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

(KOB4)   The Guns Keep Us Safe Tour 2013 keeps chugging along with a stop in New Mexico where five people, including three children, were shot dead by a 15 year old boy   ( kob.com) divider line
    More: Sad, New Mexico  
•       •       •

14536 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-01-20 04:27:15 PM  
15 votes:
http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/

It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 02:30:27 PM  
14 votes:

queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?


There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.
2013-01-20 04:39:47 PM  
13 votes:

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


There is nothing more annoying than a gun grammar Nazi. Obviously, what you are trying to do is say that someone who is not an absolute expert in these guns does not deserve a voice in this debate. Don't be that asshole.
2013-01-20 03:11:02 PM  
9 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:01:23 PM  
9 votes:
I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.
2013-01-20 06:02:17 PM  
8 votes:

Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.


Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.
2013-01-20 08:14:11 PM  
7 votes:

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:

bugimus.comView Full Size


This:

newspaper.liView Full Size


This:

infognito.netView Full Size


This:

This:

thinkprogress.orgView Full Size


This:

media.popularmechanics.comView Full Size


This:

topnews.inView Full Size


This:

kisapps.netView Full Size


This:

static.ddmcdn.comView Full Size


This:

dailystar.com.lbView Full Size


This:

pcdn.500px.netView Full Size


This:

hanscomfamily.comView Full Size


And This:

i117.photobucket.comView Full Size



With this:

enemyforces.netView Full Size
2013-01-20 05:33:21 PM  
7 votes:

doglover: Dictionary.com is... well, dictionary.com.


Dictionary.com gets their information from external sources.  The two definitions mentioned in this thread from dictionary.doc are from the 2013 edition of the Random House Dictionary and the 2009 Collins dictionary form HarperCollins.

So yeah, using dictionaries to define words and shiat.  How DARE he?

Plus you're confusing jargon with a lay term.   An "assault rifle" might mean one thing in military jargon and another thing to a layman.   Not knowing the jargon (or caring) doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion but it does make those people who rely on it to be pedantic seem like douchebags.
2013-01-20 03:29:57 PM  
7 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".
2013-01-20 06:16:56 PM  
6 votes:

pedrop357: THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.
2013-01-20 06:09:13 PM  
6 votes:

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?

Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.


It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.
2013-01-20 06:05:24 PM  
6 votes:

pedrop357: In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l


I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.
2013-01-20 06:03:19 PM  
6 votes:

Pincy: Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.

Don't know about where you live, but any car accident around here that involves fatalities is plastered on all the local news stations with live reporters and interviews from witnesses. And I'm in a city with over a million people.


Its almost like cars serve a purpose other than the deaths or injuries of people and accidents involving said vehicles are therefore accepted more easily* as a cost of their convenience and necessity to our way of life. False Equivalence is false.

/Also cars tend to kill people in ACCIDENTS not premeditated murderous rampages. I don't think there are tens of thousands of car based murders every year. I could be wrong though..

*not that people dying in car accidents is a good thing, dammit you know what i mean...
2013-01-20 04:02:23 PM  
6 votes:

jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part

...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.
2013-01-20 01:24:23 PM  
6 votes:
If only those children had played more Black Ops and were armed, they would still be here today.
2013-01-20 06:22:12 PM  
5 votes:
ZeroPly:
No. Just f*cking stop already.

Selective fire is a necessary condition of an assault rifle. Period. No selective fire, no assault rifle. That's what the term means. It's what it's meant for a very long time, and we don't need jackasses like you redefining our terminology for political reasons. If you're against semiautomatic rifles, say you're against semiautomatic rifles. But quit trying to redefine words to suit your needs.

Now the journalists have been called out enough for misusing terminology that they say "assault type". Again, no. Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.


You want to know who redefined the term? Gun manufacturers. There was a clear marketing approach to improving sagging guns sales, and that was to design guns with an appearance specifically designed to elicit John Wayne/Rambo/Wolverine fantasies. While they may function no differently than a standard hunting rifle, that is certainly not how they are marketed. They are marketed as "assault rifles" to the beer belly militia members, survivalists, and childish men that want to play army in their minds. It's no surprise that they are the weapon of choice for the mentally unstable that wish to live out their fantasies.

img201.imageshack.usView Full Size
2013-01-20 06:07:08 PM  
5 votes:

ZeroPly: Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.


How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?
2013-01-20 06:02:12 PM  
5 votes:

desertfool: Is anyone else sick of the damned gun threads? Even the foobies threads have guns nowadays!


I'm with you.  Now is not the time to be talking about guns.  I think Subby should be forced to re-submit this thread and make no mention of the fact that a gun was used.  Maybe you can suggest a headline and help Subby out.  I'm sure he'd thank you.

/Honestly, I'm not sick of the gun threads.
//I'm sick of mass shootings that bring about the gun threads.
2013-01-20 06:00:27 PM  
5 votes:
Keep making a media circus about every single shooting that occurs and I guarantee you that more Sandy Hook/VATech/Aurora type events will occur. The mental cases that perpetrated those crimes want nothing more than to be infamous and share their "pain" with the world, and they know that they'll get what they want without fail.
2013-01-20 05:50:13 PM  
5 votes:
If only there had been a good fifteen year old with a gun to save everyone.

In a related matter, it appears I have become desensitized to kids getting murdered. I blame society. And by society, I mean the NRA.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:56:34 PM  
5 votes:
There have been semi-automatic assault rifles made for military use too, assault rifles that were designed from the start as semi-auto assault rifles.

It just shows how silly the idea that "there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle" is.
2013-01-20 03:49:19 PM  
5 votes:
I'm sure glad this still isn't a time to talk about guns and try to prevent these sorts of incidents.  Wouldn't want to infringe on the right of people to keep living now would we?
2013-01-20 06:33:14 PM  
4 votes:

AngryDragon: The people who are really determined to get them still will.


You make an unsupportable assumption- that the nut cases that do these mass shootings are part of the criminal underworld and could get a banned gun if they needed it. If that was true, why don't more of them use fully automatic weapons? A determined criminal could certainly get one of those. But all these mass murderers use guns you can legally purchase. So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.
2013-01-20 06:25:11 PM  
4 votes:
THE FALSE EQUIVALENCY ARGUMENT OG "Z0MG, EVERTYTHING CAN BE A WEAPON!1!" sort of overlooks the fact that guns are, be DESIGN, a weapon. Take your jerry cans of 96 octane, your hatchets and butter knives and meet me at the gun fight. I'll have a gun. Oh, you're busy that day? Stop saying stupid things. America already looks like a surly redneck, seated in a beer joint, scratching his nuts and trying to pick a fight - to the rest of the world. We don't want him to seem to be illiterate, too.
2013-01-20 06:23:06 PM  
4 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.

In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.


You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?
2013-01-20 06:20:30 PM  
4 votes:

AngryDragon: Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?


Ah the old "Criminals ignore laws so why have them" argument. I guess we should just throw out the entire legal code in this country, since the bad guys will just ignore it anyway.

The purpose of a law banning magazine fed guns is eventually there would be few of them available. Fewer guns= less stories like this one.
2013-01-20 06:17:31 PM  
4 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.

No, it shows that the special treatment reserved for guns demonstrates an agenda and is not rooted in any concern for children or saving lives.


The term 'responsible gun owners' in and itself is THE false equivalency because when you own guns especially multiple assault rifles there is an inherent risk to yourself and also society at large mainly for two primary reasons..

1st ... your guns CAN be used by someone other than yourself.

2nd. A responsible person of today or yesterday can potentially be irresponsible in the future.
2013-01-20 05:57:41 PM  
4 votes:

Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.


Don't know about where you live, but any car accident around here that involves fatalities is plastered on all the local news stations with live reporters and interviews from witnesses. And I'm in a city with over a million people.
2013-01-20 05:49:34 PM  
4 votes:

Vodka Zombie: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!


In another year, he would have been able to drive. Imagine what he could have done with a REAL weapon!
2013-01-20 04:57:17 PM  
4 votes:
AR-15, the new AK-47.
2013-01-20 04:42:20 PM  
4 votes:
Makh: It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


yes, that is the argument, so it will be interesting what the guntards come up with now.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:51:54 PM  
4 votes:

give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.


Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.
2013-01-20 03:35:58 PM  
4 votes:

vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.


There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.
2013-01-20 02:54:53 PM  
4 votes:
It seems we're overlooking the real problem here

/teenagers
2013-01-20 11:18:22 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: DustBunny: Gyrfalcon: WHEN, exactly does the tyranny reach the level that its okay to shoot back?

This is an excellent question...at what percentage of african american male incarceration, probation and felony record does it begin to look like oppression? Oh I'm sure that at some point, the Jews said "you know what, there's a large number of us in detention and a larger number being denied jobs and housing due to our ethnicity...." without getting out grandpa's shotgun......

At what point do african americans as a minority decide that too many of their people are detained due to lopsided conviction rates, too many are continuing to be punished due to their records etc and decide to rise up against a tyrannical government?

/mostly tongue in cheek, apologies for making light in my example...

An excellent question indeed. I'm not sure there's a good answer.


Then you better find one, because that's your rationale for people being able to own lots of weapons. And this time I'm dead serious. If the justification for owning guns at all is "Because we have to be able to rise up against tyrannical oppressors" then it's on those gun owners and those who believe that someday we MIGHT have to overthrow a tyrant to realize this isn't empty rhetoric. Do you even know the signs of a tyrant? How would you know when it was time to overthrow a dictatorial government and how would you go about convincing your friends and neighbors that you need to take up arms and weren't some batshiat insane conspiracy nut? And what would stop the tyrannical government from crushing you like a pesky fly?

All these fools who claim they need weapons to protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government or dictator need to recognize that, first of all, it's way too late in the day to do that. Our government--like dictators and totalitarian regimes everywhere--has got more and better weapons than any homegrown militia could ever hope to acquire. If the US government wanted to go Nazi on your ass and round up whoever they wanted, nobody could stop them and resistance would be futile. Whatever arsenal anyone has is useless compared to Predators, Abrams tanks and F-18s armed with Hellfire missiles. So stop imagining you've got gunz to water the tree of democracy with the blood of tyranny.

Second, even if you could, nobody knows what to look for or when to strike if the government DID gear up for all out totalitarianism. Why? Because nobody expects them to. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, dictators don't leap through the door with jarring chords and spiffy red uniforms. They consolidate power first, and then start issuing orders. Hitler and his crew were legitimately elected to the German parliament and Hitler was named Chancellor and it took him two years before he was secure enough to start Nazifying the country--and three more years after that before he started declaring war and opening prison camps. And another two years before the death camps broke ground. By then it was too late to start a resistance inside Germany, because the German Army was in his pocket. And it would be the same thing here.

So don't even pretend you have gunz in case of a dictator. It's because you like gunz. Admit it and be honest with the rest of us, if not yourself.
2013-01-20 10:32:03 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: So you want to ban all guns?


Personally, I think just semi-auto, but that's just me.

I'm not American, just an interested observer, and I think you guys have gone way too far with the whole guns thing, way further than is sensible, but that the way the 2nd amendment is written. I don't think there's any point in trying to turn back as it will cause more harm than good. Too many guns taken far too seriously by far too many people. I think that mass murders and dead children is the price you pay and will continue to pay, and you're happy to pay it.

Also, don't bother hiding behind the mental health canard, it's not going to happen...you'll keep talking about it as the solution until the cost estimates come in and it will quietly slip down the side of the couch with the loose change, old peanuts and spent cartridges.
2013-01-20 10:04:38 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: Australia averaged a mass shooting, what once every 16 years or so? What kept the mass shootings from happening before?


We had about one per year prior to the ban, and none since.
2013-01-20 10:04:00 PM  
3 votes:

kriegfusion: Hey great, you can pull links of people more educated on the topic than you can. That doesn't make you educated, it simply makes you the Not-So-Great and Not-So-Powerful Lolmedic


Well, I guess when the historical facts of the matter don't support what your conjecturing, you can always resort to personal, childish insults,  kreigfusion.

kriegfusion:
And in your own link it says in the very beginning "... the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people How do you think that compliance came about? They could haul your jewish, non-aryan, revolt-inspiring arse off to jail, to interrogation, or just give you a noodle in the back of the neck and be done with it.

Are you joking, trolling, or purposely misrepresenting history? It was the rising influence of the Nazis in the Wiemar Republic which resulted in the re-legalization of private firearm ownership among the German people in the German Firearms Act of 1928. Prior to that, Germany as a whole was considered effectively disarmed by the Treaty of Versailles  which stated that ANY private ownership of firearms capable of being used to wage war was "illegal" unless they fit in the provisions of the treaty.

Here, I'll state that again.  The Nazis re-armed the very people you're inferring were disarmed in the first place by the Gestapo. I know, it's a deep concept, I'll let it sink in for a second, and then continue.

Secondly, that came about because the German people, INCLUDING THE JEWS, voted Hitler and his cronies into power in the 1930s because of his promises to restore the economy, and re-instate Germany as a dominant European power, and his rhetoric about the ubermensch being German. There was no armed revolt because THE POPULACE SUPPORTED HIS RISE TO POWER, for the most part the Gestapo was involved in silencing very limited criticism. (Actually the SA and SS. And boy, did they fark over the SA royally afterwords.) Hitler deliberately engineered false terrorist attacks and military events to garner support from the German public for crackdowns. His promotion of popular anti-semitic and eugenics theories won him over more of the world than people like to admit, even MANY Americans supported him until the attack on Pearl Harbor and his actions during the invasion of France.

