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.

(The Atlantic)   "What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation"   (theatlantic.com) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, NFL, Dan Le Batard, reforms, police corruption, industry, guns  
•       •       •

3380 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 8:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-31 08:22:21 PM  
Enh. Then NFL is at least making an effort.
They're not having much measurable success and getting a lot of flak from all sides, but at least they're trying.
 
2013-01-31 08:33:03 PM  
wait, so you're telling me that highly profitable industries will ignore negative costs of business so long as those costs are externalized? you don't say!
 
2013-01-31 08:46:48 PM  
I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.
 
2013-01-31 09:00:35 PM  
I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.
 
2013-01-31 09:04:06 PM  
No industry will ever reform without regulation unless the reformation itself will increase profits. There isn't a corporation out there that wouldn't gladly murder a million people (especially if they're people off in some third world shiat hole) if they thought there was no chance of getting caught and the murders would lead to an increase of profits. They are completely amoral.
 
2013-01-31 09:05:49 PM  

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

 
2013-01-31 09:12:02 PM  
A killer, a spiller, and a thriller
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-31 09:12:07 PM  
If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone. Don't watch football if you don't like the idea of people KNOWINGLY getting hurt. I don't like soccer I think it's a sissy sport, but there are more people being hurt in soccer each year than football so stop soccer, oh yea boxing, wrestling, MMA, dirt bike racing, auto racing, ski jumping, sky diving, driving a car, walking in downtown any major city. I know lets wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap and hide in the closet.
 
2013-01-31 09:17:24 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.


Wow you are Mr Creative.
 
2013-01-31 09:22:19 PM  

maxalt: If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone.


Head injuries are just the price we pay to have the greatest sport in the world.
 
2013-01-31 09:24:58 PM  

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.


 So more regulation is needed?
 
2013-01-31 09:32:19 PM  
I'm gonna go with "this is what happens when raw capitalism isn't tempered by level heads."
 
2013-01-31 09:37:40 PM  
This article has something for everyone to biatch about. Should be good. Off to make popcorn.
 
2013-01-31 09:38:09 PM  

edmo: maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

 So more regulation is needed?


Nope
 
2013-01-31 09:38:39 PM  
This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.
 
2013-01-31 09:42:15 PM  

maxalt:  I don't like soccer I think it's a sissy sport,

And Football is for morons who just want to see bodies collide in an unorganized mess.

/likes both
//Football has as much tactical/strategic depth as Soccer has ferocity
 
2013-01-31 09:43:00 PM  

manwithplanx: maxalt:  I don't like soccer I think it's a sissy sport,
And Football is for morons who just want to see bodies collide in an unorganized mess.

/likes both
//Football has as much tactical/strategic depth as Soccer has ferocity


And wrestling is for people who want to indulge in their childhood homoerotic fantasies of muscular, sweaty, oily men rubbing eachother.
 
2013-01-31 09:44:15 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.


It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.
 
2013-01-31 09:52:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.


Your vote is counted.
 
2013-01-31 09:52:36 PM  
I see this will probably become another derpfest gun thread. Carry on.
 
2013-01-31 09:53:44 PM  
It's the Holy Grail for any employer - finding employees who will do their job well for the sheer joy of it. "Employee engagement" is a watchword of HR departments everywhere. The problem, though, is that getting the right person for the job often comes with undesirable yet unavoidable side-effects. ... And if you're hiring airline security personnel at the TSA, you want sticklers for rules even they don't provide the service-with-a-smile (or, seemingly, have any God-given common sense) that passengers want.

TSA is afraid of: friendly employees.
American people: afraid of
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-31 09:54:30 PM  
If we took away sports, what would dumb people do for a living?  There are only so many jobs at Wal-Mart.
 
2013-01-31 10:05:02 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.


You're right. Laws never did anything. Ever. Why do we even have them?
 
2013-01-31 10:25:39 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.

Your vote is counted.

Congratulations, you're a dumbass.


img542.imageshack.us stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself stop hitting yourself
 
2013-01-31 10:44:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You're right. Laws never did anything. Ever. Why do we even have them?


The problem is nothing being proposed, outside of perhaps even more funding to states to include adjudication of being mentally unfit into NICS, which is fine by the NRA, will do fark all of anything to solve gun violence.

Better health care might help while not intruding on anybody's rights.  Revisiting poverty would be a good idea, and not intrude on anybody's rights.

