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.

(Fox News)   In response to a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Vermont gun range starts a ban of their own   (foxnews.com) divider line 536
    More: Dumbass, semi-automatic rifle, gun ranges, Vermont, capability management  
•       •       •

24490 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 01:39:10 PM

justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both?

How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots?

Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.


Not necessarily. The "few ruin it for the rest" only in a society of cowards, who would sacrifice their personal freedom for nanny state security.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
 
2013-01-29 01:39:46 PM

Facetious_Speciest: justtray

It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be.

And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance.


Also, the more draconian, the more difficult it becomes to defend in court.

Gun control overreach is part of what gave us DC v Heller and US v McDonald.
 
2013-01-29 01:39:54 PM

Fubini: Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


Just based on appearance ( darker uniforms, shorter haircuts, more paramilitary gear ) , they've been moving towards being a domestic army over the last 30 years, IMHO.

/ cops look more frightening now than they did in the '70s
 
2013-01-29 01:39:59 PM

Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?


I hate it when you say that.
 
2013-01-29 01:40:13 PM
'Hero' tag MIA.
 
2013-01-29 01:40:51 PM

justtray: craig328: justtray: Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?
2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.


I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.


Their populace lives in a state of fear of their government. They simply don't have the rights and freedom we do. They quite literally fear death if they do something "illegal.". I'm glad I live here and not Singapore. You can very easily move back if you want...ya ya I know.
 
2013-01-29 01:40:55 PM

morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?


I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it.

It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example.
 
2013-01-29 01:41:04 PM

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 425x279]

Unfamiliar with bell curves and standard deviation, aren't you? Communications major?

You didn't even offer a citation, but NOW you want to start talking about statistics?

And you didn't specify what kind of average you were using.

Sloppy work there.


Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into?

Also, www.iqcomparisonsite.com
 
2013-01-29 01:41:35 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.


They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.


That would be interesting. Will he call the cops on the cops?
 
2013-01-29 01:42:08 PM

justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.


You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way). But we'll humor you for a moment.

There's a compelling interest in taxing voting as a means to discourage or prohibit those who have no investment in the well-being or continued best interest of the conduct of a nation state, especially one built on the voting consent of the citizenry such as ours. It also helps sift out those who flat-out don't understand or can't comprehend the mechanics of how their nation's government works and why it works that way.

The same could be said for inflammatory writings or religious practices. Political screeds turned into flawed government (or used to try and justify the rule of despots) and religious zealots have been behind more violence, death and misery in human history than any single mechanical device.
 
2013-01-29 01:42:37 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray:
I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

America is not about being "safe".

Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe".

America is about being free.

If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place.


Good thing im not then.

Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.
 
2013-01-29 01:43:03 PM

justtray: morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?

I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it.

It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example.


Holy crap...you really do want to sacrifice all your freedoms don't you? Why? Don't deflect, don't change the subject, please. I am genuinely curious as to why you would not only tolerate, but welcome the removal of all your freedom.
 
2013-01-29 01:43:57 PM

Facetious_Speciest: justtray

It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be.

And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance.


I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword.

Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one.
 
2013-01-29 01:43:58 PM

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.


Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.

Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians?

Haha no. Because they are tasked with upholding our laws and maintaining order for us, the civilians.


So then why do they need such terrifying, destructive weapons? Because they need to defend themselves from and subdue dangerous criminals?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-29 01:44:09 PM

justtray: I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.


I think that conclusion is absolutely AWFUL. Having an overarmed and under-trained (which many officers have shown themselves to be) group running about and commonly in high-stress/potentially explosive situations is a recipe for.....well......crap like this thread.
 
2013-01-29 01:45:04 PM

Dimensio:
The criminals of the "North Hollywood Shootout" used firearms not legally available to civilians (the criminals utilized firearm models already prohibited to civilians in the United States due to the ease by which they could be converted to fully automatic operation).


This is absolutely wrong. Many weapons for sale then, and today, are readily (illegally) convertable to full automatic. Not one weapon is or has been banned for this reason. The same guns that were used in that robbery can be purchased today, legally. The AK they used is less than $1000. This assertion also demonstrates further ignorance, since...



dofus:
This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.