That compliance came about because they were "Good Germans". Hitler gave them prosperity by making them the arms manufacturer of the European powers at the time, and by giving the Allies the finger and re-arming in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, by the time Hitler and his regime banned private ownership of firearms by "undesirables" in November 1938, Action T4 and the relocation of Jews into camps had been going on for months. (Years in the case of T4).

kriegfusion: Do you even read your own links, and understand your own points that you bring up? Are you even capable of reading? Whose the idiot here? If you're gonna step into the ring, be prepared to box, kid. Or at least have some farkin' boxing gloves lol.


Well, I'd suggest if you're going to call someone an idiot, know the difference between who's and whose. That would be the first starting point. I'd also recommend you don't promote negative revisionist views of history to support your agenda, especially when those views fly in the face of what scholars know about Germany during the 1930s.

I'll state it again, since you seem to be unable to grasp this concept:  The idea that "armed Germans" would have stopped Hitler's rise to power and crackdowns on liberties which defined 1930s Germany into the Holocaust is stupid, because it was those very armed Germans that SUPPORTED Hitler's rise to power and his crackdowns, and made every effort to stifle the very minority who tried to either combat it, or escape.
2013-01-20 08:16:48 PM  
3 votes:

MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:

www.bugimus.com

This:

newspaper.li

This:

www.infognito.net

This:

This:

thinkprogress.org

This:

media.popularmechanics.com

This:

topnews.in

This:

www.kisapps.net

This:

static.ddmcdn.com

This:

www.dailystar.com.lb

This:

pcdn.500px.net

This:

www.hanscomfamily.com

And This:

i117.photobucket.com


With this:

www.enemyforces.net


I generally agree with that assesment, but funny thing. A bunch of theocratic women haters with less than a 3rd grade education hav been making fun of the world's best military for over a decade using not much more.
2013-01-20 08:05:41 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


You really don't know what you're talking about. Guns were barely a factor in Iraq. In two deployments my company had exactly three gunshot wounds, and one was self-inflicted. None were fatal. I have no idea how many people were hit by IEDs. A lot. If you try to attack a modern army directly, you will die. If you select firearms as your main weapon, you have already lost.
2013-01-20 08:03:17 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: This was a reply to those who always claim that cars aren't designed to kill, etc. and that guns are designed for one purpose-to kill


To be fair, only one of your numerous examples didn't involve killing....if you come up with five uses and only one doesn't involve killing or the intent of killing or the risk of killing, you might need to come to a conclusion that the main purpose of this tool is to kill people or animals, with a secondary use of practising to kill people or animals...
2013-01-20 06:43:21 PM  
3 votes:
A pastor? I thought God was supposed to stop this sort of thing from happening in places where he's welcome... All those people on FB that apparently posted those pics about how God didn't stop Sandy Hook because he wasn't welcome in our schools... Someone should post a pic asking where he was this time. "I was...ummm...busy washing My hair. Problem?"
2013-01-20 06:21:58 PM  
3 votes:
I like how 5 people are dead and some of the fun nuts think the most important thing is the terminology use about the weapons.
2013-01-20 06:21:24 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: self defense


I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.
2013-01-20 06:17:43 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?
2013-01-20 06:17:35 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: born_yesterday: It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.

Too bad the left and all the anti-gun types were right to there to join most of that and ignored Obama when continued it.


Yeah, that's exactly what I remember. Especially when Bush administration officials like Gonzalex were called were called to testify about torture before Congress. Especially when the reversal of Miranda came down directly on ideological lines. Or when the American "left" showed total and complete support for the methods used in the war against terror, branding anyone else a traitor to the country. Jesus, why even bother.
2013-01-20 06:16:54 PM  
3 votes:

Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.


Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?
2013-01-20 06:15:56 PM  
3 votes:

Makh: http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/
It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?
/I mean this is the argument right?


Crazy or abused? And named "Nehemiah." I wonder if his father was some nutty controlling preacher?
2013-01-20 06:14:45 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Holy shiat this has to be the stupidest thing I have read on this site.
2013-01-20 06:10:25 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.

No, it shows that the special treatment reserved for guns demonstrates an agenda and is not rooted in any concern for children or saving lives.


Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?
2013-01-20 06:09:04 PM  
3 votes:

WhoopAssWayne: More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!


like the NRA did with Mr. Obama's children.

You slug.
2013-01-20 06:03:36 PM  
3 votes:

Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?


Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.
2013-01-20 06:00:37 PM  
3 votes:
In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l
2013-01-20 05:53:13 PM  
3 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.


Thirld World, Poverty Stricken and Warlord filled Africa is not the United States, a First World Superpower.

Nice try with fallacious comparisons, though.
2013-01-20 05:18:57 PM  
3 votes:

doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.


Yeah, Cameron.  How DARE you use a dictionary as a source for the definition of words n shiat.
2013-01-20 05:08:52 PM  
3 votes:

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.


Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.
2013-01-20 04:38:44 PM  
3 votes:

doglover: Actually, the argument is crazy people like this kid, are the problem. Guns are just a detail.


No, that and the crazy gun culture are what I am trying to say.  (That, and the NRA trying to profit off misinformation.)

From what I have heard, someone else with a gun can come in a prevent the murders.  Have guns, equals more safe.

Here is an example.   http://www.keepbusy.net/pic.php?id=2755
2013-01-20 04:09:31 PM  
3 votes:

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


This. We need more Acts named for what they really are.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:39:30 PM  
3 votes:

violentsalvation: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".


Nope.  I people here on Fark have claimed that they are "safe and fun".

Maybe they were using some new definition of the word safe.
2013-01-20 01:52:39 PM  
3 votes:

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?
2013-01-21 01:45:04 PM  
2 votes:

lordjupiter: Kit Fister: lordjupiter: I love how the gun derpers get SO upset when you bring up the victims, especially the children, and accuse people of "politicizing" their deaths. As if those deaths are completely unrelated to the issue, and we should all forget completely about the real repercussions of the politics involved, which is DEAD CHILDREN.

It's almost as if they don't want to be reminded of the consequences of their denials.

I can't speak for all gun owners, but I will say this for myself: I don't care. There, I said it. I don't give a flying fark. I didn't walk into that school and gun down those kids. I had nothing to do with it, I wasn't in the same state, I didn't know the perp, and I had no way to know he was going to do it or have any method of stopping him.

The onus and issue here is strictly on him. Nothing can stop people from acting evil, and I refuse to give up anything because of the actions of a mentally disturbed asshat, because I don't believe one person using a tool for evil makes the tool evil. If that were the case, then I would be all for banning religion because a few people use religion to do evil.

Same issue with this kid in New Mexico. I'm sorry the family got whacked, but chances are, the kid had issues and they knew about it and did nothing. The onus is on them for not preventing the tragedy.

Now, off to shoot my AR-15 in the snow at some coyotes that have been tearing up shiat in my neighborhood.

Well at least you admit that you're a heartless fool who only really cares about himself.


How does that make him a heartless fool?? Because he doesn't want to be judged with broad brush?? He had nothing to do with that tragedy, just like you or I. Bad things happen to good people. It could happen to me later today. It could happen to one of you farkers tomorrow. If there is one thing humans are good at, its killing each other, and they were killing long before the gun was ever invented. Don't sit their on your high horse and judge a gun owner for exercising a right under the United States Constitution and think he is just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. That kind of thinking is just outrageously ignorant.
2013-01-21 09:49:04 AM  
2 votes:

IlGreven: kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?

Let's look at all the other rights we've lost while we had the immediate means to enforce our will upon the government:

1st Amendment right to free assembly (See Occupy Protests)
4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure (TSA, Warrantless Wiretapping, Terrorist Watch Lists)
5th Amendment right to be detained without charge ("enemy combatants", Gitmo)
6th Amendment right to fair and speedy trial to know what you're being charged with and to face your accusers (again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)
8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding, other torture)
14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection (once again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)

But, thankfully, you still have your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. As well as your 3rd amendment right to refuse to quarter soldiers in your home during peacetime.


So you're saying that since they've taken those rights from us we should just give up and let them take the rest....got it.
2013-01-21 06:36:49 AM  
2 votes:
Dear graph-wielders:

Please understand that there are standards you need to meet. This isn't your 7th grade math class. Credible professionals use citations and all necessary disclaimers. If you don't know what to look for and are just reposting someone else's graph, you're likely a lot less informed than you think you are and consequently part of the problem.

Thanks
2013-01-20 10:30:28 PM  
2 votes:

DustBunny: Kit Fister: banning certain types of common objects as they are misused

How about we split the difference and allow toddlers safety scissors that are rounded on the edge and only cut paper not skin, to reduce stabbing and slashing abilities.

That way no toddler is prevented from his or her god given right to cut paper into smaller pieces of paper, and couches/other children can't get stabbed...

I call that a sensible compromise....


Or, you know, we could teach kids, when they are age appropriate, to respect the scissors and to use them safely, and work to prevent them from misbehaving....

At the end of the day, my thoughts as a gun owner are this:

- I don't care if I have to jump through a few extra hoops, fill out more paperwork, etc. to buy an AR-15 over a hunting rifle or whatever. Filling out a form that is faxed to the ATF, and going through a background check, etc., in the digital age where results of searching your data should be instantaneous is like having someone run your credit score. Big farking whoopty doo.

- I don't care if my doctor asks me if I have guns. I don't have to answer. Likewise, I don't care if my doctor includes a mental health screening as part of my physical. I'd actually welcome that, because you never know when it's just good to talk to someone and work on things before they come to a head. I think if teens/young adults had ready access to people other than their peers/parents to talk to, and were taught that they can safely open up to those people about anything, that a lot of this shiat would be avoided.

- I honestly am okay with requiring that my firearms be secured when not in use. With the proliferation of quick-access devices and cabinets that can be used to store firearms and still make them very easily available in the event of a break-in in the home, it's really goddamn stupid NOT to do it. Combine a simple alarm system and dog with these devices, you're pretty much guaranteed to know someone is breaking in with enough time to get to the firearm, get it readied, and have police on the way before a really determined criminal makes it to your bedroom.

I generally also have no issues with making some things harder to get. I don't personally see why I need a 60rd or 100rd magazine for my AR-15, since I don't personally do anything more than the occasional training course that involves the AR-15 so needing more than a standard 20rd or 30rd mag is unlikely. But, if you really want them, say because you shoot in one of the competitive shooting sports where ARs are used and want the extra capacity for said sport, you can get them if you go to a specific dealer to acquire them.

What irks me to no end is the fact that people with no familiarity with what guns are used for what, or what is a legitimate way to reduce availability and what just arbitrarily makes lawful owners' exercising of their rights more difficult, without being open to other opinions.

Every thread on this, you end up with the back and forth between people arguing about "well, why can't we have reasonable gun control", without first hashing out what "reasonable" is, and how it affects people who aren't criminals.

To anti-drug people, "Reasonable" drug control is banning anything they don't like, and making you show your ID to buy freaking benadryl. How is that "Reasonable"?

I'm all for hashing this out, because I do care about people that are hurt just as much as anyone else is. I just refuse to accept that I'm somehow to blame for the actions of someone else whom I have never met or know anything about, simply because they chose to do something unlawful. If you can come up with ways that will stop these people from doing these things without unduly burdening those of us who go out of our way to be safe and responsible, then I'll back you. Otherwise, I'm not going to go along with anything until you prove to me that it's reasonable.
2013-01-20 07:44:06 PM  
2 votes:

badhatharry: It is because of games like Call of Duty


These games are sold in other countries too. How come no one else seems to be having this problem to the extent that we do.

/Lame cop-out is lame.
2013-01-20 07:17:31 PM  
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: I don't think bans are the answer either. I just don't think the status quo is the answer either.


I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time. The last 10 or so states should go shall issue, the states with bans on scary looking guns should give it up as it solves nothing; redirect the enforcement efforts to other more successful things.

States should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in schools like they already do without problem everywhere else.

So no, the status quo isn't acceptable.
2013-01-20 07:12:35 PM  
2 votes:

kriegfusion: So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday.


Firstly, more laws does not always result in less liberty. Hell, the Founding Fathers broke with Great Britain because they needed *more* laws to handle an expanding population, and the colonial model required months to get laws approved back in England. Don't be afraid of your own democracy.

Second, every two years our government is mutated by an election. The First Amendment and popular passion is a far better safeguard against tyranny than the Second Amendment.

Third, the Second Amendment was meant to protect the government from foreign invasion by having a pool of armed citizenry at hand. Utilizing gun ownership as a veiled threat against the elected government itself is a non-starter and will only guarantee the freedom to know precisely how you will die.

Last, to satisfy your hypothetical, if the government was an absolute tyranny and there were no elections or protest options and I needed to resist the government, the Iraq insurgency has shown a clear example that personal firearms are only useful for bullying and terrorizing civilian collaborators. Guns don't work against Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I imagine learning to make explosives would be more useful for fighting American Hitler... that and learning countersurveillance tradecraft.
2013-01-20 07:11:46 PM  
2 votes:

Dinki: the ha ha guy: I'm not saying that a free-for-all gun culture is a great idea, and I do believe that something should be done sooner rather than later, but a simple ban is probably going to be about as successful as the ban against illegal drugs.