Anti-gun legislation is a lot like anti-abortion legislation.  It has nothing to do with actually fixing anything, just making it harder to access a constitutional right.  One politician doesn't think I have any need a magazine that can hold more than 7 rounds and another idiot thinks nobody should get a 3rd trimester abortion.  They're both idiots that likely have no real understanding of the issues they're trying to legislate.  Just doing SOMETHING to make their constituents happy.  Won't fix anything and might actually make matters worse, but hey, they're doing SOMETHING.
 
2013-01-31 10:54:51 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.

Your vote is counted.

Congratulations, you're a dumbass.


Sucks when you forget what alt you're logged in as
 
2013-01-31 11:00:24 PM  

Livingroom: And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain.


Last time I checked, the US Constitution says nothing at all about guns. It does, however, have some words about the subject of "arms", which is short for "armaments". Would you care to clarify how nuclear weapons are not armaments? Because I do seem to remember some kind of Cold War which very strongly involved "arms races" of building more and better nuclear weapons than the other guy.

Or would you care to explain why we could be sane enough as a society to ignore the literal words of the 2nd amendment in order to restrict access to such destructive armaments, but for some reason we are absolutely forbidden coming up with sane regulations with sane restrictions on access to smaller arms?

And, please notice, I said "sane regulations" and "sane restrictions". I clearly did not say BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!! I also did not say that such regulations or restrictions would SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS!!!!!

So please don't frame any responses as if I had.
 
2013-01-31 11:07:25 PM  
 
2013-01-31 11:29:45 PM  
Well, that was embarrassing. Must be some wives typing up in here.
 
2013-01-31 11:42:56 PM  

GAT_00: *peeks in thread*

http://i.imgur.com/D3lTC.gif


I laughed way too hard at that.
 
2013-02-01 12:16:51 AM  

mamoru: Last time I checked, the US Constitution says nothing at all about guns. It does, however, have some words about the subject of "arms", which is short for "armaments". Would you care to clarify how nuclear weapons are not armaments?


Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use.   Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

... protects abortion?
 
2013-02-01 12:26:49 AM  

jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?


I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...

jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.


So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.
 
2013-02-01 12:45:51 AM  

mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?


Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS decided the right to privacy included the right to have an abortion.
 
2013-02-01 01:02:50 AM  

mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.


what sane restrictions do you propose? you do realize that three 10 round magazines and one 30 round magazine will take the average practiced shooter the same amount of time to fire, right? the "stop him when he reloads" myth is just that. i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less. sometimes more than one gun. what do you do then? with a magazine holster, if a ten round magazine was all i'd be allowed to carry, i'd still have 30-50 rounds on me, i'd just be mildly inconvenienced to have to reload more often, which consists of pushing a button, sliding the new mag in until it clicks, and then pushing another button, a process that takes less than a second. whats more, the 10 round magazines are often standard-capacity magazines with a piece of plastic in them, to prevent the follower from depressing past 10 rounds... and is easily defeated by the unscrupulous. sometimes i have more than one gun on me. what do you do when a guy has 3 10-round guns tucked in his waistband? woah! no reloading there, is there? so that whole magazine capacity argument serves only one purpose:

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, magazine capacity restrictions is as much an infringement as DC requiring trigger locks was) on legal gun owners, when there are enough high-capacity magazines out there to easily supply every crazy person for the next 50 years... and need i remind you, the venerable 1911 was typically a 7+1 configuration, and was the staple of militaries the world over for a hundred years and is still in wide use today as an effective weapon.

so limiting magazine sizes will *change nothing at all* except our ability to quickly overthrow a tyrannical government, or effectively defend ourselves against multiple assailants. therefore, since it will do nothing at all except unconstitutionally infringe on american citizens rights, it is to be opposed!

ultimately, it's a freedom we currently have being oppressed for no good reason, and every man and woman in america should stand up and say "no" to oppressive government legislation. but of course, this is liberal fark, a liberal bastion on the internet. i still dont know why i keep paying $5 to watch the trainwreck.


maybe you'd like to know what i propose? i propose teaching gun safety in schools. we teach safe sex dont we? using a condom means you're less likely to contract an STD, right? not to mention unwanted pregnancies- isnt that an accepted point, and the whole reason we teach it? We teach evolution instead of creationism because it is accepted as scientific fact by the majority. why not teach that guns can be as dangerous as sex without a condom, and, when misused, as permanent a mistake as an unwanted, unplanned, teen pregnancy?

