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?

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.

You know, I could really go for emergency bourbon stations in public places.

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.

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.

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.

Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

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

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?

SpectroBoy: You know how I know you don't know shiat about guns?

Cuz you go hunting with uzis?

Amos Quito: .......And the boobs as well.

Now wait a goddamned minute!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

GUTSU: Getting rid of poverty

Hey now, that actually would take effort, America ain't got time for that!

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.



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!!!

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....

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.

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.

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?

Fart_Machine: 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


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

Are you willing to surrender your testicles for the "greater good"? For the children???

If not, why not?

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?

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.

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?

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.

Just statistics. Get over it you whining vaginas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just leave that to these guys.

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.

Laughing my arse off at all you anti gun folk. My guns are not going anywhere. Suck it.

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.



America is in the thrall of a weird cult.

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



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.

What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.

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.



Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.

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.

adragontattoo: Uncle Tractor: Enemabag Jones: A gun without bullets may be pretty useless, but putting holes in paper is plenty different then the emotional or practical reality of putting holes in a person at a random moment in life.

What a tool made for putting holes in paper might look like:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 548x480]

What a tool made for killing might look like:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x425]

It might be worth pointing out that guns made for hunting (for putting food in your fridge) are not the same as those made for killing people.

Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
[www.smith-wesson.com image 475x333]

Different from

[www.mossberg.com image 850x240]

one is a rectangle, and one is a quadrilateral??
sorry my internet connection sucks

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

letrole: unamused: What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote? We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check. Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.
Equal rights.

False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.

I love it when the right-wingers argue with each other.

Mrtraveler01:
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?


Your "response" is nothing more than a reiteration of failed, leftist talking points. But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance. Congratulations!

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.

unamused: For the record I am pro choice, and I think we need to get gummint out of the marriage business.  It is unconstitutional for the government to require a license for a church to practice its religion and consecrate a marriage.

This is just downright stupid because MARRIAGE WAS A CIVIL INSTITUTION LONG BEFORE IT WAS A RELIGIOUS ONE!!!

unamused: We let the government get involved to prevent white chicks from marrying slaves back in the day.

Thank you for providing me with a great example of why I don't trust State Governments.

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 is a fark headliner. Consider the suburban rage.

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?

That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

It might be a semi-auto, but it is most definitely not an AR-15 style rifle.

/so how long have you been a journalism student?

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?

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..

cowgirl toffee: Today's Gun Culture has its own magazine.

ISWYDT

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?

log_jammin: Hetfield: "Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.

it's slightly better than "cracker culture".

Ha, true.

Please Chimpbama, repass the "assault" weapons because it did absolutely nothing the first time around, would have done nothing at Springhook and won't do anything this time but give us the senate back. Or in Brer Rabbit tar baby terms you may be familiar with, "Please don't throw us in that briar patch!"

"Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.

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?