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.

(Chicago Trib)   Chicago, with the nation's strictest gun laws, would like to point out that 1 of the 7 homicides last night was a stabbing. No gun was used in that killing   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 451
    More: Sad, Chicago, stabbing, homicides, gun laws, stab wound, Chicago Police Department, Englewood  
•       •       •

4559 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 03:37:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


A) The fact that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting has already been established.

B) "Assault Rifles" aren't that powerful to begin with.

C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".
 
2013-01-27 03:37:44 PM  
People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.
 
2013-01-27 03:38:57 PM  

Greylight: KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.

Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.

The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.


You're confusing gun culture with gang culture.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:22 PM  

give me doughnuts: Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides

Interesting. Louisville, Ky has a city-county population of about 740,000, and in 2012 there were less than 60 murders.


As an ex-Detroit-area person, it's actually pretty simple. There's a heavy correlation between poor urban folks of "urban" culture (The culture is the important word. Being black/"urban" tells me nothing, being thug tells me everything), and crime. So in a lot of places, you have the "good parts" of town which have 0 crime, and the bad parts of town which are, per capita, more or less Detroit.

In Detroit, with the notable exception of small bits of downtown, everything is a bad bit, and the rich white people who normally balance out the statistics are all out in the rich white suburbs.

4.bp.blogspot.com
Was in downtown Farmington, just past the west edge of the blue bubble on the northeast side. East Farmington (Hills) was rapidly going downhill because urban folks trying to leave Detroit were moving into the foreclosed homes and cheap apartments during the recession, and the people who had lived there were running away from the increased crime, collapsing property values, and increasingly worse schools (because the new kids were mainly uneducated bullies) as a result.

/Also, on a complete tangent, if you ever get a chance to see a black high school marching band, go. Some of the visiting football teams brought their non-MCBA marching bands, and it was impressive. Oak Park's 25-person marching band was louder in the visiting stands than our 65-person marching band was in the seats right next to me. Very much Drumline-esque.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:54 PM  

Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".


Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.
 
2013-01-27 03:42:35 PM  
OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:19 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.


St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:24 PM  

Greylight: special licensing requirements


Yes, I have a problem with licensing and a general database of gun owners.

I really do not problem with an initial background check to weed out felons or mentally ill persons.

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Thank you. I was having a face palm moment reading his post.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:42 PM  

MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:54 PM  

Tyee: Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".

Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.


Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:03 PM  

MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.


Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:30 PM  

3StratMan: And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


I'm ok with armed guards in school. I had a DARE officer and he always carried his gun in school so I'm used to it.

Sorry for setting your strawman on fire.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:32 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


No, semiautomatic pistols are almost entirely recoil operated, not gas operated.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:59 PM  

Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?


You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?
 
2013-01-27 03:46:26 PM  

earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.


I have a love/hate relationship with this city.
 
2013-01-27 03:46:34 PM  

3StratMan: OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


i53.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-27 03:47:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack

I LOVE SACK.


That's great but this isn't the topic at hand.
 
2013-01-27 03:47:26 PM  

jaytkay: Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?


Just don't bring props since a cardboard penis will look like a gun and you could be shot on site for that.
 
2013-01-27 03:49:42 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.


I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.
 
2013-01-27 03:50:54 PM  
If a small geographic area with strict gun laws is completely surrounded by a large geographic area with virtually non-existent gun laws, and travel between the two regions is unrestricted and unmonitored, the reason the strict gun laws have no impact on gun violence is that gun laws can't help reduce gun violence.

This is what gun nuts actually believe, but don't you dare suggest they have less capacity for rational thought as an over-microwaved burrito.
 
2013-01-27 03:51:35 PM  

MagicMissile: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack

NOT A FETISH.

That's great but this isn't the topic at hand.


That's great but I'm not the one who brought it up.
 
2013-01-27 03:51:39 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Pretty much. I don't take a AR-15 out in the bush because it isn't powerful enough.

/300WinMag
 
2013-01-27 03:52:02 PM  

jaytkay: Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?

Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.


Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:05 PM  

jaytkay: Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.


You are correct in that regard and yes I should of been more specific. My apologies.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.


I don't think you get to override the reasons people give for something like that.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:28 PM  

MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.


Good thing no one is proposing that. But, even if they were, it's not going to be private citizens doing the taking...it'd be law-enforcement officials...as which point I think your "castle law" bullshiat falls into attempted murder of a law enforcement officer territory. But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:34 PM  

MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.


You do realize how teeth-gnashing, ball-shriveled crazy you sound, right?
 
2013-01-27 03:53:40 PM  

SubBass49: But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.


I should add, that's IF you survive...
 
2013-01-27 03:53:50 PM  

jaytkay: Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?


Here's the big difference in your false-equivalency hypothetical situation:

If you were at an elementary school with a megaphone blaring obcenities at children you would be:

A) Trespassing

B) Disturbing the peace.

If someone were to show up in a public place and began cranking out rounds in the air, please feel free to lock'em up. Not only would they be disturbing the peace but they would also be endangering others.

Here's this difference... Simply owning a firearm does not mean that I am effecting others. I am not:

Conducting murder, manslaughter, or assault.

Committing armed robbery.

Damaging property, etc.

Do you really need these things explained to you?
 
2013-01-27 03:54:19 PM  

jaytkay: Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.


The Larch: No, semiautomatic pistols are almost entirely recoil operated, not gas operated.


LOL
 
2013-01-27 03:54:27 PM  
If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.
 
2013-01-27 03:55:41 PM  

3StratMan: OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


/hug

I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying to have a discussion about how to balance society safety with gun ownership. You can be a valuable part of the discussion, you would be amazed how well people will respond when you don't resort with partisan derp.

Some folks do want to take away all guns, it's true, get over it. It's not the will of all gun control advocates.
 
2013-01-27 03:56:20 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.

I don't think you get to override the reasons people give for something like that.


It's just a personal opinion. Relax. I'm not saying they can't have them.

I thought the pro-gun folks would be ok with that stance.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:01 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


Or just stay here and exercise your First Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:28 PM  

OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.


Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:34 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:43 PM  

The Larch: Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.


No, I was comparing the fact that an AR-15 and any semi-auto handgun works in the exact same basic fashion. One trigger pull = 1 bullet fired.

The argument was initially that the term "assault weapon": is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-27 03:59:48 PM  

kriegsgeist: OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.

Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.


Just post this:

www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2013-01-27 04:00:23 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.

Good thing no one is proposing that. But, even if they were, it's not going to be private citizens doing the taking...it'd be law-enforcement officials...as which point I think your "castle law" bullshiat falls into attempted murder of a law enforcement officer territory. But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.


If law enforcement started raiding homes for firearms, that is grounds for another revolutionary war, as that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.

The whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place is to prevent that from happening in the first place.

I served in the military and I meant it when I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution with my life.

I can also tell you that the majority of military and law enforcement wouldn't obey orders to disarm Americans in the fashion you describe.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.
 
2013-01-27 04:00:55 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


You went to one of those Civics classes that skips over the citizens when teaching about the checks on those power balances. Your classes teach that police are the authorities and they have to listen to the lawmakers. It also teaches that the lawmakers come from and have to listen to the people. Right?

Most Civics classes go on to teach that the check on that power of protection is the 2nd amendment. The writers saw the threat of dependency for protection was going to be used to manipulate the states and people. The power-check they wrote in as the 2nd amendment was that the people could always keep and bear arms, so they'd not be completely dependent on the state and federal government for protection. If you find a better way than the 2nd amendment to provide that auto-determination to individuals and states (which are now pretty much purse-string tied to the fed so it matters) you might make a bit of progress on the gun regulation debate (on the amendment point, not the point of this thread saying regulation will solve lethal violence).

And yes, I do believe the wording change before the 2nd amendement is also taught in most civics classes. The question is an open one still. Where do you draw the line for individuals? Of course seems a militia is a better check on the power of the police force. Well, I don't know of any militia that would count, except a few private security contractors.

