1 votes:

Alonjar: gimmegimme: This is pretty cool, too.

Oh, and this one is good.

Enjoy

You know, you're right. We should pass a law stating that you shouldnt allow 8 year olds to fire fully automatic uzi's.

I dont think you'll get much opposition.


static.guim.co.uk

Why do you hate the Second Amendment? Are you part of the Reptilian Kenyan Complex that has been putting mind control fluoride in our water? Brain drugs! Operation Aloysius. Oooooooh....the FBI doesn't like me talking about that. This country was founded because fathers were able to teach sons how to safely operate a firearm. People are killing each other with gravy boats in England! GRAVY BOATS!!!!111!!!
2013-01-20 05:51:51 PM
1 votes:

Alonjar: There are over 2 million home invasion/burglaries commited in the United States every year


It's about 3.7 million burglaries, about a quarter of which someone was present for. About 7% (259,000) involved violence against a member of the household. That's about .082% of the population. [pdf]

TERROR! TERROR EVERYWHERE! QUICKLY! WET YOUR PANTS AND GRAB YOUR AK!

/ you're almost 6 times as likely just to be injured in a car crash as injured OR killed in a burglary
// but I'm sure the only thing you worried about when buying your car was safety and every second you spend on the road is spent maximizing your safety....
2013-01-20 05:39:16 PM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: Fixed.


Oh, I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Your opinions are so stupid I feel no need to justify them with any sort of real response.

When I stop seeing idiotic arguments like "lol you have balls" being advanced from your side of the "debate" I'll reconsider my position.
2013-01-20 05:37:03 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: It is a proven fact that people with testicles commit far more crimes in all categories that those who are without.


Because there's no correlation and there's no parallel to be drawn between your choice to own a gun and the fact that you were born with a normal body part.

Next ridiculous question that has nothing to do with anything and only serves to further prove how utterly idiotic the gun nuts are?
2013-01-20 05:25:18 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: The Name: Fark It: The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.

To me this is about rights.


Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.


The Second Amendment is THE right that allows the People to defend all other rights.


Wrong - the First is much better than the 2nd for defending rights.
2013-01-20 05:20:55 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I usually go with the alcohol comparison because as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use" alcohol cannot be argued to have a "valid use", and it's far, far more deadly, racking up an annual death toll of 80,000 people. Strange that so many people suddenly care so deeply about life in the past month and a half, and these very people really couldn't give a shiat to prioritize their efforts based on what's killing people the fastest. It's almost as if protecting life really isn't their goal, and banning a relatively harmless, but scary looking object is.

I don't think regulation equates abolition, but it's absolutely unconstitutional. You can't skip "shall not be infringed", no matter how much you'd like to. Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional. And the fact that you disagree is exactly why you think the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper, so no, that wasn't a strawman, that really is the central point of your position, and why you're wrong.



Sooo...can you point to any examples of a person walking into a school and killing two dozen kids with a case of beer?
2013-01-20 05:17:40 PM
1 votes:

Alonjar: The Name: That hunk of metal is just as important to you as your protection against unlawful search and seizure?

The hunk of metal is what prevents LEO's from conducting unlawful search and seizures whenever they please.

You should see how much more polite cops are after they are informed that I am armed.


Thanks Internet tough guy.
2013-01-20 05:15:43 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.

Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.


Just out of curiosity, how many votes do you think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate?
2013-01-20 05:14:46 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: 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.


You know equating your balls with firearms doesn't really help your case. Unless you're overcompensating for something.
2013-01-20 05:11:21 PM
1 votes:
Just statistics. Get over it you whining vaginas.

danwoog.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-20 05:11:05 PM
1 votes:

Alonjar: lul wut?


The weapons ABB used were fully legal. They were bought over the counter.

There were 723 murders in Norway in the years 1991-2010, of which 171 were done with firearms. By type of firearm:
• Shotgun: 58.
• Pistol: 53.
• Revolver: 27.
• Rifle: 23.
• Machine-gun / -pistol: 10.

AFAIK only the machine-guns / -pistols are illegal. The statistics stop at 2010 because what ABB did skews the numbers.

There are 1233510 registered weapons in Norway, owned by 485170 people. Those weapons are not for showing off or for self-defense, but for hunting and plinking at targets.
Owning a gun is about as interesting as owning a shovel. The gun-nut culture (warning: naughty words) we see in the US doesn't really exist here.
2013-01-20 04:58:13 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: And yeah, it's time to get serious about gun regulation. Derping that it's un-Consitutiuonal to regulate firearms because you have an absolute "right" to use them isn't going to stop it. It's out there now.


Maybe your side should quit derping that the bill of rights is just a goddamn piece of paper. If you want to change it, go ahead and try.. legally. But don't expect anyone to abide by a law that circumvents the constitution. You need 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to get it proposed, then you need it ratified in 75% of state legislatures. Until you get that done, gun control advocates get NOTHING.
2013-01-20 04:55:50 PM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: Do you just sit in your house and worry about all the scary guns out there?,


This has been pretty much your entire "argument" throughout this thread.

I own two guns.

I'm just not stupid enough to think I should be able to do so without accepting some reasonable responsibilities for them or that I should be able to own them if I've proven that I'm likely to use them to suppress others' rights.

But you keep building that strawman until it reaches the sun. If it weren't for shiat you gun nuts wouldn't have anything coming out of your mouths.
2013-01-20 04:51:00 PM
1 votes:
I think it's worth keeping Clinton's point in mind, because this year the inevitable debate on gun control took a weird radicalized turn.