Guns aren't drugs- drugs can be grown or manufactured by just about anybody. The average person cannot make a functioning magazine fed gun. I have no doubts that a real ban on mag fed guns would take many years to fully take affect. But the simple fact is the alternative is going to be more mass murders.



Rifles of any type (of which magazine-fed semi-automatics are a sub category) are used in ~300-400 murders per year. Handguns, which do not count under any definition of "assault weapon", are used in ~6000-7000 murders per year.

I'm in favor of an all-around weapon reform, as long as every otherwise legal firearm gets equal treatment under the law. But putting a laser focus on assault rifles and ignoring everything else isn't going to save many lives, short or long term.
2013-01-20 07:04:27 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


photos1.blogger.comView Full Size
2013-01-20 07:04:26 PM  
2 votes:
The United States Constitution is widely regarded by the balance of the world to be one of the most functional, useful and well written documents as a basis for governance in history. The balance of the world has also, though, long ago grown weary of watching Americans use it as a pry bar, toilet paper, mommy's skirt and a hall pass for every form of bad behavior imaginable. Frankly, I am, too.
2013-01-20 06:58:27 PM  
2 votes:

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


Alright... I'll bite a little here. First, there are few who are actually on the full weapon ban side. Most of us just want to add new rules and regulations. Banning all guns is not our agenda, the constitution is important to us as well. When you paint the issue as an all or nothing rule... then you have lost the discussion already. The world isn't black and white and no one will take you seriously. You will continue to be brushed off as a crazy... probably rightly so based on your argument that we are on this path to some sort of dictatorship. The government is NOT oppressing you, take some meds.
2013-01-20 06:33:34 PM  
2 votes:

Alonjar: *shrug* shootings happen every single day. Nobody ever said they didnt.

Every type of crime happens every single day.


"Lots of things are bad, so nothing is bad."
2013-01-20 06:32:23 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

So you'll agree that the police and federal law enforcement officials should be denied possession of that round and the guns that fire it, right?


No. But it's a lethal weapon, which is why cops are restricted in its storage and handling. They have to account for every bullet they're issued and any time they discharge their gun there's a serious deciscion cycle involved. Even if they're shooting at practice targets they're still using a human-lethal weapon.

Why do you not expect the public to have similar safety standards?
2013-01-20 06:32:04 PM  
2 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.


Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.
2013-01-20 06:31:56 PM  
2 votes:

cretinbob: Makh: It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?

yes, that is the argument, so it will be interesting what the guntards come up with now.


Yep, but it sounds like a family that should not have been allowed to have guns since they clearly failed to secure them. I'm all for gun ownership, of any kind, but the owner needs to be responsible and should demonstrate that responsibility before acquiring the firearm.
2013-01-20 06:30:28 PM  
2 votes:

iq_in_binary: vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.

You are so ignorant of the subject it's not even funny. Seriously, shut the fark up. My roommate's dog is more qualified to speak about this subject than you.


Just, you know, understand that if your roommate's dog is talking to you, you probably are the very type of person who shouldn't be allowed access to any firearms.
2013-01-20 06:28:32 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: Dinki: pedrop357: I remember the left joining in the support for the war in Iraq

So what color is the sky in your world?

John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry and Hilary Clinton both agree that it's blue.


So now the centrists are leftists? I think I figured out where this conversation went a bit wrong...
2013-01-20 06:19:54 PM  
2 votes:

Contribution Corsair: Well obviously we need armed guards on all the streets and watching all homes instead of just police patrols.

We can't restrict the right to have the weapons but need to station armed guards everywhere to ensure freedom and safety!


Even tho I know you don't want that kind of world, its exactly the kind you'd inadvertently create to back up your ideals.

dl.dropbox.comView Full Size
2013-01-20 06:14:23 PM  
2 votes:
When you use a hatchet or a brick or a bunch of gasoline to kill somebody, that is called - and this is the bane of the modern world, folks - "user application error."> Now, when yo SHOOT somebody with a GUN.. that's not user application error. Got that. They are designed to shoot people with. So can we cut the false equivalency banana oil and actually start dealing with the problem? You know, the culture we've built upon violent aggressive douchebags being "kewl"?
2013-01-20 06:11:59 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


I prefer the term "Gun of Peace™." It does a bonus 2d20 troll damage against anyone who's ever used "Religion of Peace™," which tend to be the same people who are stockpiling AR-15s for when Fartbongo's intifadah... something something something.
2013-01-20 06:07:50 PM  
2 votes:
FTA:

Albuquerque Fire Chief James Breen said the Albuquerque Fire Department is morning the senseless loss of one of our spiritual counselors, Greg Griego.

He said Griego was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community.

Breen said Griego's calming spirit and gentle nature will be missed.

Griego also volunteered at the Bernalillo County jail for 13 years, offering spiritual comfort and guidance to the incarcerated, according to Metropolitan Detention Center Chief Ramon Rustin.


If only he'd 1) spent some of that counseling time with one of his own goddamn children and 2) locked up his weapons, if he was unwilling to offer 'spiritual comfort' to one of his own goddamn children

\there ya go, gun fetishists - I went right to the real problem
\\of course, if he had a hammer...
\\\he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening
2013-01-20 06:07:19 PM  
2 votes:
It's ironic that this multiple shooting will not be large enough to create a big national stir. It's like the NRA has this mass murder safety zone where things work out for them unless a threshold is reached.
2013-01-20 06:05:16 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: Vodka Zombie: Ha! The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny. You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car). I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.

Know how I know you're a trolling scumbag?


Really?

I think I was being pretty flippin' obvious about it.  But, you know, not really trolling.  Making a joke?  Sure.  Trolling?  I don't know.  I'll let you be the judge.
2013-01-20 06:02:23 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.



No. Just f*cking stop already.

Selective fire is a necessary condition of an assault rifle. Period. No selective fire, no assault rifle. That's what the term means. It's what it's meant for a very long time, and we don't need jackasses like you redefining our terminology for political reasons. If you're against semiautomatic rifles, say you're against semiautomatic rifles. But quit trying to redefine words to suit your needs.

Now the journalists have been called out enough for misusing terminology that they say "assault type". Again, no. Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.
2013-01-20 06:01:08 PM  
2 votes:

CrazyCracka420: If only the 2 adults and 3 kids were packing heat this would have never happened.


This is actually THEIR fault for ALLOWING themselves to be victims. If you don't have what it takes to protect yourself, you get what you deserve.
2013-01-20 05:54:40 PM  
2 votes:
More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!
2013-01-20 05:51:30 PM  
2 votes:

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.

I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.


WTF?! The AR-5 was designed as an aircrew survival rifle for the United States Miliary. However, it's bolt action, not an assault rifle.

Fubini: Spot the grenade launcher:


SKS uses a muzzle launched rifle grenade, much like the M-1 Garand and M-14. The grenade slipped onto that muzzle break, and used a special cartridge to launch it.
2013-01-20 05:38:34 PM  
2 votes:
What the world needs now is guns, more guns
they're the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is guns, more guns,
No not just for some but for everyone.

media.mlive.comView Full Size
2013-01-20 05:35:41 PM  
2 votes:

doglover: And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.



about that
2013-01-20 05:14:55 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.


I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.
2013-01-20 05:09:06 PM  
2 votes:

doglover: AR-15, the new AK-47.


XM-15.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's divert the discussion towards a nomenclature argument and avoid the real issue!
2013-01-20 04:34:01 PM  
2 votes:

Makh: http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/

It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


Actually, the argument is crazy people like this kid, are the problem. Guns are just a detail.
2013-01-20 04:06:24 PM  
2 votes:
Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15?
2013-01-20 03:49:51 PM  
2 votes:

dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.


The American flag used as a curtain is pretty much a tell-tale sign of bugfark, teabagger nationalism, but, who knows?

Like I said, I'm just glad this lunatic didn't get his hands on a hammer.
2013-01-20 02:56:24 PM  
2 votes:
Sort of like Pokemon... Except you have to kill them all.
2013-01-20 02:13:11 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?


When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?
2013-01-22 08:14:16 PM  
1 vote:

CheapEngineer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CheapEngineer: Fact number one: You are a twat-waffle. LET'S SEE YOU DENY THAT ONE!

Wow, you sure showed me. Called me names.. and nothing else. Again, proving my point that gun grabbers don't have logic on their side. If you did, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops, not relying solely on ad hominem attacks. You're going to lose this battle because quite honestly, even your leaders can't spoon feed you reasonable sounding ideas for you to regurgitate all over the internet.

That's why I enjoy our little talks so much - because you still have no idea your foaming at the mouth "lost the battle" *days* ago. Hell, long before I even commented. I'm not even gonna attempt to take any credit for pointing out your natural talents - too many here are much better than me at that.

Except you, of course.


What part of this don't you get?
2013-01-22 05:50:17 PM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: And hey, if people want to pay to slowly kill themselves and endanger others with poisons and cancers, then they can help pay for things that offset it.


We offset that risk when we made it illegal to smoke in basically all public places. Nobody's forcing you to be around smokers.

Keizer_Ghidorah: /and you really need to curb that confrontational attitude of yours, champ, you complain about how others hurt you so while being the first one to do it yourself more than half the time


eh? What? I don't complain that anyone "hurts" me, I complain that you people can't respond to a point directly 90% of the time, and you resort to logical fallacies. Relying on name calling without any substantial argument is a fallacy tactic.
2013-01-22 12:13:25 PM  
1 vote:

maelstrom0370: Seeing as you and other gun ownder are part of society, why shouldn't you chip in? I don't like all the additional taxes I have to pay as a smoker, but there it is.


I don't agree with smoking taxes, they're not exactly going into a fund to cover the smoker's medical expenses, and neither will gun taxes. It's just a form of punishment one part of society that believes itself morally superior imposes on another.

Here's the first thing I found in google.

Cigarette taxes and settlement agreement funds are supposed to fund youth smoking prevention programs and other tobacco-related public health programs, but that's not always where the money really goes. Instead, more and more of your taxes are used to fund causes and projects unrelated to tobacco control. Here are just a few of the projects funded by your MSA dollars:
Dump trucks, golf carts and a course irrigation system, and a new county jail in New York
Broadband-cable networks in Virginia
Psychiatric care for prisoners in New Jersey
Boot camps for juvenile delinquents, alternative schools, and metal detectors and surveillance cameras for schools in Alabama
Upgrading public television stations with DVD technology in Nevada
Harbor renovation and museum expansion in Alaska
Water and sewer improvements in South Carolina
Pasture and weather monitoring for a thoroughbred association in Kentucky College scholarships in Michigan
New schools in Alaska and Ohio
City parks and the purchase of undeveloped land in California
A senior citizen prescription-drug program and property-tax rebates in Illinois
Medicaid dental services in Maine
Water Resources Trust Fund and flood-control projects in North Dakota
Operating expenses for the Carolina Horse Park, truck-driver training, pine-straw farming research and equipment upgrades at a knitting plant in North Carolina
A People's Trust Fund, which will generate interest income that can be spent at the legislature's discretion, in South Dakota
Help in balancing the budget, which used four years of MSA money, in Tennessee
Rural economic development in Georgia
Tax rebates in several states
Offsetting a revenue shortfall in Wisconsin by selling municipal bonds backed by future MSA payments


Besides, guns are a constitutional right, and smoking is not (although I'd argue that it is within the idea of liberty). I wouldn't agree on a tax for free speech either.
2013-01-22 09:18:18 AM  
1 vote:

CheapEngineer: Fact number one: You are a twat-waffle. LET'S SEE YOU DENY THAT ONE!


Wow, you sure showed me. Called me names.. and nothing else. Again, proving my point that gun grabbers don't have logic on their side. If you did, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops, not relying solely on ad hominem attacks. You're going to lose this battle because quite honestly, even your leaders can't spoon feed you reasonable sounding ideas for you to regurgitate all over the internet.
2013-01-22 01:51:18 AM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: What strawmen have I tossed out?


"THAT SIDE BAD, THEY ALL TAKE MY STUFF, ME NOT DO ANYTHING HELPFUL!!"
2013-01-22 12:07:20 AM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Why do you always go to the greatest lengths you can in order to go "THAT SIDE BAD, THEY ALL TAKE MY STUFF, ME NOT DO ANYTHING HELPFUL!!" with every goddamned aspect of this discussion? You're as bad as randomjsa and tenpoundsofcheese with taking every opportunity to blast shiat at people without actually trying to discuss anything.

To say nothing of your "doing something = doing nothing" "logic". You may not like it, and I don't agree with it, but it's still doing something.


Your tossing our strawmen doesn't help anything.
2013-01-21 11:41:53 PM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't you start, either.

That doesn't mean we should just give up and say "fark it, let's not do anything". Shiat happens, but we can prevent it from happening as often.


The only people talking about "doing nothing" are the ones who bring one thing to the table-more gun control.