1. M-16s are not "banned". Who lied to you about this, and why did you believe them? In 1986 the department that does registrations of new machine guns was defunded. You can still buy those that were in private ownership before that, so long as you pay the "no NFA items for coloreds" tax.

2. Everyone in the community biatches about #1, except the non-shooting collectors who don't want to see their investments depreciate. A full auto M-16 is $10-$25 thousand these days. Uzi's and other submachine guns are much cheaper, around $4000, and perfectly legal to buy and sell as well.

3. The AR-15 IS a semi-automatic rifle. No "was" about it. No "hot rod" version that's full auto.

So in summary, you're both about as ignorant on the subject as the average gun control advocate.

 
2013-01-29 01:45:08 PM

enforcerpsu: justtray: craig328: justtray: Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?
2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population dens ...


You dont know anything about singapore. So dont pretend to.
 
2013-01-29 01:45:51 PM
justtray

Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it.

You have no "right to be safe" from imaginary scenarios. You certainly have no right to preemptively punish me to make yourself feel safer.
 
2013-01-29 01:45:55 PM

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray:
I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

America is not about being "safe".

Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe".

America is about being free.

If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place.

Good thing im not then.

Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.


You support banning alcohol too?
 
2013-01-29 01:45:56 PM

justtray: Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.



If you're going to go that route, since you love gun control so much, why don't you move to North Korea?
 
2013-01-29 01:47:02 PM

morgen_benner: justtray: morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?

I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it.

It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example.

Holy crap...you really do want to sacrifice all your freedoms don't you? Why? Don't deflect, don't change the subject, please. I am genuinely curious as to why you would not only tolerate, but welcome the removal of all your freedom.


Of course i dont. What a silly mischaracterization of my position.
 
2013-01-29 01:47:16 PM

justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.


It was the only argument you advanced to rebut what I said. Sorry if it was a particularly shiatty argument (and it was ridiculously so) but hey, you chose it not me.

So, back to the point I made that you disagree with: violent crime in the UK is 4x that of the United States per capita and I suggested that the reason their crime rate is so high compared to us was that thugs worldwide do take a moment and consider the possible consequences to their potential actions. Ergo, this is why you hardly ever hear of a uniformed police officer being raped, robbed, etc. Those guys (in the U.S.) are armed and they'd be a particularly bad witness at any subsequent trial.

Since we dispensed with the whole population density rubbish, what makes you think that criminals in the United States aren't deterred by the possibility their victim might be armed? I mean, rapes are much lower, armed robbery is much lower, assault and battery is much much lower...all crimes wherein the criminal has to be in direct physical contact with the victim. You truly believe the mind of the criminal is so hell bent on mayhem that they don't consider such things as how it might could affect them? Really?
 
2013-01-29 01:47:51 PM

justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.



If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms?
 
2013-01-29 01:49:00 PM

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality.
 
2013-01-29 01:49:06 PM

The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.


If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms?



Or at the very least, ban handguns.....because your chances of being shot with a handgun are A LOT HIGHER than the chances that you will be shot with a so-called "assault weapon".
 
2013-01-29 01:49:15 PM

justtray:
You dont know anything about singapore. So dont pretend to.


I know the US State Department discourages Americans from traveling there because of the extremely draconian punishments doled out for crimes that are prosecuted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in kangaroo courts.

Is that seriously freedom to you?
 
2013-01-29 01:49:37 PM

BgJonson79: Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into?


No. An IQ of 101 is smarter than average, you failed to specify any confidence interval.

Even if you were wishy-washy enough to try a whole sd for a confidence interval, (so IQs 110 and below) you're still talking roughly 85%.
 
2013-01-29 01:50:18 PM
justtray

I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword.

There's no need to fall on a sword. You are obviously incredibly unfamiliar with how firearm ownership works in the States. Let's say (hypothetically) I had a dozen firearms. There are no records of my owning them. I would have no intention of turning myself in if the government demands registration.

End result: I have weapons, and you can't do anything about it. No sword involved. Just a refusal to participate in the weapon prohibition scheme.
 
2013-01-29 01:50:35 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.


Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.

Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians?

Haha no. Because they are tasked with upholding our laws and maintaining order for us, the civilians.

So then why do they need such terrifying, destructive weapons? Because they need to defend themselves from and subdue dangerous criminals?


So now ar-15s and/or assault weapons are terrifying and destructive? Hah, this is getting funny. If you're implying I think they should have no limit, again, poor mischaracterization of my argument. Im simply stating they should be at an advantage from the 'dangerous criminals' as you put it. I dont think thats unreasonable. Nothing is black and white, its simply a matter of what is fair level of control, within private ownership, and relative to government use. And there's not one solid, right answer.

Anyway im out. Good discussion with most of you. Thank you for the responses.
 
2013-01-29 01:50:56 PM

The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.


If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms?


And anything else that could possibly hurt you...
 
2013-01-29 01:51:39 PM
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2013-01-29 01:51:45 PM

The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.


If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms?


Why stop there? Let's ban everything that might pose a danger to him in his imaginary scenarios.
 
2013-01-29 01:52:46 PM

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.


i want to just say "this"

but i am unclear as to what it has been historically - even in this nation, let alone world wide - of the weapons used by the ruling class / law enforcement as compared to the civilian population.

for instance: 1800's in the U.S. - firearms were the height of weapon tech as they are now, but were limited to what? revolvers and lever action rifles

were the civilians limited to only bolt action rifles or muskets? when semi auto pistols (ala the gospel according to john browning) came about, were civilians limited to revolvers?

/anyone smell what the rock is cooking?
 
2013-01-29 01:52:59 PM

Wayne 985: I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality.


This isn't a good argument, as it's not about giving the bad guys a fair chance. It's about not giving automatic weapons to yahoos that couldn't get a job better than 'cop' while I'm somehow too untrustworthy to let buy a 15 round magazine for my target pistol.
 
2013-01-29 01:53:10 PM
Wayne 985

I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality.

We (citizens) are the good guys. Why is it so important for the police to outgun us? Why would you want both police and criminals to have an advantage over us?
 
2013-01-29 01:53:37 PM

justtray: Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it.


Rights don't work that way.

Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights specifically to protect them from being trampled by the majority. If those rights didn't have costs attached to them, they wouldn't need protection because nobody would particularly care if you exercised them or not.

For example, you have the right to collect bellybutton lint. That's not enshrined in the Constitution however because nobody really cares if you do it or not. There is no cost to society for you to collect such lint or not as you may choose.

But there can be serious costs to society for the other rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in your person and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to remain silent, the right to be compensated for property seized by the government, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms *ALL* have a significant cost to society.

Some of those costs are indirect: We'll probably never get a good accounting of the number of people robbed, raped, or murdered because the Fourth and Fifth Amendments prevented the police from doing certain actions that could have prevented them. But we know there *IS* a cost involved there.

The Second Amendment is no different: Yes, there is a cost in human lives. As a nation, we recognize this, and we've still kept it for over 200 years now.

If at some point society as a whole decides it is no longer worth the cost, well, there is a mechanism to change that: Amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-29 01:53:46 PM
way to go Vermont !
 
2013-01-29 01:54:13 PM

The_Sponge: The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.


If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms?


Or at the very least, ban handguns.....because your chances of being shot with a handgun are A LOT HIGHER than the chances that you will be shot with a so-called "assault weapon".


Ok one more. Lets change this argument to, why not have relatively stronger controls on guns? We should use controls based on the availableness, amount of use relative to all guns, and lethialty of each gun. Those should be the criteria and our restrictions should reflect that. One example I support is an expansion of NFA to have higher tax stamps on guns determined to be more dangerous based on these criteria.

There is no perfect solution. Cost based on risk to limit it.
 
2013-01-29 01:54:48 PM
i208.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-29 01:54:54 PM

Facetious_Speciest: justtray

Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it.

You have no "right to be safe" from imaginary scenarios. You certainly have no right to preemptively punish me to make yourself feel safer.


Funny, i would say the same to you.

Ok thats the last one.
 
2013-01-29 01:56:26 PM

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.
 