i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.

i propose that mental health screenings will not accomplish anything. what is the solution to gun violence? it used to be threat of the electric chair.  it should be the threat of swift defense of ones self by law abiding citizenry trained to understand that they have a right to have a gun, and use it to defend themselves. if more people carried a weapon to defend themselves, were properly taught how and when to use it, and practiced with it- i think that there'd be less "mass" shootings and more mass "defense"

owning a gun, carrying a gun, using a gun does not mean you walk around all day "scared" that something will happen, always living in fear, boarding up your windows and hording ammunition. i dont do that. until ammunition went sky-high, i practiced once a week, and carried as a matter of course. i dont pull my gun out and wave it around, i dont worship it, i dont rub it seductively, i dont do any of the things i've seen people accuse other people of in Fark threads. it stays in its' holster when i'm wearing it, and when people ask to see it, i politely decline, because its' place is in its' holster until it is NEEDED... its not a toy, its not a plaything, its a tool; a very very dangerous tool, the keys to life and death itself, and it is not to be taken lightly, it is not to be played with as a toy, it is not a status symbol to be shown off. it is to be respected. i did not go to a class or attend a school to learn these things i'm saying, i learned them on my own. why is this? because publicly guns are portrayed as bad, evil, unnecessary, inherently bad objects to be avoided. this should not be.

i guess i rambled on for awhile, but this has been building up that i've wanted to say all these things at various points thoughout the various gun threads. i'd invite anyone who will take the time to read everything i've said and respond with calm, rational, educated discourse to please do so. but if you truncate it and say "TL;DR" i'm really not going to pay attention to whatever you say, because its obvious that you dont care, and your mind is made up and cant be changed. when you no longer have an open mind, why do you engage in debate?
 
2013-02-01 01:19:02 AM  
The NCAA needs to be cracked down on more than the NFL does.
 
2013-02-01 01:39:15 AM  

L.D. Ablo: The NCAA needs to be cracked down on more than the NFL does.


If you sound it out it's "nick-ah"

I never noticed that before.
 
2013-02-01 01:43:30 AM  
What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation

Awesome.

Oh wait.  Small "l"  libertarianism can fix the problem(s).  I have it on good authority.
 
2013-02-01 01:45:42 AM  
Why does the gun industry need reform?

Why does the NFL need reform?

Why does anything need reform but to remove the first L from LLC?
 
2013-02-01 01:49:33 AM  

Livingroom: i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.


Because it really isn't as important as you think it is.  Nobody is going to take away your guns.   Also, not everyone spends as much time thinking about them as you clearly do, and would not appreciate a long-winded boring patriotic rant from the teacher about it.  I  know that probably makes you mad or something.  The obsession with guns in this country is over the top.
 
2013-02-01 01:52:23 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Sucks when you forget what alt you're logged in as


It's fun to farky-mark them though, so it's kinda good for the rest of us.
 
2013-02-01 01:53:50 AM  

Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less


Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.
 
2013-02-01 02:24:06 AM  
I really like Weatherby rifles, with their crazy amazing bolt lugs and vented bolts designed to protect me from a ruptured primer or a bolt wanting to go backwards through my face. I wonder if they came up with that on their own.

But I guess that's not enough to make it to the list of "totally different topics that should not be compared". Because a fan in the stands is suffering a concussion from the QB sack, or something.
 
2013-02-01 02:34:53 AM  
The NFL is a giant group of entertainers. That's it.
 
2013-02-01 02:39:18 AM  

whidbey: Livingroom: i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.

Because it really isn't as important as you think it is.  Nobody is going to take away your guns.   Also, not everyone spends as much time thinking about them as you clearly do, and would not appreciate a long-winded boring patriotic rant from the teacher about it.  I  know that probably makes you mad or something.  The obsession with guns in this country is over the top.


doesnt make me mad, just allows me to understand how deceived you are for thinking that any of our constitutional amendments "are not that important"
 
2013-02-01 03:05:58 AM  

Livingroom: what sane restrictions do you propose?


Please go back to my original post and count the number of times I said anything at all about magazine capacity.