So yeah, if more gun control laws is the only thing you want to do, then we'd prefer doing nothing.
2013-01-21 10:36:01 PM  
1 vote:

Rat: Kit Fister: Rat: Without rummaging through 1300 posts, who is winning this argument, the Pro's or the Anti's?

© Unrepentant ammo hoarder

Neither. It's another Internet argument that is unwinnable since neither side will ever stop and listen and have an honest conversation about it.

I figured as much. I'm Jewish, originally from the San Francisco bay area, went to a liberal arts college, live in South Texas, registered Republican, Army veteran, I love shooting my guns and think ferel hogs make great moving targets, and I have way too much ammo on hand. I'm only one generation removed from the liberal democratic way of life, so I understand it, but it just wasn't for me.

I think it would be really nice if the liberals took some time to come down, fire off a few rounds, have a talk around a campfire while spewing stories of the hunt that was, and the one that got away. I've lived their way of life, but found another. I respect their way of life, and would only ask that they respect mine. Some liberals at work have even asked me to teach them some gun safety, so that's a start.

Sane people don't commit atrocities like these of recent times. Lets get together and fix that. I don't have any answers on how to do it, but I've got some ideas.

©


A lot of liberals do. Many liberals own guns, hunt, shoot targets, and do everything conservatives do. Don't make the mistake others here do and think the fringe morons = everybody. The problem is the fringe morons are often the loudest and it's hard to hear over their derp. And yes, fringe morons are on both sides, some on the "pro-gun" side feel that arming every man, woman, and child is the only answer and that they need to rise up against the government if even the slightest negativity toward guns is uttered because it's a conspiracy to disarm America and turn it into the New World Order.

So, please, for your own sanity if nothing else, don't do the "If you're not with us, then you're against us!" and the "They're all the same, and they want to destroy me!" thing.
Rat [TotalFark]
2013-01-21 10:13:20 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: Rat: Without rummaging through 1300 posts, who is winning this argument, the Pro's or the Anti's?

© Unrepentant ammo hoarder

Neither. It's another Internet argument that is unwinnable since neither side will ever stop and listen and have an honest conversation about it.


I figured as much. I'm Jewish, originally from the San Francisco bay area, went to a liberal arts college, live in South Texas, registered Republican, Army veteran, I love shooting my guns and think ferel hogs make great moving targets, and I have way too much ammo on hand. I'm only one generation removed from the liberal democratic way of life, so I understand it, but it just wasn't for me.

I think it would be really nice if the liberals took some time to come down, fire off a few rounds, have a talk around a campfire while spewing stories of the hunt that was, and the one that got away. I've lived their way of life, but found another. I respect their way of life, and would only ask that they respect mine. Some liberals at work have even asked me to teach them some gun safety, so that's a start.

Sane people don't commit atrocities like these of recent times. Lets get together and fix that. I don't have any answers on how to do it, but I've got some ideas.

©
2013-01-21 10:02:27 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: Rat: Without rummaging through 1300 posts, who is winning this argument, the Pro's or the Anti's?

© Unrepentant ammo hoarder

Neither. It's another Internet argument that is unwinnable since neither side will ever stop and listen and have an honest conversation about it.


To be fair, I don't expect pro-choice groups and Planned Parenthood supporters to have an honest conversation either. If the ACLU and the Parents Television Council sat down for a conversation, I doubt much would be accomplished.
2013-01-21 09:52:16 PM  
1 vote:

Rat: Without rummaging through 1300 posts, who is winning this argument, the Pro's or the Anti's?

© Unrepentant ammo hoarder


Neither. It's another Internet argument that is unwinnable since neither side will ever stop and listen and have an honest conversation about it.
2013-01-21 09:42:48 PM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I have a question I'm sure all the gun grabbers won't ever answer, but here it goes.

How many deaths per year from guns would be low enough for you to be satisfied that we need no additional regulation or bans? I think we can all agree that 0 will never be reached, so I'd like to hear a number.

"As low as possible" sounds like a good number, since 0 is likely impossible.

I've posted my ideas for how we could do it many times in many threads. Do you have any suggestions?


How about instead of fixating on cause of death, we focus on how we can reduce the number of deaths due to preventable causes in general?

My feelings that death and violence are inevitable traits of humanity (being as how we are animals and all animals have basic instincts to survive and do kill each other whether rationally or irrAtionally) aside, you have to admit that there are many other resources we can use to stop crime in general that would also reduce gun deaths (which are already on the decline) and benefit humanity without farking over a huge segment of the population in general.
2013-01-21 07:08:05 PM  
1 vote:
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7546072/82012753#c82012753" target="_blank">vpb</a>:</b> <i>give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.</i>

I guess that means a frisbee is also an assault rifle. You know, since all you need to do is just "add the missing parts and any missing machining".

The argument posed by "big-frisbee" is one of the silliest I've ever heard.
2013-01-21 06:50:19 PM  
1 vote:
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7546072/82035190#c82035190" target="_blank">Nina_Hartley's_Ass</a>:</b> <i>pedrop357: These guys should be the only ones to possess certain/any guns.

Another responsible gun owner heard from.</i>

I thought police were your infallible heroes who should be the only ones trusted with the "real guns" because they're superior to everyone else.
2013-01-21 06:20:08 PM  
1 vote:
These guys should be the only ones to possess certain/any guns.
2013-01-21 04:13:35 PM  
1 vote:
Why is it, if we're trying to stop gun crime, prosecutions for same are down 45 percent? Seems to me, if you want to send a message that gun crimes are especially bad, you'd, I dunno, want to actually PROSECUTE them...
2013-01-21 03:24:59 PM  
1 vote:

Robert Farker: Great point!

It sounds like guns shows are already near 100% compliant, it should make the implementation of the laws go more smoothly.



Blah blah blah.

It's really about private sales and amassing records on them. There's no reason to require a background check when spouses, sibling, famiiles, close friends, etc. give one another firearms.
gja
2013-01-21 02:58:25 PM  
1 vote:

Robert Farker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I have a question I'm sure all the gun grabbers won't ever answer, but here it goes.

How many deaths per year from guns would be low enough for you to be satisfied that we need no additional regulation or bans? I think we can all agree that 0 will never be reached, so I'd like to hear a number.


I don't think we need any bans but I see certain regulations that I think will help. Meaningful prosecution for negligence related firearms accidents and background checks on private sales and at gun shows for example.

for crimes in general.

FTFY

Really, all we need to do is make it a severe enough crime that once they use or possess a gun in the commission or attempt of a crime, they are done.
A mandatory prison term so long they will have forgotten their name. And so they don't kill the local economy due to the cost of incarceration, WORK GANGS all around. Yup, the cons will be made to do all the low-end crap nobody likes to do. Sounds unfair? Tough farking shiat! Don't break the law!
2013-01-21 02:14:13 PM  
1 vote:

lordjupiter: Yes, because people haven't thought things through rationally over years and years of going through this. Everyone's reacting on emotional instinct, and coming up with brand new, irrational, extremist plans. Nothing has been done for years because.....why? Everyone's too emotional, or because people like you don't want ANYTHING done, AT ALL.

Typical dismissal.

As for the emotion excuse, people learn better when there is meaning and emotion attached to something. People like you and the other derpers here need some reality thrown in your faces so it's not so EASY for you to dismiss the pain and suffering your selfishness and FEAR causes others.

It IS possible to be "pro-gun" and not an obstinate asshole who resists reasonable reform, you know. I'm one of them. If all you farks got your heads out of your asses and took some responsibility for the culture of denial you've helped foster, maybe we wouldn't have so many kids with their heads blown off.

Unless that's what you want...do you like dead children??



Oh , fark OFF.

We've seen the 'reasonable' reforms proposed and they're rarely close to being reasonable. It's a lot of feel good nonsense and theater.

We saw the results of people using a tragedy to advance a minimally (at best) related agenda after 9/11. The PATRIOT ACT consisted largely of 80s and 90s era wishlist items that wouldn't have stopped the hijackers and was pushed through after lots of secret drafting and minimal debate or time to read it.
2013-01-21 01:38:02 PM  
1 vote:

lordjupiter: So it's up to the people who want to do nothing to tell everyone else when to start discussing a problem that never even lets "the bodies get cold"?

fark no. All you farkers want to do is kick the can down the road and ignore it.


If more gun control is the one and only answer, then yes, we want to do 'nothing'.

I just find it funny that the group that want 'rational conversation' pushes it the hardest when emotions are high and resists it when people are thinking more clearly.
2013-01-21 01:15:55 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: lordjupiter: I love how the gun derpers get SO upset when you bring up the victims, especially the children, and accuse people of "politicizing" their deaths. As if those deaths are completely unrelated to the issue, and we should all forget completely about the real repercussions of the politics involved, which is DEAD CHILDREN.

It's almost as if they don't want to be reminded of the consequences of their denials.

I can't speak for all gun owners, but I will say this for myself: I don't care. There, I said it. I don't give a flying fark. I didn't walk into that school and gun down those kids. I had nothing to do with it, I wasn't in the same state, I didn't know the perp, and I had no way to know he was going to do it or have any method of stopping him.

The onus and issue here is strictly on him. Nothing can stop people from acting evil, and I refuse to give up anything because of the actions of a mentally disturbed asshat, because I don't believe one person using a tool for evil makes the tool evil. If that were the case, then I would be all for banning religion because a few people use religion to do evil.

Same issue with this kid in New Mexico. I'm sorry the family got whacked, but chances are, the kid had issues and they knew about it and did nothing. The onus is on them for not preventing the tragedy.

Now, off to shoot my AR-15 in the snow at some coyotes that have been tearing up shiat in my neighborhood.


Well at least you admit that you're a heartless fool who only really cares about himself.
gja
2013-01-21 12:30:30 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: bunner: pedrop357: You do understand that an AR-15 is not unique among semi-auto rifles in its firing rate, right?

You do realize that defending with your last breath the ownership of something that is "no big deal" looks a bit silly, no?

You do realize that arguing for arbitrary restrictions on firearms that "look scary" and are used in very few crimes comparatively, looks a bit silly, no?

But, hey, I'll give up my second amendment rights when you give up your first, fourth, fifth, and so on amendment rights.

That goes for you to. Stop it. Bad. *swats with newspaper*

Not really. The crux of the matter before us is which rights we are willing to allow to be limited and by how much. Personally, I believe this country was founded on the principles that NO rights are worth limiting beyond the specific scopes set down in the constitution, and believe in absolute rights as long as they harm no one else directly. If I want to own and shoot a canon, I should be allowed to do so so long as I don't hurt anyone else with it.

So, it is a great offense to me to suggest that rights be limited "For the common good" since it's easier to restrict the rights of the people than to face down the people behaving badly and stop them. Easier to take away the screaming child's xbox and hope he shuts up than to spank the little bastard and teach him throwing a hissy fit isn't the way to get what he wants.



You need to stop trying to reconcile what some in this society think is acceptable dogma and behavior. They will never see things the way you do.
Further, their adherence to their emotional projections that extend to how societal norms should be weighted and approached blind them to many facts which, due to their unwillingness to accept the facts as they are, cause a near paradoxical dichotomy. The resulting conflict in their thoughts are dealt with by simply reverting to their emotional base and what THEY deem acceptable/normal via their belief and values, which likely will be tremendously (if not utterly) divergent from yours.

/you just got tagged-faved
2013-01-21 11:54:18 AM  
1 vote:

lordjupiter: I love how the gun derpers get SO upset when you bring up the victims, especially the children, and accuse people of "politicizing" their deaths. As if those deaths are completely unrelated to the issue, and we should all forget completely about the real repercussions of the politics involved, which is DEAD CHILDREN.

It's almost as if they don't want to be reminded of the consequences of their denials.


I can't speak for all gun owners, but I will say this for myself: I don't care. There, I said it. I don't give a flying fark. I didn't walk into that school and gun down those kids. I had nothing to do with it, I wasn't in the same state, I didn't know the perp, and I had no way to know he was going to do it or have any method of stopping him.

The onus and issue here is strictly on him. Nothing can stop people from acting evil, and I refuse to give up anything because of the actions of a mentally disturbed asshat, because I don't believe one person using a tool for evil makes the tool evil. If that were the case, then I would be all for banning religion because a few people use religion to do evil.

Same issue with this kid in New Mexico. I'm sorry the family got whacked, but chances are, the kid had issues and they knew about it and did nothing. The onus is on them for not preventing the tragedy.

Now, off to shoot my AR-15 in the snow at some coyotes that have been tearing up shiat in my neighborhood.
2013-01-21 11:22:44 AM  
1 vote:

justtray: I love the no facts projection the best, considering the pro gun side literally doesn;'t have any and wants to actively stop the US government from being allowed to study it.

He's a cute shill.


How is that projection? What facts have you presented? Our side has shown the numbers, and that assault rifles, which are your primary target, are responsible for fewer deaths than any type of gun. We've asked you to justify your crusade logically, and you haven't. Nobody has a problem with the government studying violence, but if they're going to target gun violence alone and leave out other forms of violence, and avoid addressing the root causes, then I think any reasonable person would see that it's an agenda driven study. Do you have a problem with a fully objective study?
2013-01-21 11:15:07 AM  
1 vote:

CheapEngineer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 1200 posts and the gun grabbers still haven't brought out any real facts to back their positions, and any facts brought out by 2nd amendment supporters are never addressed aside from juvenile denigration. You paranoid gunophobes are probably driving far more people away from the idea of gun control than you realize. Thanks!