Usually, there are three groups in the national conversation on gun control: gun control activists, gun rights activists, and crazy uncle derp. Crazy uncle derp is the guy who thinks he speaks for the other gun rights activists, but he says scary moronic things like "we need guns to shoot cops and american soldiers," or "a gun is a tool like a car, except you don't really own cars because of a secret title the DMV assigns to your NWO straw man name." Crazy uncle derp thinks it's useless to restrict guns because according to his Internet researches people can 3D print machine guns, or just kill 100 people with some ammonia and bleach, or build a bomb by plugging an overunity device into itself, powered by one of those engines that run on water. Oh, crazy uncle derp.

Well, this year, it seems that crazy uncle derp has so dominated the national conversation, that it even seems like the NRA has swung full derp to speak for the derp agenda. The gun control activists are calling for X Y Z changes in public policy, and the other side is making bogus analogies about spoons---even people at the top, whose job is to make the case to the public and media for the 2nd amendment, are speaking derp.

This year, the derp squad has become so loud and so entrenched that that the usual gun rights activists are barely heard---or rather, they end up arguing with crazy uncle derp too. The derp squad has gotten so out of hand that it's making everyone else look like the other side, because they're all saying "dude" to crazy uncle derp. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that the "tea party" has repeatedly lost elections for the Republicans, by being energized enough to control the party but crazy enough to scare away regular people. Now they're applying their magic to the firearm debate, with predictable results.

Clinton's point is that lots of gun owners are not crazy uncle derp, and if we see them that way then we will underestimate the impact of gun control on future elections. For every loser who insists Lanza could have killed 20 kids with a friggin' musket, there's dozens of people who aren't like that, but who own rifles and will be disappointed if congress makes their life more complicated.
2013-01-20 04:26:30 PM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: The US is a one of a kind culture


Yea.

Specifically we're really good at getting innocent people killed because yellow-bellied pants-shiatters like you think that either King George's zombie is going to show up on your front law any day now or you're going to have to go Buford Pusser when a gang of local criminals comes after your family.

We're a culture of idiots. Thanks for supporting it.
2013-01-20 04:24:41 PM
1 votes:

Alonjar: You should see how much more polite cops are after they are informed that I am armed.


All I get out of that is that you do alot of stupid things to draw the attention of the police.

Actually, all I get out of that is that you play internet tough guy and pretend you threaten cops. I'd be shocked if you managed to type that comment without wetting yourself.
2013-01-20 04:23:24 PM
1 votes:

doglover:

Basically, the right to bear the best arms one could was a fact of life back then because America was a war on all fronts. The Canadians were still loyal British, and their allies the Indians were up there with them. The Spanish were doing things in the Caribbean. The natives to the west were not keen on the pale faces who kept pushing into their turf. And to top it off, the British themselves were still the biggest Empire this globe has ever seen and they ruled the waves.

Not to mention the need to keep all the slaves in their place. The thing is, though, that that isn't reality anymore, and is therefore not a justification for the widespread ownership of firearms today.


Well, just look into the history of the British two finger salute. The French were so decimated by the archers that any archer or suspected archer had their right hands maimed. Lifetimes of training work.

If you'd actually done even the most trivial research yourself, you'd know that that story's an urban legend; it has no historical validity whatsoever, as even a cursory trip to Wikipedia will reveal.
2013-01-20 03:22:17 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:13 PM
1 votes:

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 03:00:52 PM
1 votes:
Just leave that to these guys.

www.lilligren.com
2013-01-20 02:35:26 PM
1 votes:

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 02:20:36 PM
1 votes:

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.


My argument is, why are we banning the weapon used in far fewer instances of crime than handguns? The kid at VT proved you don't need a assault rifle to commit a mass shooting. What exactly is a AWB going to do except open the door for a complete ban when that does not work (which it wont).
2013-01-20 01:49:23 PM
1 votes:
I've been saying this for weeks.

The biggest winner of the Sandy Hook massacre (besides gun manufacturers who are reaping record profits as a result) are the Republicans. Obama is wasting all of the political capital and momentum he got from his landslide election victory on an unwinnable fight. Chances are that no legislation will be passed due to GOP obstructionism. And even if it is, it will be slight and lip service only.

But the costs are the loss of all of his momentum and confirming for everyone in the country (especially the gun nuts) that Obama is coming to your house to personally take all of your guns muhahahahahaha.

Obama is blowing his load on this stupid wedge issue instead of focusing that energy on the half dozen other issues that take precedence.

By the time he's done pushing this he'll practically be a lame duck with no ability to pass any other meaningful legislation.

Or maybe that's the point, and Obama really is just controlled opposition.
2013-01-20 01:42:11 PM
1 votes:
Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Handguns: 6,220
Shotguns: 356
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

Now, would someone kindly explain the "logic" behind the push for banning "Assault Weapons"?

/I said the LOGIC
//Not the EMOTION
///The EMOTION I understand


THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!!
2013-01-20 01:14:51 PM
1 votes:

Stone Meadow: How about the CPD concentrate its resources on policing those areas and getting criminals off the streets?


Guns are above criticism, people are evil.

media.commercialappeal.com

America is in the thrall of a weird cult.
2013-01-20 01:02:10 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: coeyagi: Nope, that's why we have a thing called a democracy.

We do?

How did we manage to lay our hands on this wonderful thing?

Is it worth keeping?

If so, how do you suppose we might defend it?


Got It: with militias with guns, the same as the British military since they didn't have tanks, drones, fighter jets at the time.