Maybe you could match the individual healthcare mandate with an individual security services mandate. That would be the true liberal style solution to all this. And eventually leads to every person being purse-string tied to the state for protection and care. I do worry your agenda will win, and people will owe instead of pledge allegiance.
 
2013-01-27 04:01:06 PM  
You "police state" gun nuts have won me over!

I totally agree with you.

After 40+ years of living peacefully US (just a few years in Vietnam...talk about lack of personal freedom), with nothing more to show for it than a few unpleasant traffic stops, I've decided to start buying guns. Lots of powerful guns.

And the next time a cop looks at me funny I'm going to shoot him in the head.

Then I'll feel like I've really got some freedom from the growing police oppression that is clearly taking place under this socialist/fascist political system we have.
 
2013-01-27 04:01:46 PM  
"Need"? OK... Let's look into that
Over the past 10 years I have "needed" a firearm about .005 percent of the time...
During that .005 percent I needed one NOW
kinda works out I had one...
never needed to fire it at a person
but displaying it tends to really help in negotiations with people who one would prefer to leave the immediate area
 
2013-01-27 04:05:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.


Well, I served in the military and actually did something with my life because I cared about the "other 9 amendments" you generalizing ass.

I even care about your 1st amendment, and the 1st amendments of the other million drooling retards on this thread and in the country beyond who are going batshiat crazy over the liberal media and governments flavor of the month dilemma.
 
2013-01-27 04:07:50 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.

Well, I served in the military and actually did something with my life because I cared about the "other 9 amendments" you generalizing ass.

I even care about your 1st amendment, and the 1st amendments of the other million drooling retards on this thread and in the country beyond who are going batshiat crazy over the liberal media and governments flavor of the month dilemma.


So you should be able to agree that people have different interpretations and opinons of the 2nd Amendment and that saying that anyone who disagrees with your view of the 2nd Amendment should leave this country was a stupid thing to say then, correct?
 
2013-01-27 04:08:25 PM  

MagicMissile: liberal media


DRINK!
 
2013-01-27 04:09:30 PM  

Greylight:
/hug

I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying t ...


So you are admitting it then- gun control is your thing. Not protecting children, which was the original point that started the whole argument a month ago. "Balance society safety/safely with gun ownership", as you put it. So basically more gun control is something you have wanted all along, with Sandy Hook conveniently being the mechanism to get the ball rolling. Gotcha. That's even better.
 
2013-01-27 04:10:22 PM  
why not Clearwater!! they're just as big as Chicago
 
2013-01-27 04:12:14 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment differs from mine.

The need for a "well-regulated militia" is totally acceptable to me.

Show me how private gun owners make up a well-regulated militia and I'll be happy.

I think gun clubs are great. I've been shooting at gun clubs. You have a bunch of people who socialize and can spot someone who may have some psychological problems or who is going through hard times.

What worries me are the loners who have issues, and who gravitate toward the "power" that a gun gives them.
Or the kids growing up in urban areas where having a gun is a status symbol, and where altercations over the most pointless topics escalate to gun play.

See, just because people want to find a solution to gun violence doesn't mean they want to take away your rights to own guns. But I would like for some of the gun people to admit that there are people out there who can legally acquire guns, but who really shouldn't be carrying guns around.

I think that licensing gun owners the way that car drivers are licensed makes sense. Tests should be required. I also think that membership in a gun club should be recommended for all gun owners, and there should be more training among gun club members regarding how to spot danger signs and deal with potential issues.
 
2013-01-27 04:12:31 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!


Knives, sidearms and hunting rifles play a role in our society. The machines that are designed to streamline a body count do not serve any other purpose. So for all of you clamoring to "hurr my as well ban Bowie knifes the next time someone is murdered with one," try to keep things in perspective.

Hey pal, cars kill, too. That's why we have regulated speed limits. and certain galvinations to make the car safer. The sooner you idiots stop making ridiculous analogies, the sooner issue will have blown over what little harm coming to what your understand the Constitution to betm .
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report