I love the way you lay this out. To summarize:

there's been a shooting
anyone who doesn't own 37 guns is a gun-hater
gun haters want to make all guns illegal, and send jack-booted government thugs to take away my guns
they probably shot those people themselves, so they could take advantage of the situation
black helicopters, y'all

\slowclap.gif


Thanks for illustrating my point for anyone who didn't quite understand. Look how you have to go full potato and pretend I said something that I clearly did not. Did it ever occur to you that if you were on the correct side of the issue, you would have something better to say than this obnoxious hyperbolic-strawman abomination of a post? And that's the thing, your side steers clear of presenting facts, because thus far, any fact your side tied to bring to the table was quickly and thoroughly debunked. Conversely, any fact that the pro 2nd amendment side brings to the table meets not any relevant response, but is routinely met with nothing more substantial than ad hominem and strawman attacks. If your side had any valid points, we would have heard them by now, as it stands, you people have literally nothing but emotionalism. Nobody's falling for it, and your efforts will fail. The truly sad thing, is that since you people have insisted on hijacking the national conversation to further your own agenda which is not founded in fact or reason, you are necessarily guaranteeing that the next act of extreme violence will go unhindered.
2013-01-21 10:54:17 AM  
1 vote:

Haliburton Cummings: david_gaithersburg: You believe that people should not stand up to tyranny, especially if its the glorious US government with all of their modern toys. As you pointed out, look how those who dared stand up to the US are still suffering. What Kennedy did to the people of Vietnam was wrong. What Kennedy did to the people of Cuba was wrong. What Bush did to the people of Iraq was wrong. What Obama did to the people of Libya was wrong.

I'm sorry, but I do not support the belief held by the far far left that human beings should bow to tyranny just because they don't happen to have the latest toys.

see, again...nutbar yack..

who said anything like that? i didn't..

and again, you like other nutbars seem to confuse policy with politicians..

go read a book or two about the history of american foreign policy.

Kennedy didn't do anything to Vietnam...Bush didn't do anything to Iraq..

I'll make a simple historical and factual example:

Guatemala. Jacobo Arbenz..

that was the United Fruit Company that started that...

The CIA did the black bag stuff, but it was paid for by UFC because they wanted to nationalize..

read up.

and you know who was responsible for the Iran Iraq fiasco? Miles Copeland..yeah.. Stewart Copelands dad...(drummer for the Police)

but you would actually have to KNOW something about how things work and you don't...

so, blame the actor....blame a president...whatever..but that ain't how it works...

and blame communism while you are at it...that's another false target...

American business interests come first and politicians second...
The "reason" is made up afterwards...

you are intellectually outgunned here to use a dirty pun...quit while you're ahead.


Keep telling yourself how smart you are. It's pathetic.
2013-01-21 10:31:55 AM  
1 vote:

TIKIMAN87: GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't a time to talk about guns and try to prevent these sorts of incidents.  Wouldn't want to infringe on the right of people to keep living now would we?

Right...

WTF makes a 15 year old want to kill?

Why were those guns in easy access to him?

Obviosuly this is the guns fault and not the f*cking mental kid doing the act.


Nobody has called the pen racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is a distinct pattern set by the left.
2013-01-21 10:06:05 AM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: BronyMedic: On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...

AHEM.

Your flawed assumption is that the majority of those "armed patriots" wouldn't be on the side of a despondent  totalitarian Government. Historically, this is almost always the rule, never the exception. Since you want to use Hitler as an example, the Nazi Regime never had a fear of an armed society, because it was that society which put them into power.

The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong


Oh, I see, someone did it for him so he didn't have to, he just maintained it. I guess he wasn't such a bad guy.

/sarcasm
2013-01-21 09:54:54 AM  
1 vote:
Anyone out there think that killing five people is a small number in the grand scheme of history?


img.allvoices.comView Full Size
2013-01-21 09:42:39 AM  
1 vote:
Over 1200 posts and the gun grabbers still haven't brought out any real facts to back their positions, and any facts brought out by 2nd amendment supporters are never addressed aside from juvenile denigration. You paranoid gunophobes are probably driving far more people away from the idea of gun control than you realize. Thanks!
2013-01-21 09:12:35 AM  
1 vote:

TIKIMAN87: GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't a time to talk about guns and try to prevent these sorts of incidents.  Wouldn't want to infringe on the right of people to keep living now would we?

Right...

WTF makes a 15 year old want to kill?


I'm gonna take a wild guess that its probably the same thing that's been causing similar disasters around the nation.

dl.dropbox.comView Full Size


/and big pharma is also the last thing that's going to be investigated.
2013-01-21 08:45:57 AM  
1 vote:
No matter how many anti guns posts and condescending comments are made here, I am comforted to know that the US government will never take my guns, and I will have them until the day I die.
2013-01-21 08:31:57 AM  
1 vote:

vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.


By your argument a strick is an assault rifle, anything could be an assault rifle with the right parts added. That is a silly argument. You classify things based on what they could be instead of what they are? An elephant could be a mouse if your just change some DNA during development.
2013-01-21 07:59:09 AM  
1 vote:
So how many of these kids were on anti-depressants or other brain chemistry altering drugs? I'm guessing quite a few if not all.
2013-01-21 07:36:12 AM  
1 vote:

Haliburton Cummings: I think Iraq are trying to dig out from under another American disaster as well.

I don't think they have time to laugh...


To be fair, we had a LOT of help creating the current situation in Iraq. You know how the "country" was created, right?

Basically, much of the world is batting cleanup after the collapse of the British Empire.
2013-01-21 06:13:29 AM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: This. Contrary to popular belief and against the demands of certain of our citizens, we don't engage in indiscriminate mass-bombings and nukings and genocide. Yes, this does make it harder to deal with an enemy that is not a typical military foe, but it also leaves the land inhabitable, the life forms alive, and the rest of the planet not pissed at us.


Erm, the US has launched airstrikes on over 30 countries since the end of WWII, installed dictators in South America, helped to depose a democratically elected government in Iran leading to the rise of Khomeini, given Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds, abandoned the Kurds after promising support... The list goes on.

And that all happened before George W. Bush pissed away your "good" reputation amongst your allies.

I'm not saying that there were better options, but you're hardly the white knights of the international community that you think you are.
2013-01-21 04:58:50 AM  
1 vote:

rohar: MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:

...

I generally agree with that assesment, but funny thing. A bunch of theocratic women haters with less than a 3rd grade education hav been making fun of the world's best military for over a decade using not much more.


Only because of their own rules preventing them from going totally apeshiat.
2013-01-21 04:42:51 AM  
1 vote:
No DNC funded posting sweatshops here.

prairiefirenews.comView Full Size
2013-01-21 03:16:27 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: HBK: So your argument is: the government has infringed on so many rights thus far, why complain about them trying to regulate the right to bear arms?

Or are you for more government interference? You're not too clear on this.

In a meta way, maybe their issue is that (they think) we're singularly focused on firearms. If that's the problem, it's kind of ironic because when we point out much deadlier things than firearms, they don't want to hear it and are themselves singularly focusing on firearms.


I look at it more along these lines:

Yes, weapons make it a lot easier and more convenient to kill a lot of people quickly and efficiently. There's no doubt about that. If the weapons were banned completely, it would be much less convenient and efficient to kill a lot of people quickly.

I'm more interested in what makes (usually suicidal) people want to kill massive numbers of strangers on their way out. We have a culture that promotes that line of thought. It's not just that they're suicidal or mentally ill -- there are plenty of people like that who don't feel the urge to grab power and headlines with their last acts.

We also have a culture where most of what we experience is second-hand, via media. Again, we watch movies TV shows where the lifestyles are funny, everyone is loved unconditionally, and everyone has a better life than we do -- either that, or we watch hours and hours of powerful heroes shooting down people they judge as being bad.

All of it is interrupted by messages telling us our lives are shiat unless we purchase certain products or services. Nobody will have sex with you if you use the wrong razor or mouthwash. Only idiots like you use *that* brand of insurance. Kids' parents aren't cool enough and should be ignored.. Hours and hours, every single day, our whole lives.

Then we wonder why people are suicidal and want to kill people.
2013-01-21 02:33:44 AM  
1 vote:

Popcorn Johnny: I find it funny that so many farkers are always calling people out as cowards for being afraid of terrorism and other things and then coming into threads like these talking about the guns they own. The real cowards are those of you so scared of your own shadow that you have to own a gun to feel safe.


nono, see, the people calling other people out for worrying about terrorism were the so called liberals explaining how it was more likely for a person to die in a plane crash than a terrorist attack etc, and how we didn't need those Bush era policies that Obama has extended to 'combat' terrorism, and how the terrorists have won because we've sacrificed liberty.

And the reason I call them so called liberals is because they are the same people today calling for similarly draconian and ineffective measures and don't really give a rats ass about consistent civil liberties.

So in summary, if you're an actual liberal, you'd say "in context, don't fear terrorism" and "don't fear isolated nuts that lose their minds" and "don't fear people that have never done anything wrong in their lives because they own a gun, even if I think it is scary looking."

I don't mean to imply that Fark.com is where actual liberals reside.
2013-01-21 02:24:50 AM  
1 vote:
I find it funny that so many farkers are always calling people out as cowards for being afraid of terrorism and other things and then coming into threads like these talking about the guns they own. The real cowards are those of you so scared of your own shadow that you have to own a gun to feel safe.
2013-01-21 02:15:04 AM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [www.people-press.org image 600x960]


The only part of that poll that really would make any difference in incidents like this is the mental heath one. And the really fun fact is you dont even have to restrict the mentally ill that much (not that I have a problem restricting the mentally ills guns--in theory). You just need to take guns away from people who are currently on some type of pharmaceutical medication. Every single spree killer in recent history has been on Prozac or some crap-Lanza was on some crap so crazy that it barely got approved, side effects like "homicidal rage". Prolly wouldn't have gotten approved without some help from big pharma-- but then again, such side effects are actually common with these meds. I'd be willing to put down about 10 grand that this kid was on some prescribed medication and undergoing the side effects, too.
2013-01-21 02:14:34 AM  
1 vote:

justtray: I do want the second ammendment repealed. Why would I be ashamed of that?


Well if you're a special type of culty collectivist, Marxist type, then you shouldn't be ashamed, because that's the only context where the capacity for sovereign (individual) defense would be rightfully disallowed in favor of the collective. You can't however, be in favor of individualism with no enforcement.
2013-01-21 01:15:51 AM  
1 vote:

i.imgur.comView Full Size

2013-01-21 12:59:15 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: rohar: pedrop357: rohar: pedrop357: rohar: would just like to say OH HOLY fark! Oh, and it figures.

National Finals Rodeo?

You're not speaking of the National Firearms ACT of 1934 are you , the one abbreviated NFA?

Look at that over 5 minutes after I corrected myself. You're a white tornado today Mrs. Whiggens!

I missed it when moving down the list of new comments.

You read the Constitution as well as you read this thread?

fark yourself.


That should have been "fark you" or "go fark yourself". Either of which is common in the American vernacular. But it wasn't. As a child of a shrink, these little things are tells. You see, substituting yourself or myself for you or me is a sign of low self esteem. You remember that mousy 10th grade social studies teacher who said "when you're done, please bring your papers to myself" when clearly "me" was required? Yeah, yesterday when you were in class. She did that because she has no self esteem.

That aside, it's probably time to come clean. I'm a gun owner. An enthusiast and a proponent of the 2nd amendment. Beyond that, as a livestock owner, firearms are a tool that I need to pay the bills. Carnivores exist. The greatest threat to my rights isn't Senator Feinstein, it's you. Spewing half truths on the internet to score political gotchas just makes us all look bad.

You want to do something for the second amendment? Support legislation that will reduce gun violence. Education, access to physical and mental health care and reduction of income inequality.

Or be ostracized by the people you think you're a part of. Those of us that have a respect, use and admiration of firearms.
2013-01-21 12:56:06 AM  
1 vote:

USP .45: Lenny_da_Hog: USP .45: Lenny_da_Hog: Both the alcohol industry and the firearms industry have a heavy lobbying budget. Alcohol is especially influential at the state level.

I love this sudden concern for lobbying budgets when it concerns the firearms industry. Intellectual dishonesty extravaganza.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s/a>

Who said it's sudden, knee-jerk? I hate all lobbyists, marketers, and advertisers -- this just happens to be the topic at the moment.

I dub thee: Patellar Reflex.

I didn't mean you specifically, but it's being tossed around like it's a relevant figure when compared to most lobbying efforts.


Uh-huh. I was talking about something very specific. You quoted me, but it wasn't aimed at me, it was at something general that nobody in this thread was talking about, that you saw someplace once or heard somebody else say, so you figured you had to...

Oh, right. That's a knee-jerk reaction.

You knee-jerked. You're a knee-jerker. You jerk at the knee. Now you look dumb because you knee-jerked. Maybe you should stop jerking at the knee, then you wouldn't be such a knee-jerker, knee-jerker.
2013-01-21 12:37:19 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: The whole licensing, registration, certification of guns is at best, a solution in search of a problem, and at worst, a first step towards banning more and more people from owning guns.