Keep it: (rolls eyes) With assault weapons against tanks and F16s, obviously.
2013-01-20 12:32:29 PM
1 votes:

The Name: CADMonkey79: Yes it was such an archaic unimportant right they decided to make it the 2nd amendment.

Yes, a bunch of slave owners predating Darwin and Freud decided to make it the second amendment. That's exactly what they did.


So lets just dissolve the entire thing. Hopefully they can put something in there about how big my soda cup can be.
2013-01-20 12:32:23 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?


Yeah, the NRA says video games are the problem. This means they think it's a cultural issue, all in the mind. At the same time they claim assualt weapons paraphernalia

cdn2-b.examiner.com

are purely ornamental. They have no technical function, except that the somehow excite the owner...kinda like video games, that are purely abstract, just fun and games.

So according to NRA logic, banning assault weapons is like banning violent video games, and since the features in question are nonfunctional, not unconstitutional in any way. I just can't figure out why the NRA is against. Oh, because its a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and cool looking shiat sells better.
2013-01-20 12:29:28 PM
1 votes:

The Name: I am fully in favor of repealing the second amendment.


*ignore

The only time we passed a constitutional amendment that took away rights, we ended up repealing it, as it was a costly disaster.
2013-01-20 12:26:28 PM
1 votes:

Enemabag Jones: adragontattoo
So now its a matter of caliber and NOT whether it is an "assault weapon" or not? Interesting, so what calibers are now evil and should be banned?
Fine, ban extended magazines, limit them to 10 rounds! Here is the kicker though, either make your escape, or tackle the lunatic with the gun in the ~.5 to 1 second it takes him to drop a magazine and insert another one. It isnt hard to learn to do it in that timeframe with simple practice. This does of course assume that the crazy person who is shooting at living people has bothered to make sure that he is following the law and only using 10 round magazines though. Dont want to break any laws based on the number of rounds in the magazine while he is commiting murder!
Here is a better idea, enforce the already existing laws. Stop treating mental illness as something that if we whistle loud enough. will go away. Stop giving the lunatic with the gun the front page. Stop glorifying them, stop admitting that some people are broken mentally, stop using the victims as a banner in order to change what you dont like, stop trying to blame the numbers of rounds in the magazine, the furniture on the gun, the video games, movies, tv or books.

I don't completely disagree with you, but how is that an different from the non-answer the NRA provides. It is pretty difficult to prosecute a guy who put a bullet in his own skull.


True it is.  That's the issue that needs to be addressed.  I agree with SOME of the 23 items on the list.  I do NOT agree with the AWB or an arbitrary out of the blue "this is a good number to use" magazine size because it does NOTHING.

The problem is that the people are writing this law, AND FIGHTING this law, are both doing ZERO that is useful.

The NRA is acting more like PETA and MADD and less like a rational organization supporting its members.  They attack Obama for having armed guards for his kids, HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  They blame video games, which has been REPEATEDLY shown to NOT impact either way.

The lawmakers pushing these bans through, are the same people who call the internet a series of tubes, who use the term "legitimate rape", who dont care, admit or realize that the color, and furniture on a gun do not make it any more or less evil, and/or that the people breaking the law DONT CARE.
2013-01-20 12:24:55 PM
1 votes:
If the politics is important to you, I'd listen to ole Bill here. I know plenty of people who like to talk about how patriotic and American they are, implying they're there at every vote, but the only time I've seen them go was when people threatened (even in part) to take their guns away. You could pull off a few sensible things, possible, but if you even approach "gun control", you're going to lose your seats back to the loonies. Be pragmatic and move on, IMO. There's no point in standing up for the statistically insignificant amount of little kids who die every year from gun violence when it means you're going to make a slightly saner version of the Westboro Baptist Church have more power to unravel everything you vote in a few years later.

If politics isn't important to you, fine, vote with your heart and don't worry about the long term consequences.

That's what Clinton is trying to get you to understand, given he helped demolish Democratic wins (not just on the gun issue, but with a few others, too) and knows it.
2013-01-20 12:20:38 PM
1 votes:

The Name: Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.


Horseshiat. People have a right to protect themselves from attackers or people who attempt harm. Self-defense is a natural right. Most other countries don't have rights, they have lists of privileges that can be revoked by their parliaments. Again, if you have such a problem with rights then go about changing them instead of trying to subvert them via legislative fiat.
2013-01-20 12:16:22 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Alonjar: I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America.

OK, you're a loon. Thanks for clearing that up.


LOL I'm the loon. Which part didnt you like? Are you saying that you have a legitimate concern that you are going to be murdered by a terrorist?

Or did you just read a lengthy post containing a variety of points.... and zero in on random relatively unrelated baby statistic, and use that as evidence to somehow invalidate logical arguments in your own mind?
2013-01-20 12:13:30 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Amos Quito: o

I'm asking for your constructive ideas, not your complaints.



First: Reduce crime.

First best move: End the War On Drugs.
2013-01-20 12:12:14 PM
1 votes:

ramblinwreck: Seen or read Freakonomics? There's correlation between unwanted children and crime. Let's see, what happened 23 years before 1995 (the year where crime really started to drop)? Peak crime age is 20-25. Those unwanted children simply just didn't exist to commit those crimes.