2013-01-29 01:56:37 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What if the police officers are Sovereign Citizens? Would that entitle them to shootin' range entry?


Only if they are members themselves, and pay their own way as a Sovereign
 
2013-01-29 01:57:41 PM
Burlington, that's where that "Coat Factory" comes from, right?

It's sad to see the political D-baggery. That range would have my business forever.
 
2013-01-29 01:57:44 PM
justtray

Funny, i would say the same to you.

You would, but it would make no sense. I haven't suggested punishing people because I imagine they might, someday, do something wrong. You have.
 
2013-01-29 01:58:13 PM

justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.


Well, I can see when any further conversation is an exercise in futility. Listen, I'm going to go ahead and let you go but I'll say this to you before I go.

Were you one of the people who shrieked and moaned about how the Patriot Act trampled your rights? Maybe not but many did. Were you one of the ones who didn't care for the government ordering banks to report deposits over a certain amount supposedly as a measure to curtail drug activity? Again, maybe not. Maybe you're one of the ones who don't care for government defined "free speech zones" for people who wish to protest. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of how you answer on any of those, do you see the government ever relinquishing any of those restrictions? Ever seen a government spend LESS in a year than in a previous year? Even when we had the surplus not too many years ago, did you see the government go "whoops, took too much money...we'll give that back"?

I'm going to go ahead and guess you wouldn't like the government telling you what you can and cannot say or write. I'll guess you probably wouldn't like it if the police decided to pull you over and subject you and yours to a cavity search on the side of the road. Maybe if the police claimed they found you were smuggling 10 pounds of heroin in your rectum that you'd like to actually have a trial before being sentenced to life in prison? Or maybe, rather than prison, they decide to simply sell you into a life of slavery. You'd be okay with that? Maybe if you're a woman you'd like to have a vote?

Would you be cool with giving up the rights that mean little to you personally? I mean, if you're not saying anything then losing the right to free speech wouldn't mean anything to you personally right? If you're not a criminal then you really have nothing to fear from warrantless searches of you and your property, right? You're not a criminal so the right to a trial won't affect you...so surely you must be okay with jettisoning the 5th through 8th amendments, right? And hey, since you might not be black or a woman losing the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments won't even affect you.

But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed". No other right takes that extra statement but the second. That's because the framers knew that even as good a system as a republic could falter and the government could turn against its own people. The founding fathers knew that no matter how thoroughly they tried to set it up, our government can and will eventually falter...and when governments go bad it's the people that suffer and its the people that have to do something about it. Ergo, give the people the right to keep and bear arms so that if/when the situation warrants it, they can effect change.

Just because you're short sighted enough to want to kiss off the only right that has any chance of guaranteeing the rest of them doesn't mean your decision is wise or even informed.
 
2013-01-29 01:59:08 PM

Rustblade: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.


You're going to have to get the US Federal government to classify them then.
 
2013-01-29 01:59:44 PM

ph0rk: BgJonson79: Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into?

No. An IQ of 101 is smarter than average, you failed to specify any confidence interval.

Even if you were wishy-washy enough to try a whole sd for a confidence interval, (so IQs 110 and below) you're still talking roughly 85%.


I like to go for two SDs. Still okay, and something like intelligence is fluid so I prefer a wider interpretation.

Besides, the person I was replying to has no IDEA what stats are so I was just kinda trolling them ;-)
 
2013-01-29 02:00:39 PM

Wayne 985: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality.


How about the victims? Considering the criminal rarely gives the victim time and opportunity to call the police such that the police practically never show up in time to stop a crime as its being committed, don't you think the victims ought to have the choice of having "a fair chance"?
 
2013-01-29 02:00:54 PM

BgJonson79: calm like a bomb: This just in: Stupid rednecks who don't understand how the government works are not limited to the South.

So, how does the gov't work in this case? Isn't the city council the police's boss?


To a point. But what I meant is the range owner is punishing those who enforce, not make, the law. He's pretty much up there with the sheriffs who say they will arrest anyone who enforces any new gun legislation on the Derp Meter.
 
2013-01-29 02:02:39 PM

Rustblade: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.


Poe's law?
 
Displayed 50 of 536 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report