Why would you want someone to own a gun if they can't demonstrate they can use it responsibly?
2013-01-21 12:31:45 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Darth Macho: Open container penalties, DUI checkpoints, random stops for suspicious behavior.

I cannot be denied the purchase of alcohol by the government in order to prevent from drinking it in the car.

I don't agree with DUI checkpoints and I sure as hell don't agree with random stops regardless of behavior. If their behavior is illegal-straying out of the lane, disobeying stop signs, intermittently speeding then impeding traffic, or any of the other things that are class drunk driver signs, pull them over.


I DON'T GIVE A GODDAMN if you agree with it or not, that's what we do to regulate drunk driving. Along with a decades-old PR campaign to stigmatize irresponsible drinkers and create a 'designated driver' social system to self-monitor the community. Because of a multi-tiered process we've cut down incidents of drunk driving and corrected a recreational behavior-based crime.

People still drink. People still drive. There's a model for curbing dangerous gun ownership without infringing a single right. It can be done.
2013-01-21 12:20:07 AM  
1 vote:

Darth Macho: pedrop357: Darth Macho: It's like drunk driving collisions: a totally unavoidable calamity that is part of living in a modern society that no regulations or harsher penalties can possibly affect.

Oddly enough we punish drunk driving and we punish misusing a gun.

We do not require background checks on alcohol or ban certain flavors of vodka to stop drunk driving.

We also punish bartenders and take away drunk drivers' licenses.


yeah, after the fact
2013-01-20 11:46:19 PM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: cegorach: Lenny_da_Hog: cegorach: But of course your nation has FREEDOM, which we don't, since the superhero Founding Fathers never gave us a piece of magical paper a few centuries ago that can never ever be changed or it will make Jebus mad :(

You're just mad because you still have to do what the Queen tells you to do. And of course you have no guns, you're a penile... er, penal colony and you're all a bunch of felons, genetically.

Well actually, no.

Our lives are much better and less fear-filled than those of Americans.

It's great.

But socialism.

You have far fewer people, mostly crammed into urban areas, and dingoes are your biggest bloodthirsty carnivore threat. We have vast rural populations, including frontiers.

Most of the gun debate is framed around urban vs. rural living here. I can live without a gun in Portland. It's a bad idea to do so in Alaska, where I'm from. Bears eat you. Police are an hour away, if the highways are clear enough to drive.

People in cities see guns as criminal tools. People in rural areas see them as survival gear.


Funnily enough, 90% of the discussion is not about BEARS breaking into your house.

It's about negroes/zombies/the guvmint/THE BRITISH.

Bear conversation = rational.

The rest = not so much.
2013-01-20 11:41:27 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: badhatharry: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Exactly. It never said that black people were 3/5 of a person or any such bullshiat.

it counted 60% of them for the purpose or apportionment. This was actually better than what the free states wanted, which was 0% or 0/5; while the slave states wanted 100% or 5/5. In the bizarre world where counting 60% of the people means that those people are only 3/5 of a person, this means the slave states were actually more humane than the free states in that they recognized the personhood of slaves.


Not really more humane. They just wanted more representatives in Congress.  It is funny how many people don't know what the 3/5th compromise actually did.
2013-01-20 11:41:16 PM  
1 vote:

illannoyin: In the aftermath of this tragedy the government must quickly take advantage of the emotional situation and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Even though the odds of the same thing happening to you are incredibly low and the new laws will do little or nothing to make us safer or prevent the tragedy from happening again.

Fark after 9/11...

[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Fark after shootings...

[i.imgur.com image 307x354]


Yes, it's a bastion of intellectual dishonesty. Funny, the last update from the Algerian al Qaeda bloodbath is from 2 days ago and only has 71 posts.

Oh, and once again Fark.com puts undue focus on shootings not happening in the inner cities. Doesn't fit the narrative.
2013-01-20 11:39:25 PM  
1 vote:

cegorach: Lenny_da_Hog: cegorach: But of course your nation has FREEDOM, which we don't, since the superhero Founding Fathers never gave us a piece of magical paper a few centuries ago that can never ever be changed or it will make Jebus mad :(

You're just mad because you still have to do what the Queen tells you to do. And of course you have no guns, you're a penile... er, penal colony and you're all a bunch of felons, genetically.

Well actually, no.

Our lives are much better and less fear-filled than those of Americans.

It's great.

But socialism.


You have far fewer people, mostly crammed into urban areas, and dingoes are your biggest bloodthirsty carnivore threat. We have vast rural populations, including frontiers.

Most of the gun debate is framed around urban vs. rural living here. I can live without a gun in Portland. It's a bad idea to do so in Alaska, where I'm from. Bears eat you. Police are an hour away, if the highways are clear enough to drive.

People in cities see guns as criminal tools. People in rural areas see them as survival gear.
2013-01-20 11:37:58 PM  
1 vote:
THIS CRAP ABOUT THE NAZIS TAKING AWAY GUNS...IT'S CRAP!! THEY WERE PRO GUNS. READ YER HISTORY..YOU ARE WRONG. IF NOT CITE YOUR REFERENCES

and

The Second Amendment you don't know:
The founders' original intent was as much about regulating firearm possession as enabling it


By Saul Cornell / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

In the coming months, as the nation begins a serious discussion about gun regulation, the meaning of the Second Amendment - the statement that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - will be much discussed.

It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA's worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

In 2008, a closely divided Supreme Court abandoned more than 70 years of precedent and for the first time in American history affirmed that the Second Amendment is about a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. Lost in most of the commentary then and now is that this is almost the exactly opposite of what James Madison, the primary architect of the amendment, intended, and is hard to reconcile with the way most ordinary Americans would have read it in 1791.

In 1776, most of the original state constitutions did not even include an arms-bearing provision. The few states that did usually also included a clause protecting the right not to bear arms. Why? Because, in contrast to other cherished rights such as freedom of speech or religion, the state could not compel you to speak or pray. It could force you to bear arms.

The founders had a simple reason for curbing this right: Quakers and other religious pacifists were opposed to bearing arms, and wished to be exempt from an obligation that could be made incumbent on all male citizens at the time.

When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those "militias" as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders' vision.

Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy - a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it. (The guns required by law were muskets, not pistols. The only exceptions to this general rule were the horsemen's pistols that dragoons and other mounted units needed.)

The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays' Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.

Many people think that we have the Second Amendment so that we can take up arms against the government if it overreaches its authority. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that the Second Amendment had repealed the Constitution's treason clause, which defines this crime as taking up arms against the government. In reality, in the first decade after the Constitution, the government put down several rebellions similar to Shays - and nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights.

So if the Second Amendment does not have much to do about owning a pistol for self-defense, does that mean the founders did not esteem this right? Obviously the answer to that question is no. Not every right valued by Americans was expressly protected by a constitutional provision. The right of self-defense was part of the common law, a long tradition of rights defined by the English courts over a period of centuries.

But rather than invoke the Second Amendment in the coming months, Americans need to learn something about the historical origins of this part of our constitutional tradition. The bottom line is simple: the Second Amendment requires more gun regulation, not less.

Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.
2013-01-20 11:32:27 PM  
1 vote:

gadian: There are some people who are absolutely literal and believe that the Second Amendment must never be changed from what the founding fathers envisioned. Okay, the founding fathers never envisioned anyone but white male heads of family and the white sons owning firearms, ever. The same people who could vote. It never even crossed their minds that the negro slaves should be able to own guns because of how ridiculous the idea would have been. Or women in their delicate hysteria or what have yous. Best tell all those uppity minorities and women to turn in their guns.


A lot of that of that was changed with the 14th amendment. in fact, one of the reasons for the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment was that former slave states were depriving black men the right to bear arms.
2013-01-20 11:30:10 PM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: cegorach: But of course your nation has FREEDOM, which we don't, since the superhero Founding Fathers never gave us a piece of magical paper a few centuries ago that can never ever be changed or it will make Jebus mad :(

You're just mad because you still have to do what the Queen tells you to do. And of course you have no guns, you're a penile... er, penal colony and you're all a bunch of felons, genetically.


Well actually, no.

Our lives are much better and less fear-filled than those of Americans.

It's great.

But socialism.
2013-01-20 11:29:12 PM  
1 vote:

Haliburton Cummings: Lenny_da_Hog: pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?

You can't be this ignorant of US history. There's an amendment and everything.

ignorance is his whole thing!!!


A better euphemism is pedrop357 has a 'GED in Patriotism'.
2013-01-20 11:28:59 PM  
1 vote:

gadian: There are some people who are absolutely literal and believe that the Second Amendment must never be changed from what the founding fathers envisioned. Okay, the founding fathers never envisioned anyone but white male heads of family and the white sons owning firearms, ever. The same people who could vote. It never even crossed their minds that the negro slaves should be able to own guns because of how ridiculous the idea would have been. Or women in their delicate hysteria or what have yous. Best tell all those uppity minorities and women to turn in their guns.

Oh, you mean interpretation has already naturally changed over time and it's okay to not view the amendment as the founders envisioned? Glad we agree. Now, let's discuss which firearms should not be owned by civilians and which civilians shouldn't own firearms.


And then there are those who believe that the legal process, with laws and the constitution being interpreted by the US Supreme Court, setting precedent for lower courts in ensuing cases, has led us to our current state of affairs, regardless of how the founders felt about anything during their time.
2013-01-20 11:25:34 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?


I, I've got no words. It's so stupid it's beautiful. It's like a double rainbow. WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?
2013-01-20 11:24:01 PM  
1 vote:
2013-01-20 11:23:19 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: gimmegimme: pedrop357: gimmegimme: Soo... the Second Amendment means you can have any gun you want at any time and there's no interpretation at all ever.

??

But the part about black people being 3/5 of a person...forget about that.

nothing in the constitution actually said that.

So the Second Amendment is a malleable dictate that can be shaped to the needs of the time?

No, I didn't say anything was malleable, nor do I agree that the COTUS can be shaped to the needs of the time, at least not the way I think you mean.

Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?


Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, you dolt!

2013-01-20 11:09:25 PM  
1 vote:

whatshisname: You might want to talk to the slaves and the native Americans about that...in fact didn't all that stuff happen around the time the magical 2nd Amendment was written?


You mean the people who were unarmed?
2013-01-20 10:58:47 PM  
1 vote:

Gyrfalcon: WHEN, exactly does the tyranny reach the level that its okay to shoot back?


This is an excellent question...at what percentage of african american male incarceration, probation and felony record does it begin to look like oppression? Oh I'm sure that at some point, the Jews said "you know what, there's a large number of us in detention and a larger number being denied jobs and housing due to our ethnicity...." without getting out grandpa's shotgun......

At what point do african americans as a minority decide that too many of their people are detained due to lopsided conviction rates, too many are continuing to be punished due to their records etc and decide to rise up against a tyrannical government?

/mostly tongue in cheek, apologies for making light in my example...
2013-01-20 10:49:22 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Mass murderers are a very rare and unfortunate price to pay for freedom


So why don't other western democracies have to pay the same price? Are they less free?
Is the US a better place to live?
2013-01-20 10:42:40 PM  
1 vote:
gimmegimme:

They're just waiting to put you in the FEMA camps and do experiments on you to turn you into a HUMANZEE...that's right. A human/chimpanzee hybrid. Think about it...why would so many leftist fascist communist public schools want to bring students to the zoo for a field trip. To prepare them for their humanzee future! Now, I'm not a big conspiracy guy. I'm just saying that the Illuminati approved Order 66. And they're coming for you. That's why you need to buy gold coins.



Holy shiatbiscuits that was awesome.

i.imgur.comView Full Size
2013-01-20 10:31:03 PM  
1 vote:

GUTSU: Uranus Is Huge!: GUTSU: gimmegimme:
That's why I'm fine with sane people having firearms for personal protection. If a person needs 30 rounds to take out an intruder, well, he probably shouldn't have a gun.

Are you scared of black helicopters?

Would you rather have 5 rounds or 30 to stop someone trying to kill you?

You sound frightened and paranoid.

Better lock & load.

Don't have the balls to answer a simple question?


Who the fark is trying to kill me? I literally spend zero time considering these fantasies. So far, not a scratch.
2013-01-20 10:28:22 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: CheapEngineer: You are talking about a resident enemy, with no uniforms, who the invading army is afraid of offending by just killing anything that moves.

Of course you can win that way, if the other side is afraid of hurting the civilians you hide behind, that you dress like.

\christ, you're thick

So in other words, pretty much what would happen here if the government were to become tyrannical.

Bombing cities is great if you want to destroy your enemy, but not so good if you want to rule and/or enslave everyone. Getting the rubble, debris, and bodies to staff the power plant or drive the grocery trucks is a pretty tall order.

The first time they bomb a city, any veneer about wanting to protect the people or caring about their interests gets stripped off and everyone knows that the people with bombs just want control. Good luck with jets and bombs then.


Your flawed assumption, for the Nth time, is that it wouldn't be the majority doing this to the unpopular minority - i.e. All those gun toting patriots you claim keep us safe from turning into the next Nazi Germany.  History has shown that it's usually the exact opposite - the majority votes them into power versus the minority who's voice is drown out by the tyranny of the majority.
2013-01-20 10:25:38 PM  
1 vote:

GUTSU: Would you rather have 5 rounds or 30 to stop someone trying to kill you?