I agree, but that fact does nothing to advance the argument, as it's being advanced by gun-control advocates in this thread, that we need to outlaw guns they don't like, and/or that we need to license and regulate the free exercise of that right by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Mass murders like the two incidents last year were perpetrated by mentally deranged individuals who consciously, and with malicious aforethought, broke numerous criminal statues on their way to perpetrate their crimes. Their efforts would have been just as murderous with only handguns with standard magazines, since that configuration is the least likely to fail. Demonizing scary black guns or demanding licensing and registration of guns and users is the height of security theater fear-mongering hypocrisy.
2013-01-20 12:12:05 PM
1 votes:

The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns.


Same goes for you whacko gun-grabbers that are afraid of inanimate objects.
2013-01-20 12:09:39 PM
1 votes:

The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.


To me this is about rights.
2013-01-20 12:09:24 PM
1 votes:
Slick Willy knows what's good for the Dems. It's extremely frustrating to see them waste all of their political capital on a losing issue like gun control. All it will do is stir up the GOP base and push non-crazy gun owners who vote Democrat into the Republican fold. We're out there, I'm one of them.

Fark this BS, there's still plenty of problems left with the economy and gross income inequality.

Buh buh but
25.media.tumblr.com

Watch you dumb farkers hand the Senate to the GOP in 2016. It's happened before and the Teabaggers have gerrymandered things to hell this time around.
2013-01-20 12:08:30 PM
1 votes:

The Name: No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people.


Birth control? Books? And I would hardly call it paranoia when there are people like Feinstein who on TV actually said she supported outright confiscation and would have gone with it if she had the votes. Or when confiscation has happened in New Orleans. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but" you should plug your grandfather's Garand because it has an 8-shot magazine and a bayonet lug, turn in your magazines, register all of your semi-autos, wait at least 6 months before we decide whether or not you're allowed to own a handgun, as in New York state, does not mean you actually support the 2nd Amendment.

adragontattoo: Appears to be an FN-FAL or similar which fires .308/7.62


G3 or similar variant.
2013-01-20 12:01:34 PM
1 votes:

The Name: Fark It: gun owners mostly don't believe you.

Right, which I think speaks to a certain streak of paranoia that often causes people to become gun owners in the first place.

Fark It: I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

This is absolutely correct, but I don't think it goes far enough. There's just something about guns or gun people that makes even "sane" gun owners a little . . . weird . . . about the gun thing. No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people. In any case, I think this is a cultural problem compounded by a legal problem. We're fixated on our guns to a point that is self-destructive, and the problem is virtually impossible to fix because of some archaic amendment to the Constitution and the power of the gun lobby.


Thanks for proving my point.
2013-01-20 11:55:35 AM
1 votes:

Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.


So call it what it is. You want to ban the private sale of firearms.

Calling it a gunshow loophole is disingenuous... if you asked ANYONE "Would you support closing X loophole" they will almost always say yes, because using the term "loophole" automatically suggests that they are getting away with something that they shouldnt be, which isnt the case.

Its a disgusting form of manipulation that I wouldnt support in ANY argument.
2013-01-20 11:50:59 AM
1 votes:

The Name: CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: 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.

I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion. The NRA only has 4.3 million members, how many people own guns.

What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.
2013-01-20 11:50:52 AM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?


[citation needed]

The problem is that most people are not able to properly comprehend statistics. 10,000 people only sounds like a lot to someone who doesn't have a proper frame of reference.

I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America. Statistically, 9/11 shouldn't have mattered at all... but its the same illogical, emotion-based thinking which results in horrible decisions like a bajillion trillion dollars spent blowing up sand in a desert.

How many more people were harmed by the response to 9/11 vs the event itself?

Gun advocates are just looking at the situation the same way. The response to a statistical anomaly like Sandy Hook is seen as having the potential to cause more long term harm to our rights and safety than its worth.
2013-01-20 11:47:01 AM
1 votes:

The Name: What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

And your point about having to preface gun control arguments with "Now, I support the second amendment," is dishonest because it leaves out the "...but" and gun owners mostly don't believe you.
2013-01-20 11:46:26 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: So what is their agenda?


To sell all of our national interests to Israel.
2013-01-20 11:41:25 AM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion.

That seems to be the assertion you have in your mind, yes.

And there is no evidence of that in this thread? Come on.


Also, if this is not the case then why did Bill Clinton make a speech about that very topic?
2013-01-20 11:41:21 AM
1 votes:
When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?
2013-01-20 11:37:44 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.
2013-01-20 11:32:19 AM
1 votes:

Alonjar: We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?


This is ample evidence that to gun fetishists, guns are more important than people. Another example is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The message is "Guns are perfect godlike objects above every form of criticism, and people are inherently evil".

www.nachtkabarett.com
2013-01-20 11:24:13 AM
1 votes:

Fark It: If I want to own a gun for home defense, I don't want some gimped shotgun that the Brady Campaign has signed off on, I want an AK with two 30-rounders taped together.


I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread about why people are skeptical and suspicious of gun control advocates, and have favorited you as such.

However I do have to wonder why you would choose to live in a place where you believed such hardware was required to protect yourself. Personally if I lived somewhere where I felt a 410 revolver was inadequate defense, I'd probably find somewhere else to live.
2013-01-20 11:18:09 AM
1 votes:

coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.


Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that won't infringe on anybody's right to hunt, which is the only reason to really own a gun.

We can forget discussing the drug war, the police state, and our growing income inequality.
2013-01-20 11:15:07 AM
1 votes:

coeyagi: Stone Meadow: 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?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.


That's not even a correlation.

geekpolitics.com

Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.
2013-01-20 11:13:13 AM
1 votes:

heypete: 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.


I don't understand how this can be true. The Fark Militia has repeatedly assured me that an armed society is a polite society, and that only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
2013-01-20 11:09:18 AM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: 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.