 

Livingroom: unconstitutional infringements


The point of the "nuclear weapons" bit is that what kind of infringement is unconstitutional is arbitrary. Nuclear weapons ARE arms, yet you don't have the right to bear them. Add to that, the constitution clearly states "the right of the people". People is a plural of person. A convicted felon is a person. The rights of convicted felons to legally buy firearms is infringed. Do you consider this unconstitutional? What about the rights of a civilian to carry a firearm into the White House or the Capitol Building? Or into a court room? Do you consider it unconstitutional to have your rights infringed in such ways?

Constitutionality is clearly arbitrary when applied to the 2nd Amendment (as the wording is necessarily vague as to any type or kind of armament accorded protection), and thus where to draw the lines can be determined by the courts and the people.

Stop acting as if the way it is interpreted now is written in stone. It can change, and if enough people will it, it will change. That is fundamental to the design of the US Constitution: it's ability to change to suit the times.

Look, I am definitely not anti-gun. So far, I haven't proposed anything. I'm not advocating take away all the guns. But I am also completely against completely unfettered access to guns, too (and so are you or everyone else who supports laws restricting the ability for convicted felons and prisoners to get them). I'm all about a happy medium.

I don't really know what that happy medium might be or the best regulations that would get us there, but I'm pretty certain we aren't there now, and it's damn near impossible to have a sane rational discussion about the topic, because every time the topic comes up, and rational discourse quickly gets shouted down by idiots on both sides yelling "TAKIN' OUR GUNS!!!" or "YOU WANT TO ARM BABIES!!" on their respective sides.

FWIW, I agree with your proposal of gun safety education for everyone. At the very least it might cut down on the number of so-called "accidents" (as a big fan of gun safety, I don't believe anything should be considered accidental if someone's finger was on the trigger pointing the gun at something; but I digress)

However, before comparing it to sex education, look at the state of sex education these days and the amount of misinformation that is often spread in such classes. I'd prefer the same thing not happen to gun safety education. ;)
But, yes, more education is always a good thing.
 
2013-02-01 03:08:35 AM  

Livingroom: whidbey: Livingroom: i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.

Because it really isn't as important as you think it is.  Nobody is going to take away your guns.   Also, not everyone spends as much time thinking about them as you clearly do, and would not appreciate a long-winded boring patriotic rant from the teacher about it.  I  know that probably makes you mad or something.  The obsession with guns in this country is over the top.

doesnt make me mad, just allows me to understand how deceived you are for thinking that any of our constitutional amendments "are not that important"


I understand their importance just fine, thanks.  Your obsession with firearms is still quite unhealthy and not shared by most people.  You're welcome to start an academy.  In the mean time, I'm content to leave the practice of teaching social studies to the qualified professionals.
 
2013-02-01 03:28:47 AM  

violentsalvation: I really like Weatherby rifles, with their crazy amazing bolt lugs and vented bolts designed to protect me from a ruptured primer or a bolt wanting to go backwards through my face. I wonder if they came up with that on their own.

But I guess that's not enough to make it to the list of "totally different topics that should not be compared". Because a fan in the stands is suffering a concussion from the QB sack, or something.


Not to mention that most people would trade the concussions for the money and the biatches. We ask Marines to die in horrible agony or live as quadriplegic bags of scars and/or psychoses for a lot less money and glory.

A little dain brammage is the price you gotta pay to be rich? I don't think any of the guys who've been hit by RPGs would hesitate to trade paychecks with the starting line of any team. Not even the Browns.
 
2013-02-01 05:07:33 AM  
If the NFL doesn't want a lot of impaired rants going viral in the off-season I expect a series of rules and equipment changes over the next few years.

/and where's my comment removal button?
 
2013-02-01 05:24:31 AM  

Livingroom: maybe you'd like to know what i propose? i propose teaching gun safety in schools. we teach safe sex dont we? using a condom means you're less likely to contract an STD, right?


I'm not going to address most of the points in your argument since I'm not an American and aren't really up to speed with the nuances of your constitution. As for increasing gun safety education, that sounds like a reasonable course of action, although sex education during my schooling involved a lot of fear with relation to pregnancies, STDs and proper condom use. We were constantly shown pictures of herpes, syphilis, gonorrhoea and other STDs as a warning to the potential consequences of unprotected sex. Would you advocate that students be shown the destructive power that these firearms possess in the form of gunshot victims or crime scene photos in order to drive the point home so that they are fully aware of the consequences of shooting another human being?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-01 07:26:52 AM  

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.


Because of crazy people who think they have a right to a 20mm cannon or a minigun.
 
2013-02-01 08:08:03 AM  
That's what referees are for.
 