Since my home firearm is a Browning Auto-5 with 4 shells of 00 Buckshot, I really don't see the need for 30 rounds, unless you want to leave something resembling a sponge for the cops to mop up.
2013-01-20 10:10:31 PM  
1 vote:

BronyMedic: To coin an example, I have the right of free travel interstate guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If I want to drive from Memphis, TN, to Jonesboro, AR and spend some time with friends of mine at ASU, and I cannot afford to fill my tank up to get me there, that does not mean my right to travel has been infringed, it means I suck at money management.


Poll Tax?
2013-01-20 10:07:31 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Vodka Zombie: Well, that's just being a douche. It seemed like a reasonable response to your sniveling about the price of guns. If you can't afford your killing machines, get a second job or reassess your weird fetish.

I wasn't sniveling about anything, but was saying that the inability to make (and by extension possess) IS a rights violation.

He wants to respond with "well stuff costs money" argument, he can fark off.


No, you were sniveling about the cost of something being an infringement of your personal liberties. And yes, the fact that YOU cannot personally afford something does not make that a violation of your rights. You still have the second amendment right to keep and bare arms at will, within the reasonable restrictions established by the Federal Government, and your state Government.

To coin an example, I have the right of free travel interstate guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. If I want to drive from Memphis, TN, to Jonesboro, AR and spend some time with friends of mine at ASU, and I cannot afford to fill my tank up to get me there, that does not mean my right to travel has been infringed, it means I suck at money management.
2013-01-20 10:04:53 PM  
1 vote:

DustBunny: Kit Fister: I mean, if I have a kid who throws a tantrum and ends up using sharp objects to damage stuff, he'll never stop if i just take away the sharp objects.

But if you at least take them away you reduce the amount of damage that can be done whilst you work on the tantrum...gotta say, in your example taking away the sharp thing is FIRST on my agenda, second is dealing with the tantrum...


Yes. And if we more accurately apply the analogy, if I know I have a violent toddler, say he has a record of offending with certain objects, I simply don't give him those objects. Sort of like, you know, people with criminal records not being able to buy guns, as it currently stands.

If I have a mild-mannered toddler who has never before acted out or misbehaved and he suddenly goes batshiat and stabs the everloving shiat out of the couch with a pair of scissors, after subduing said toddler and removing the scissors from his grasp, my next thought is not to never allow any other toddler to have access to scissors because they, too, might act out against the couch in a similar manner.

If we applied the same philosophy, in reverse here, to said children, we would, instead of treating the behavior of the kid, slowly be banning certain types of common objects as they are misused, citing the fact that one kid somewhere used a barney tape recorder to beat the dog, thus it is a dangerous object that no kid should have.

it really is ridiculous. You stop the offenders -- if they're known to have violent tendencies and commit fairly violent crimes, then chances are you probably don't want to put them out in the general population where only the honesty of the law-abiding really stands between them and being enabled to commit crimes again (that and their own recognizance), and likewise if they're first-timers, you deal with the accordingly, and remove them from society so they are no longer there to commit a crime.

Further, you work to address the issues that tend to lead towards people committing violent acts: drugs, economic disputes, marital discord, disagreements, and homicidal mania, and treat the populace.

Australia and Great Britain did what they thought was right for their country. Depending on your source of data, that may or may not have made as much of a dent as other options. However, I don't live in Australia or Great Britain, and I don't care to. I'm not a fan of either their culture or their views on politics, guns, and society. I see no reason to bring their ideals into my home when I don't want them here.
2013-01-20 09:50:01 PM  
1 vote:

gimmegimme: Kit Fister: AH, but since the police have no mandate or duty to protect me as an individual from criminals, that job is left to me. I DO need a gun to defend myself should i become the target of such a person. I mean, I could use a knife or a baseball bat, but why break a sweat and get all bloody from hand to hand combat when I can just shoot the sonovabiatch?

GUTSU: Police are citizens just like everyone else, people with no obligation to help me when someone has a gun pointed in my face. I fail to see why police officers are "special" in your eyes, why they are more worthy of defending themselves than someone who isn't a LEO.

Great minds think alike.


Are we arguing that police DO in fact have a duty to protect the individual? Because this says you're wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

So, if the cops are not going to protect me as an individual, who is? you?
2013-01-20 09:46:30 PM  
1 vote:

bunner: I am a responsible, thoughtful and moral person. I just said so. On the internet. That's all you need know. therefore, I should be allowed to own and utilize a broad array of weaponry specifically designed to erase as many people from this planet at once as ammunition stocks allow. Now stop walking across my lawn or suffer the consequences of impinging upon upright, free men and their premises.


fun fact: trespassing is illegal, and if a homeowner has reason to believe that he is reasonably in danger of great bodily harm or death, he may use all necessary force to defend himself and his home. Basic common sense.

If you're going to own a gun, unless you buy one privately, you already go through background checks, etc. to buy one. I'm all for making that process as strong as possible (with the only limit being that it must not impinge upon or otherwise deter individuals from exercising their right, much like I agree with reasonably verifying identity of voters up to the point that it places an undue burden on said voters), but provided you are an honest citizen with no criminal record or major mental issues, I don't honestly give a shiat what you own or do. It's really none of my business, and as long as it doesn't affect me directly, you keep on with your bad self.

CSB: I lived for a time next door to a guy who sold weed and other drugs out of his apartment. Guy was a nice guy, and was otherwise a good tenant and not a bad dude. I don't personally agree with drugs, but that was what he did. He never made it an issue, he never was overt about it, and he did his thing in a way it had absolutely zero impact on my life.

I carry a gun most days, because it's habit, and because, having been in a fair number of rough and sketch situations, I simply prefer to have one just in case. It remains concealed, and it remains untouched, and no one knows i have it, unless I produce it or tell them I have it. You think anyone around me is affected by something they don't know I have and don't need to know I have?
2013-01-20 09:46:23 PM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: I am for banning all models of weapons except for the ones I own, or the ones I decide to buy in the future.


And there you have it. A TRUE American.

cache.jezebel.comView Full Size
2013-01-20 09:44:58 PM  
1 vote:
[flings the plate of chitlins and the gravy boat after the potatoes, dances in the Harvard beets]
2013-01-20 09:43:25 PM  
1 vote:

Tellingthem: PanicMan: Lenny_da_Hog: PanicMan: Hey guys! What's going on in this thread?

Let me guess: tons of people arguing past each other, and no one gaining any knowledge or insight. Some people getting into semantic arguments. A few people trying to have an honest debate, and getting nowhere.

You forgot the smart-asses.

Ah right. That's the category I fit in. Because nothing changes. A sitting VP shot a guy in the face, nothing changed. A sitting Congresswoman was shot in the head, nothing changed. A bunch of schoolchildren were killed, nothing changed. Not to mention the thousands of people who are killed by guns every year that we don't hear about because no one cares.

BS violent crime is down, murders are down, we are safer as a society now than in the 1990's. Now the reasons may be from lead free gasoline, more abortion, to any other various factors. But things do change, people do change. Just because you may hear more about violence it does not mean it is increasing or we are not changing...


You're absolutely right. This line of reasoning worked on my wife. In the 1990s, I was cheating on her five times a week. In the past decade, that rate has gone down to twice a week.

Issue over.
2013-01-20 09:40:04 PM  
1 vote:

bunner: I am a responsible, thoughtful and moral person. I just said so. On the internet. That's all you need know. therefore, I should be allowed to own and utilize a broad array of weaponry specifically designed to erase as many people from this planet at once as ammunition stocks allow.


I'm sorry, you seem to be confused; in America, you don't need to be any of these three things in order to own guns.
2013-01-20 09:38:22 PM  
1 vote:

Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: bunner: pedrop357: You do understand that an AR-15 is not unique among semi-auto rifles in its firing rate, right?

You do realize that defending with your last breath the ownership of something that is "no big deal" looks a bit silly, no?

You do realize that arguing for arbitrary restrictions on firearms that "look scary" and are used in very few crimes comparatively, looks a bit silly, no?

But, hey, I'll give up my second amendment rights when you give up your first, fourth, fifth, and so on amendment rights.

That goes for you to. Stop it. Bad. *swats with newspaper*


Not really. The crux of the matter before us is which rights we are willing to allow to be limited and by how much. Personally, I believe this country was founded on the principles that NO rights are worth limiting beyond the specific scopes set down in the constitution, and believe in absolute rights as long as they harm no one else directly. If I want to own and shoot a canon, I should be allowed to do so so long as I don't hurt anyone else with it.

So, it is a great offense to me to suggest that rights be limited "For the common good" since it's easier to restrict the rights of the people than to face down the people behaving badly and stop them. Easier to take away the screaming child's xbox and hope he shuts up than to spank the little bastard and teach him throwing a hissy fit isn't the way to get what he wants.
2013-01-20 09:33:26 PM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: PanicMan: Hey guys! What's going on in this thread?

Let me guess: tons of people arguing past each other, and no one gaining any knowledge or insight. Some people getting into semantic arguments. A few people trying to have an honest debate, and getting nowhere.

You forgot the smart-asses.


Ah right. That's the category I fit in. Because nothing changes. A sitting VP shot a guy in the face, nothing changed. A sitting Congresswoman was shot in the head, nothing changed. A bunch of schoolchildren were killed, nothing changed. Not to mention the thousands of people who are killed by guns every year that we don't hear about because no one cares.
2013-01-20 09:25:23 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: THIS.

There are nearly 100,000 rapes per year (Forceable), but you don't see marches and campaigns about Rape.

There are 3.3 MILLION cases of child abuse per year. No major media campaigns or pushes to change that.

12,000 children (more than ALL of the gun deaths combined) die every year from Child Abuse.


But yes, let's focus on GUNS, because only GUNS cause death and crime.


So a spectrum of bad stuff happens all the time, which means we shouldn't try to change ANY of the bad stuff.
2013-01-20 09:19:35 PM  
1 vote:
1-media-cdn.foolz.usView Full Size


I think this about sums up the anti-gun standpoint.

also,

super_grass: I like how the new trend in media lately is to report every single gun crime in national media when they were once just local stories.

Shootings happen all the time in this country and they generally don't make it out of the local media market, the only thing being unusual here is that underage kids were involved. It sucks, but gun crime is going down, along with drunk driving deaths, violent crime, and the dreaded *gasp* child abductor.

One day, we're going to look back towards these days and think about how silly and reactionary we were just because suddenly we chose to focus on events instead of statistics.


THIS.

There are nearly 100,000 rapes per year (Forceable), but you don't see marches and campaigns about Rape.

There are 3.3 MILLION cases of child abuse per year. No major media campaigns or pushes to change that.

12,000 children (more than ALL of the gun deaths combined) die every year from Child Abuse.


But yes, let's focus on GUNS, because only GUNS cause death and crime.
2013-01-20 09:13:51 PM  
1 vote:
Anybody who signed the Constitution, raise your hand. Exactly, which is why we can change it.

I figure we are three or four more massacres from real change.
2013-01-20 08:47:19 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:

www.bugimus.com

This:

newspaper.li

This:

www.infognito.net

This:

This:

thinkprogress.org

This:

media.popularmechanics.com

This:

topnews.in

This:

www.kisapps.net

This:

static.ddmcdn.com

This:

www.dailystar.com.lb

This:

pcdn.500px.net

This:

www.hanscomfamily.com

And This:

i117.photobucket.com


With this:

www.enemyforces.net

I generally agree with that assesment, but funny thing. A bunch of theocratic women haters with less than a 3rd grade education hav been making fun of the world's best military for over a decade using not much more.


Problem is that our modern military is prevented from going "balls to the wall" by public opinion. We don't use nukes, etc, because the public in THIS country would revolt over the collateral damage.

Now, why, exactly, would a tyrannical government care if its people were revolting against it if they're already being tyrannical? IE: If the population is already revolting, we can safely assume that a tyrannical government would be using "no holds barred" tactics that wouldn't cripple us when we try to avoid collateral damage.
2013-01-20 08:46:53 PM  
1 vote:
Repeal the 2nd amendment
Give people 30 days to turn in all guns
$10,000 fine for anybody found in possession of a firearm.

Enjoy your safer country.
2013-01-20 08:39:07 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: From the Dick act which was challenged and the Supreme Court upheld (you know, that merry band of old farts empowered by the Constitution to interpret what the Constitution means). Now, we could repeal it, but given where you live I'm not sure you'd like the consequences.


Not seeing the part where they tell me what I can't own. Nor do I see anything in the Constitution that allow the government that kind of power.
2013-01-20 08:34:12 PM  
1 vote:

rrife: Yep, but it sounds like a family that should not have been allowed to have guns since they clearly failed to secure them. I'm all for gun ownership, of any kind, but the owner needs to be responsible and should demonstrate that responsibility before acquiring the firearm.


and I can agree to that. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-guntard.
2013-01-20 08:33:11 PM  
1 vote:

kriegfusion: I highly doubt the first posit, but i'll leave judgement until I could further investigate this. I actually wish we hadn't broke from GB and had found a way to solve our problems otherwise. I'm not a supporter of the balkanization of Earth, personally i see all the flags of all our nations and I seems...pathetic. But anyhow.