They are slightly different, but not in the way you imagine. The guns used for hunting are much more powerful than what you would need to kill a human. The .556 used in the AR-15 is nothing compared to a .762 hunting/sniping round.

thumbs.newschoolers.com

I like how you idiots think that people will break out the big guns against other people but use pea-shooters to take down moose and elk. It always makes me laugh because you have no idea how ignorant it makes you look.
2013-01-20 11:01:01 AM
1 votes:
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 10:36:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:36:06 AM
1 votes:
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 10:34:22 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:51 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-20 10:22:37 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Every time I've been to a gun range, most of the people there are either current or former law enforcement or military.


Yet another excellent reason to cut military spending.
drp
2013-01-20 10:21:05 AM
1 votes:

LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th.


Every libertarian in the country just waved.

Republicans like to trample the 1st & 4th, Democrats get excited about trampling the 2nd. Two sides to the same coin.


http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Too bad he didn't win the election.
2013-01-20 10:15:53 AM
1 votes:

Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.


"Give in inch" in what way?

I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.

Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.
2013-01-20 10:15:45 AM
1 votes:

Dafodude: Uranus Is Huge!: I think it's wrong to trivialize mental illness.

Good.  Now how does that apply to the issue at hand?


I think many people deeply involved in "gun culture" are mentally ill.

Clear enough for you now?
2013-01-20 10:05:58 AM
1 votes:
I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.
2013-01-20 10:02:16 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.


Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes


What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?

Serious question is serious.

Study it out.
2013-01-20 09:58:24 AM
1 votes:
I agree with the ex-prez. The guns are already out there, and almost everyone that owns one doesn't go murdering schools of children.
Gun control is a picket fence trying to stop a storm surge.
What we need to do is create more employment, get rid of the crazy war on drug users, and start talking to our kids.
Look at it this way, who's going to invade the US, knowing that every person here will shoot you? I, personally, like the reputation we have around the world. We're the crazy drunk muttering to himself at the end of the bar.
2013-01-20 09:49:45 AM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: onyxruby: Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.

How would you like to diagnose and manage this prohibition to the Mentally Ill?


A national registry of people who are mentally ill, duh. But there already is one: The NRA member list.
2013-01-20 09:45:44 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


There's an awful lot of extremists and fundamentalists, and you would agree, that's really what's gone wrong with the planet right now. It's the fundamentalists, whether they're right, left, center, whatever they are, if they're fundamentalists, they're dangerous. -Jane Goodall

This applies just as much to someone like you as it does the NRA.
2013-01-20 09:43:48 AM
1 votes:
FTFA: the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states

I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.

I find it bizarre that people get to emotionally invested in this. The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life. But they're not. Hunting for food, and not game, can make that argument. But even then damn near no one needs to hunt in order to stay alive anymore.

Some people would say, "It's emotional because people are trying to deny them a constitutional right. Wouldn't you get mad if someone tried to take your rights away." Well, for one, no reasonable person is trying to remove all guns. And for two, although some genuinely do, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are emotional over their rights as a principle. It's the right of what that is the issue. Guns are the issue, calling it a rights fight is a vehicle to defend it. Like slavery in the civil war.

It's farking weird. People treat guns as a member of their family. The thing that makes the most sense to be is that they love the power rush that holding a gun gives them. They feel badass. They feel as if no one can get in their way. They have fantasies of someone trying to rob them and they'd be able to blow their head off and feel so damn powerful in the process. They love the feeling of walking up to a critter, or tin can, and destroying it with a single trigger press. Being able to put a hole in things makes them squirm with delight.

I can see how the thought of having that feeling removed can illicit an emotional response. But having that as the reason is so damn childish. And dangerous.
2013-01-20 09:42:45 AM
1 votes:

JRoo: hasty ambush: JRoo: hasty ambush:

Using children to further your political goals?

I've been told that's like something Obama and Hitler would do.

You mean like taking guns

Did the scary man frighten you? Don't worry little one, no one is coming to take your toys. We just have some grown-up things to work out.

Take your guns, go play.


Funny how demmocrats seem to be taking a lot of time dealig with this rather than those "grown-up" things. Obama has managed to fast track action on gun control but still has not acted on the budget, fiscal cliff or unempolyment etc. Suddenly it has become a priority..

Long-Term Unemployment Highest Since WWII

Got ahead and trivialaize:

"An astonishing 25% of all voters voted primarily on the gun issue." --Connie Chung, CBS News, November 10, 1994.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
"Exit poll show data showed that more than a third of all voters who cast ballots Tuesday said they supported the National Rifle Association -- and two-thirds of those voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates." -- Washington Post, November 10, 1994, p. A33.

NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S.

Obama approval rating at 48%

Poll: Majority of Young People Considering Gun Ownership

So please go ahead and make guns an election issue.
2013-01-20 09:39:56 AM
1 votes:
All extremism is bad. Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts are both farked.

/later
2013-01-20 09:32:25 AM
1 votes:

doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.


Why? He's not wrong, and most people agree with him.
2013-01-20 09:18:25 AM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-20 09:17:45 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.


dl.dropbox.com

You know how I know you know nothing of history?

Clinton not only led the fight to kill Glass Steagall, he also killed an attempt to regulate derivatives.  Here's the PBS Frontline episode detailing this.

Giving his Wall Street buddies exactly what they wanted has been very lucrative for Clinton.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.
2013-01-20 09:13:10 AM
1 votes:

abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

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


25.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-20 09:11:15 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


I am of two minds on this (as I am with most things.) But I do think assault weapons belong in the hands of the military, any any hunter who needs high-capacity magazines is a shiatty hunter.

It's hard not to look down at folks who obviously harbor Red Dawn fantasies, and are willing to possibly endanger others for the sake of those fantasies. The problem is the gun business/gun lobby playing upon those fantasies in order to make a buck. The Red Dawn fantasies are unfortunately ingrained in our culture. The type of folks who keep bleating that we need access to high capacity magazines and assault weapons are not going to be convinced overnight (if at all) that we won't become a fascist dictatorship the very second gun reform is enacted - because a lot of them have been drinking the Kool-aid (via faux news, Free Republic, etc) that says we already are. They're not going to listen to anyone who tells them that other countries that have instituted assault weapons bans or full-on gun bans haven't imploded/become socialist/facist dictatorships, because in their minds, 'this is MURICA! goddammit.'

A lot of these people are folks who are willing to believe that Sandy Hook is a 'ZOMG GUBMINT CONSPIRACEE' rather than face the fact that we have a real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

How do you reason with people like that?
2013-01-20 09:03:45 AM
1 votes:
unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.
2013-01-20 09:02:20 AM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: doglover: [www.smbc-comics.com image 577x1500]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, in the 10th Lecture of A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis


People trying to find ways to keep innocents from being slaughtered are not afraid of weapons.
2013-01-20 09:01:45 AM
1 votes:

Enemabag Jones: When I understand useful for hunting...we have relatively moderate sized round for creatures around 150 pounds, using iron sites (well within a specific range), indicating limited mobility, with 30 rounds, indicating spray over a single shot.


Pretty much all states impose magazine capacity limits for hunting, so there's really no functional difference between an AR-15 with a 5-round mag and a Browning BAR (a very common semi-auto hunting rifle) with a 5-round mag.

I don't think that would be good for say, deer. You would want a larger round with a longer range ideally, although deer slugs are sometimes used.

Perhaps. With the right type of bullets (e.g. softpoints), .223 is suitable for deer. It's even better for smaller game (like the oft-mentioned-in-Fark-gun-threads wild hogs).

Anyway, the caliber-specific argument is not really a good one, as AR-pattern rifles are available in a wide range of calibers and can be easily changed from one to the other.

Because these rifles seem to be designed for humans with limited training to hunt other humans.

They were also designed to be modular, lightweight, rugged, easy to maintain, accurate, and reliable. Those seem like pretty ideal design goals for any firearm.

Sure, a hand grenade has pretty much one primary function and is not very suitable for any other use, but a rifle like the AR-15 is quite useful for just about any purpose that a rifle might be used for. They're extremely common in competitions and for shooting sports because they possess the features mentioned above. They are used extremely rarely in crime.
2013-01-20 08:55:30 AM
1 votes:

heypete: Those are called "crazy people". There are tens of millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in the country. The crazy nutjobs can be quite vocal, though.


I know, and sadly they hurt a legitmate cause.

Especially when you got someone who seems to think background checks infringe on their rights and that someday, we're going to have to rise up against our government.\

heypete: but what do you mean by "keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to"? Gun shops must keep records of sale (the ATF Form 4473) for 20 years already. How would this be changed?


I'm not sure in all honesty. It's all part of keeping better track of who is buying these guns and making sure that people unfit to buy a gun aren't getting one.

It's all pretty tricky and complicated and will take a lot more effort than a simple and ineffective ban on assault weapons or the size of a magazine.
2013-01-20 08:45:12 AM
1 votes:

mksmith: who buy only assault weapons (or as near to that ideal as they can get), and in large quantities.


Rifles like the AR-15 are very well-suited to competition and sporting purposes, and are extremely commonly used for those purposes.

Over the years, the gun culture has changed a bit: it used to be mostly about hunting and clay shooting and, while those sports are still common, different types of competition and other non-hunting shooting sports have increased significantly in popularity.

They have to have large-capacities magazines.

In general, such magazines have been the "standard" size for those firearms since they were first introduced for civilian sale.

Even with the increase in popularity of "assault weapons" and certain magazines, gun-related homicide rates have been going down for decades (and are at their lowest value since 1964). Mass shootings have pretty much remained constant in the last ~30 years. While they are certainly tragic, they remain very rare.

They have to have hollow-point cartridges.

What's wrong with hollow-points? They're more effective and less likely to overpenetrate their target, walls, etc. and pose a risk to bystanders than full metal jacket bullets. They're much less likely to penetrate body armor, such as worn by police, than FMJs.
2013-01-20 08:41:17 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.

What about permits?


What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote?  We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.  Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.
Equal rights.
2013-01-20 08:39:55 AM
1 votes:
Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.
2013-01-20 08:33:13 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.


Pretty much all sensible people agree, though the devil is in the details (as it always is).

The big disagreement seems to come about when people try lumping in sensible things with really extreme things like gun bans that have no real effect on crime. Since a lot of people are opposed to gun bans and ineffective restrictions on their rights, tempers flare and nothing productive gets done.
2013-01-20 08:32:32 AM
1 votes:

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.

Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.


And people like you are why there can not be a reasonable debate. If I shoot and kill you, it's homicide. If I kill you with a car while driving drunk, it's a homicide. Both have the end result. Someone is dead.

2010 numbers:

Number of Gun Homicides: 11,078

People who died in drunk driving crashes: 10,228

Both numbers are far too great, and yet we are only aggressively addressing one of them.