I think the second , while freedom of speech may not be more important, is at least as important as the 2nd one.

On the third, you are correct about an armed nation being used to deter aggressors, however I dont see a non-starter issue on that line The only difference between an outside invader and a home grown one is the flag they march under.

At least on the last point you mentioned, we finally have a solid disagreement. The Iraqi insurgency has shown much much more than you said. Guns in fact, do work against bradley fighting vehicles, and against even tanks in general. you know all those fancy laser range finders? you know vision ports? you know how you can track them and make the dead in the water? guess what you can do with those simple guns? Raid a convoy or armory and get explosives. do you know what explosives do to a tank? do you know how much easier it is to kill an armored vehicle once its tracked, especially in an urban environment?


#1: See Declaration of Independence (start with "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." then countinue for 5 or 6 clauses.)

#3: Your point - Second Amendment is meant to terrify our government.
My point - Second Amendment is meant to defend our government and violent lunatics have perverted it into an eternal threat of civil war. We can't have a more perfect union because some people believe it's acceptable to discuss destroying our country whenever there's a serious political crisis.

#4: I can't find the statistics but I can say with confidence the number of U.S. deaths due to gunshot wounds is far lower than deaths due to explosives. Soldiers wear body armor.
2013-01-20 08:30:10 PM  
1 vote:

kendelrio: So my car gets stolen and someone is run over and killed with it, I get charged with vehicular homicide?


They don't understand examples, parallels, analogies, etc. unless they can use them to to support more gun control. All right are equal, but some rights are more equal than others.
2013-01-20 08:30:10 PM  
1 vote:

DustBunny: MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this

It wasn't that long ago that pics like these were accompanied by "not particularly useful against an insurgency"

Although as stated upthread, Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies were fought mainly with IEDs, mortars and RPGs not rifles...so insurgent types in the US better hope that enormous ammo dumps full of artillery shells are left completely unattended on day one of the conflict so you can truck away all your IED supplies.

/It does appear though that Afghanistan is getting a little more conventional with assaults on outposts with machine guns and such...still with mortars and RPGs though...anyone have more recent info?


There's another thing to consider: a government is more likely to throw up its hands and leave a foreign country than it is to abandon its own land. Cletus setting up an IED is not likely to make the American government give up West Virginia.
2013-01-20 08:29:11 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: It wasn't gun control that enabled that dumbass. It was the sheer size and strength of the Nazi Army that did that.

You are not helping your case being so ignorant like that.

If they had been better armed, the loss may not have been so bad. Gun control worked well to give the nazis the advantage.


Just like when I was playing one-on-one with Michael Jordan, and I had Converse while he wore Nikes.
2013-01-20 08:28:12 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: Except that the federal government in article I section VIII is empowered with making regular, amongst the various states, commerce. The 10th makes it very clear those powers NOT provided the federal government are the powers of the states and the rights of the people. By method of deduction, all is well and you're off your rocker


So where do they get the power to ban me from making a machine gun in my garage, or from buying from an in-state manufacturer?
2013-01-20 08:26:51 PM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: pedrop357: kimwim: So, according to the NRA, does this mean it's too soon to start talking about reasonable restrictions to gun ownership? Has the clock been reset again?

What restrictions do you propose that might have made a difference, and how reasonable do you think they are.

Death penalty for letting your kids get a hold of your rifles.

/oh, wait....


You know, I am down with severely punishing the irresponsible owners should their guns be stolen and used in a crime.  If they can't keep them safe, they shouldn't have them.  If a kid takes daddy's penis enhancement and shoots up a school, it should be the death penalty for the kid and life in prison for the father.

Maybe that sort of thing could encourage gun owners to not be idiots about their useless toys.
2013-01-20 08:26:43 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Wayne 985: I don't buy that premise. If a spree killer fires a smaller fraction of rounds into a classroom, he's likely to (A) hit fewer people and (B) leave wounded victims alive. While he's reloading, people can run away or attack the bastard, as happened in Oregon.

Link

When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6]

I see that and raise you Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. In the first one, the scumbag switch guns and kept killing until he apparently tired of it and waited by his car for the police. In the second, the killer swapped magazines 15 times. In the last one, the killer swapped magazines at least 4 times-he also fired multiple times at the victims. With a magazine limit, he may have chosen a more effective killing round like the 10mm he was carrying, or just a pair of .357s if his mom had those.

So now we have two shootings where magazines mattered. Vs probably 60 in the last 15 years where it didn't.


How many people ran and hid from the shooters in these scenarios? Precise shooting requires time, and that time gives potential victims a big window. I have no problem with your politics, but I think you're being silly here. This is common sense.

A shooter can swap magazines as much as he likes. That's more and more time he's incapable of firing a round.
2013-01-20 08:26:36 PM  
1 vote:

Vodka Zombie: Well, that's just being a douche. It seemed like a reasonable response to your sniveling about the price of guns. If you can't afford your killing machines, get a second job or reassess your weird fetish.


I wasn't sniveling about anything, but was saying that the inability to make (and by extension possess) IS a rights violation.

He wants to respond with "well stuff costs money" argument, he can fark off.
2013-01-20 08:26:07 PM  
1 vote:

Molavian: Let's talk about the dozens of children beaten to death in the same timeframe.

No?


Or the violence against women act?

Yes, let us keep the subject on the pro-rape party.
2013-01-20 08:24:43 PM  
1 vote:

MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:


That is why Iraq and Afghanistan were so easy we got him in just six months with the mission accomplished!
/sarcasm
2013-01-20 08:23:26 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: BronyMedic: pedrop357: I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.

Boo farking hoo. Stuff costs money.

Deal with it.

[i4.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/Yeah motherfarker.

fark off.


Well, that's just being a douche.  It seemed like a reasonable response to your sniveling about the price of guns.  If you can't afford your killing machines, get a second job or reassess your weird fetish.
2013-01-20 08:21:44 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: The fact that they lost so badly shows just how effective gun control was in enabling them to be steamrolled over.


It wasn't gun control that enabled that dumbass. It was the sheer size and strength of the Nazi Army that did that.

You are not helping your case being so ignorant like that.
2013-01-20 08:18:28 PM  
1 vote:

Darth Macho: kriegfusion: So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday.

Firstly, more laws does not always result in less liberty. Hell, the Founding Fathers broke with Great Britain because they needed *more* laws to handle an expanding population, and the colonial model required months to get laws approved back in England. Don't be afraid of your own democracy.

Second, every two years our government is mutated by an election. The First Amendment and popular passion is a far better safeguard against tyranny than the Second Amendment.

Third, the Second Amendment was meant to protect the government from foreign invasion by having a pool of armed citizenry at hand. Utilizing gun ownership as a veiled threat against the elected government itself is a non-starter and will only guarantee the freedom to know precisely how you will die.

Last, to satisfy your hypothetical, if the government was an absolute tyranny and there were no elections or protest options and I needed to resist the government, the Iraq insurgency has shown a clear example that personal firearms are only useful for bullying and terrorizing civilian collaborators. Guns don't work against Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I imagine learning to make explosives would be more useful for fighting American Hitler... that and learning countersurveillance tradecraft.


I highly doubt the first posit, but i'll leave judgement until I could further investigate this. I actually wish we hadn't broke from GB and had found a way to solve our problems otherwise. I'm not a supporter of the balkanization of Earth, personally i see all the flags of all our nations and I seems...pathetic. But anyhow.

I think the second , while freedom of speech may not be more important, is at least as important as the 2nd one.

On the third, you are correct about an armed nation being used to deter aggressors, however I dont see a non-starter issue on that line The only difference between an outside invader and a home grown one is the flag they march under.

At least on the last point you mentioned, we finally have a solid disagreement. The Iraqi insurgency has shown much much more than you said. Guns in fact, do work against bradley fighting vehicles, and against even tanks in general. you know all those fancy laser range finders? you know vision ports? you know how you can track them and make the dead in the water? guess what you can do with those simple guns? Raid a convoy or armory and get explosives. do you know what explosives do to a tank? do you know how much easier it is to kill an armored vehicle once its tracked, especially in an urban environment?

Also, where do you think that tank fuels up from? A tanker truck. Do you know how vulnerable those are? How invincible a tank is to gunfire, but how squishy the crew is? You can snipe the commander, wait till the crew comes out, mobility kill the tank and then when they hop out to fix it, the crew are slaughtered.... I can speak with a little authority on this, as I used to drive the darn things. big scary vehicles are not so big and scary when you look at the logistical chain necessary to keep them running. Thats how guerrilla warfare works.

I do thing explosives and surveillance tradecraft would be beneficial. but I do hope none of this comes to pass. i hate violence, and I hate the idea of revolution even more. Its the 21st century for petes sake, aren't we done going to war already? Wheres my farking star trek utopia? Oh right, we still use the money for labor economic paradigm. Well, hope we enjoy war, cuz its here to stay :(
2013-01-20 08:18:07 PM  
1 vote:

Wayne 985: I don't buy that premise. If a spree killer fires a smaller fraction of rounds into a classroom, he's likely to (A) hit fewer people and (B) leave wounded victims alive. While he's reloading, people can run away or attack the bastard, as happened in Oregon.

Link

When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6]


I see that and raise you Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. In the first one, the scumbag switch guns and kept killing until he apparently tired of it and waited by his car for the police. In the second, the killer swapped magazines 15 times. In the last one, the killer swapped magazines at least 4 times-he also fired multiple times at the victims. With a magazine limit, he may have chosen a more effective killing round like the 10mm he was carrying, or just a pair of .357s if his mom had those.

So now we have two shootings where magazines mattered. Vs probably 60 in the last 15 years where it didn't.
2013-01-20 08:17:46 PM  
1 vote:
So, according to the NRA, does this mean it's too soon to start talking about reasonable restrictions to gun ownership? Has the clock been reset again?
2013-01-20 08:14:27 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: So what, you think you're entitled to a spanky new minigun? Just because you have the right to a thing doesn't mean the rest of us should supply it for you or make it easy to procure.


rights != entitlement

Not entitled, and no one has to supply it. My right does require that the government stay out of the way while I buy one, and also requires that they not limit me to 20 year old used ones.
2013-01-20 08:11:52 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Wayne 985: pedrop357: Restrict [a school shooter] to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.

GOOD.
So, he shoots and kills the same number with fewer rounds and this is good how? If he had chosen two shotguns, he could have done what he did with 27 or fewer rounds.


I don't buy that premise. If a spree killer fires a smaller fraction of rounds into a classroom, he's likely to (A) hit fewer people and (B) leave wounded victims alive. While he's reloading, people can run away or attack the bastard, as happened in Oregon.

Link

When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6]
2013-01-20 08:11:15 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Not trivializing, not condemning them. Saying that they should have been better armed can be taken multiple ways-I would have wanted them to be subject to at least the same laws as everyone else, and then would have wanted EVERYONE to have the same firepower as those that were coming for them.

The fact that they lost so badly shows just how effective gun control was in enabling them to be steamrolled over.


No, the fact they LOST so badly is a tribute to how a nation trying to defend itself with static fortifications, trench warfare, and weapons technology that was obsolete 10 years before the invasion of the SS and Wehrmacht. The fact of the matter is that the Germans used technology and tactics that had never before been seen on the battlefield before - namely the concept of fast moving motorized divisions, armored warfare which bypassed static fortifications, and the use of combined arms air support and paratroopers to drop behind enemy lines. It also helped that they didn't give one red shiat about civilian deaths during this time, and all it took was the mere assumption someone had a weapon and the entire platoon would open up on them.

Your suggestion would only make sense if the Poles were giving out MG42s and Panzerfausts in the years before to every man, woman, and child.
2013-01-20 08:09:38 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: That said, I can get you a 90% new 7.62 minigun tomorrow. 4k-5k rounds per minute. New barrels, new mechanisms, the works. Just as I could during the brady bill. You're gonna have to put up some cash, fill out a bunch of paperwork and wat on the fed for a bit, but it can happen. How is this infringing on your rights?


I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.

We can't claim that a person's rights aren't being violated because they can have all the used books they want, just no new ones.
2013-01-20 08:04:01 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: How's that?


Attempting to trivialize one of the most valiant acts of World War II, despite having no possibility of having a  tangible tactical or strategic outcome in either uprising as "They should have fought harder"

In reality, they fought to the point the Nazis were going house to hosue with flamethrowers, roasting every man, woman, and child they could find, and bringing in water trucks to drown people in home-made bunkers. You cannot fight that kind of barbarism with any measure of resistance. The fact of the matter is that unlike most occupying forces, the Nazi SS actually believed that they were humanly superior in every way to the filth they guarded, and had no problem with disregarding any shread of humanity to demonstrate it.
2013-01-20 08:00:29 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: rohar: I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?

Yes, the right to buy new ones.


Really? Your argument for your position on gun control is the same as my wife's argument about purses? It's Friday and everyone's seen my last on I need a new one?
2013-01-20 07:59:09 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: They needed to be better armed.


Not only are you historically ignorant, you're going the most offensive route you can to demonstrate it.

BravadoGT: Good luck finding grenades you can launch from it!  (I can't)


You used to be able to find the training grenades all the time at surplus stores.