I'm not seriously proposing a ban on alcohol. I'm making a point that there are other things out there killing people.
The public is fed crap by the media. The media makes a living selling crap. It's a lot scarier to hold up a gun and say it's a killing monster, then to hold up a bottle of vodka and say the same.
2013-01-20 08:30:44 AM
1 votes:

doglover: So basically, while you're not gonna overthrow any governments with an AR-15 and a 100 round beta-mag, there's no reason not to let responsible people have one for shiats and giggles because learning how to deal with jams and put multiple rounds into a target as quickly as is possible to do safely as a boy might one day translate into Little Johnny Smith saving the life of someone in his squad out in some war zone after he joins up to get that GI Bill.


I can agree with that.

I will say that banning assault weapons and restricting the size of a magazine really aren't the things I'm interested in.

I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.
2013-01-20 08:22:56 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws.


Oh boy...here we go...

Mr. Right: Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them.


People still keep fantasizing this moment huh?

Mr. Right: Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation.


Cities like Detroit also have numbers that high but not as strict gun laws. There has to be more behind this than simple talking points.

Mr. Right: What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government?


They're not delusional?

Mr. Right: People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.


Or tax breaks for that competitors might not get and would only benefit their particular industry (because they're so special and all)....oh wait...that wasn't what you meant huh?

Mr. Right: If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.


Funny'd
2013-01-20 08:18:15 AM
1 votes:
doglover,
Guns aren't evil, people are.


I completely agree. Let's train a high functioning monkey, more intelligent then average. Let the monkey shoot a few watermelons. Don't bother with mercy or put your hands up sort of thing.

Then let's put the monkey in Wayne LaPierre's home, doors locked, with a few 30 round magazines. We trained the monkey to swap magazines.

Let's see how that turns out.

/Thank You Eddie Izzard.
2013-01-20 08:17:50 AM
1 votes:

doglover: gadian: Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose

No. Guns accelerate projectiles with expanding gas out of a tube. What you do with the projectiles is up to you.

I like target shooting. It's harmless fun and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have an AR-15 and a banana clip because I've never done anything violent to anyone in my life that wasn't part of a sport and controlled. I've never even shot a squirrel, and god knows that's a common enough rite of passage for children with their first .22 or pellet gun all over PA.

Yes, you can also shoot living things. But that's merely a technicality. There's no mental gymnastics required to say you can shoot other things, because as a lifelong shooter other things are all I've ever shot or thought about shooting.


So you are saying that guns were not invented to kill? Really? That is why they were invented, and why they are improved on constantly. The power to kill something is the sole reason they are around. Just because you can use them for something else doent mean the nature and purpose chages. I have a bunch of books in the trunk of my car. Are you saying a car is just a bookshelf that can be used to drive around, but thats not why is was made?
2013-01-20 08:16:08 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: unamused: PS.  The idiotic crap the pubbies come out with regarding rape is to try and close the rape baby loophole which allows women to avoid sensible abortion laws.

Because as we know, this is a serious and chronic problem.

/rolls eyes
//"sensible abortion laws" my ass


I know; it sounds just as stupid as "sensible gun laws."  I planned it that way.
2013-01-20 08:07:35 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Of course the comparison works.  Santorum doesn't want to ban all marriages, just the assaul...er, uh, gay ones.
2013-01-20 08:07:29 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to 30 round magazines?


Where does it say you have the right to marriage at all?
2013-01-20 07:54:51 AM
1 votes:

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.


That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.
2013-01-20 07:54:47 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Note how abortion is still legal at the national level, no matter how much the GOP whinges and moans.


But they are shutting down medical facilities in many states.
2013-01-20 07:51:49 AM
1 votes:

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

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


You are who Bill is trying to educate here. Shame you're too arrogant to listen.

Nice picture of Terrible Ted, though. The ballcap he's wearing, "One asterisk (ass-to-risk) for the thin blue line," is a symbol of the Thin Blue Line charity, which raises money to assist the survivors of killed or disabled public safety workers. Ted has helped raise a good deal of money for them.

I'm sure he's still morally inferior to you, however.
2013-01-20 07:44:15 AM
1 votes:

doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.


Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.
2013-01-20 07:43:31 AM
1 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.


When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.
2013-01-20 07:40:34 AM
1 votes:

Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress so they can be the scapegoats... If it passes, and public emotion is high against it, he can blame the GOP... if it doesn't pass, he still looks good and he can still look like he "tried"... The EAs he did, were moderate and not really much of anything...


Yep. He managed to sidestep the issue, while looking concerned. He handed it off to Biden to 'look into solutions', and pretty much turned it over to Congress after that (which is where it belongs).
Say what you will about President Obama, the man is not stupid.
2013-01-20 07:18:24 AM
1 votes:

abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

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


The one on the bottom looks more dangerous.
2013-01-20 07:18:15 AM
1 votes:
How many people here have had a few drinks?

I have, and if others, I want to know your drink of choice.

/Red wine.
//Threadjack, because it seems appropriate at the moment.
2013-01-20 07:14:22 AM
1 votes:

Gunther: If you RTFA, Clinton isn't saying that the pro-gun folks are right, he's saying that they tend to be single issue voters. Even if 70% of Americans are in favor of more firearm regulations, the 30% that disagree tend to REALLY disagree. Clinton is warning that it will cost Democrats in the senate and the house if they push for new regulation.


I agree with that somewhat but I also think that gun regulation is more popular now than it was in the 90's since all of this is happening in the aftermath of some pretty tragic shootings which make the ones in the 90's pale by comparison.

I still think it's politicallly costly but it shouldn't cost the Dems as much as it did in the 90s.

unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.


Well that's a relief. Especially since nothing being proposed is unconstitutional.
2013-01-20 07:06:44 AM
1 votes:

unamused: Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..

It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?


No sane person could type what you did.
2013-01-20 07:06:29 AM
1 votes:
Uncle Tractor,
What a tool made for killing might look like:


You could argue that second tool could could with put holes in a book report, a target, an unknown person in your home at 3am or anybody you don't like on a college campus. That is the tough part.

I would like to see that second tool used to punch holes in a book report, just because.

Any tool you don't know how to use effectively at the moment you need it is pretty useless.
2013-01-20 07:05:49 AM
1 votes:

Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..


It's infuriating that you can't make someone vote the way you want them to, isn't it?
2013-01-20 06:52:35 AM
1 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?

You're a moron.


Huh? Are you saying Republicans aren't the party of rape and bigotry?
2013-01-20 06:51:19 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


If you RTFA, Clinton isn't saying that the pro-gun folks are right, he's saying that they tend to be single issue voters. Even if 70% of Americans are in favor of more firearm regulations, the 30% that disagree tend to REALLY disagree. Clinton is warning that it will cost Democrats in the senate and the house if they push for new regulation.
2013-01-20 06:50:51 AM
1 votes:

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

What a tool made for killing might look like:
upload.wikimedia.org

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.
2013-01-20 06:47:28 AM
1 votes:

Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?


You're a moron.
2013-01-20 06:42:53 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: At this point, I think the gun show loophole has a real shot at getting closed.  As long as the Democrats don't stack a bill with a bunch of other unpopular proposals, it should be relatively easy to make the Republicans look ridiculous if they don't pass it.


The Republicans claimed that Obama was going to seize guns with executive orders, and had the far right whipped into a frenzy about it. Then Obama gave his speech, and his actions turned out to be limited, reasonable, and undoubtedly constitutional. Now Democrats need to do the same thing in the Senate. Come up with a law that only the far right can argue with. Something that will get some Republican votes. I know that the house wouldn't pass such a bill. They won't pass anything that has anything to do with guns. But a reasonable and modest bill with bipartisan support that gets killed by the radical right in the house will give the American people one more reason to throw out the tea party Republicans.

Or has gerrymandering in Republican states made that impossible?
2013-01-20 06:40:33 AM
1 votes:
Also, please read this book. It was written by an old professor of mine. If there are those among you who can't fathom the need for private gun ownership, and want the argument given with scientific rigor, this book is for you.
2013-01-20 06:27:06 AM
1 votes:
Guns should be treated like cigarettes. Like buying cigarettes, purchasing guns/ammo should be accompanied by warning labels, public campaigns denouncing the culture, and other means that communicate the societal troubles that the gun culture has brings with it.

Right now, guns and violence are excessively glorified. Let's start by not doing that. Maybe there a few sensible regulatory measures that can be enacted, but any thoughts that removing a significant number of guns from the population via direct regulation is completely unrealistic.

It *has* to be done by reducing the demand for them, which can only be done by changing people's perception of guns.
2013-01-20 06:26:34 AM
1 votes:
doglover,
Wow. That's some mental gymnastics shiat right there. Silver medal, at least. Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose. The fact that you can use them for other things doesn't change their purpose. Managing animals in the wild? Killing them. Target practice? Training for killing. Don't sugar coat it in your mind. At least have the honesty to admit that your little adult toy is supposed to kill stuff, whether you use it to play at killing things or actually kill them. It is a tool designed, made, sold, and used to kill. And one can argue that there is very little wrong with such a tool, but you can't honestly say it is for anything else.

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.
2013-01-20 06:24:34 AM
1 votes:

doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.


THIS
2013-01-20 06:20:29 AM
1 votes:
And let's consider basic psych evaluations as a precondition.

It isn't perfect, but would screen out nutbags who clearly don't get empathy.

Link

Link

/Maybe include members of the family or household.
2013-01-20 06:16:19 AM
1 votes:
"Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.
2013-01-20 06:00:10 AM
1 votes:
The likelihood of you needing a gun goes up in proportion to your stupidity and criminal activity, neither ends well.
2013-01-20 03:51:54 AM
1 votes:
Democrats probably have support for closing the gun show loophole and MAYBE a new AWB. Anything else would put some Democratic seats back into GOP hands, sadly.
2013-01-20 03:38:11 AM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: I think it's wrong to trivialize mental illness.


Good.  Now how does that apply to the issue at hand?
2013-01-20 02:07:01 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: doglover: Saturday Night Special is not an anti gun song. It's an anti cheap ass-nickle plated knock off guns song.

What's an ass-nickle?


I'm preemptively cock-blocking people who read a certain web comic from re-hyphenating.
2013-01-20 02:02:10 AM
1 votes:

doglover: Saturday Night Special is not an anti gun song. It's an anti cheap ass-nickle plated knock off guns song.


What's an ass-nickle?
2013-01-20 01:48:57 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.


No, guns are made for moving a small projectile from the barrel to ______________.
2013-01-20 01:45:56 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.


Well.  I thought Monica was kinda hot.
2013-01-20 01:39:15 AM
1 votes:
Saturday Night Special is not an anti gun song. It's an anti cheap ass-nickle plated knock off guns song.
2013-01-20 01:37:52 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-01-20 01:06:44 AM
1 votes:

www.smbc-comics.com
 
Displayed 218 of 218 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report