2013-02-01 08:10:21 AM  
Livingroom: wall of derp


You sound derpy with a mix of paranoia, and possibly a side of smallcox
 
2013-02-01 08:12:15 AM  

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.


Technically we have a right to bear arms, and a nuclear weapon is a type of arms. So the argument isn't invalid.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:16 AM  

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.


Do you honestly believe that criminals and the mentally ill have a constutional right to purchase firearms? or are you just spouting bellicose bombast?

My next door neighbor owns a tub filled with those god damn bananna clip mags and enough pistols and rifles to arm the whole damn block. and ever HE thinks that there should be federally enforced background checks for gun purchases.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:46 AM  

unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.


That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:49 AM  
Now, guess which organization is IN CHARGE of regulation, and still won't reform.
 
2013-02-01 08:15:35 AM  
The second amendment has as much relevance in modern society as the third. Oil is an 20th century power source that is going to go kicking and screaming to the grave in the 21st and Football is going to be about as popular as boxing after high schools and colleges  ban it.

It is just a matter of time before these things change and complaining about it just makes you look old and out of touch with reality.
 
2013-02-01 08:15:43 AM  

miss diminutive: Livingroom: maybe you'd like to know what i propose? i propose teaching gun safety in schools. we teach safe sex dont we? using a condom means you're less likely to contract an STD, right?

I'm not going to address most of the points in your argument since I'm not an American and aren't really up to speed with the nuances of your constitution. As for increasing gun safety education, that sounds like a reasonable course of action, although sex education during my schooling involved a lot of fear with relation to pregnancies, STDs and proper condom use. We were constantly shown pictures of herpes, syphilis, gonorrhoea and other STDs as a warning to the potential consequences of unprotected sex. Would you advocate that students be shown the destructive power that these firearms possess in the form of gunshot victims or crime scene photos in order to drive the point home so that they are fully aware of the consequences of shooting another human being?


We do it here for driver's end, showing pictures and movies of the consequences of drunk driving. For all the ballyhoo the NRA gets, its Eddie Eagle safety program is put together very well and goes over the basics of gun safety, and could serve as an example for other programs.
 
2013-02-01 08:17:51 AM  

unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.



lol- I have close to a hundred coat hangers in my closet. I must be terrified of a fetus uprising!
 
2013-02-01 08:19:00 AM  
I don't know... with enough public pressure, change can happen from the inside.  They already penalize a lot of dangerous behavior, and made those changes some time ago (i.e. spearing, helmet to helmet, clotheslining, horse collaring, face mask, etc.).
 
2013-02-01 08:19:11 AM  
So what needs to reform in the gun industry, exactly? They are manufacturing a product that is legal.
 
2013-02-01 08:19:44 AM  
I think gun rights advocates would get a lot more mileage if they dropped the paranoia angle. Tyranny! Apocalypse! Home Invaders! Black People Moving Into The Neighborhood!

Gun ownership should require the same regulations as car ownership. With similar specifications on what is "street legal".
 
2013-02-01 08:19:55 AM  
Good!
Oil, guns and football are what make America great.
Glad to see our proudest institutions are not bending to the bleating and hand wringing of a bunch of cowardly fools.
 
2013-02-01 08:20:01 AM  
The gun lobby is run by people who believe in guns and a particular reading of the Second Amendment.

The mainstream media is run by people who don't believe in guns and whose particular reading of the second amendment would be approved of by both the KGB and SS. Clearly without governmental regulation of the first amendment the mainstream media will never reform itself and just continue to spread seditious lies.
 
2013-02-01 08:21:17 AM  

wedun: Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Do you honestly believe that criminals and the mentally ill have a constutional right to purchase firearms? or are you just spouting bellicose bombast?

My next door neighbor owns a tub filled with those god damn bananna clip mags and enough pistols and rifles to arm the whole damn block. and ever HE thinks that there should be federally enforced background checks for gun purchases.


I assume you are refering to the "gun show loophole". People have to right to sell their private property without government interference. There are many dangerous objects in this world. Whether it's a gun, knife, or car - requiring private citizens to run background checks on other citizens to sell them a piece of metal is not acceptable.
 
2013-02-01 08:21:53 AM  
Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?
 
2013-02-01 08:22:23 AM  
Regulations are useful when they are done correctly.   But there are few regulations without loopholes and many cannot be easily enforced.

Some things which need greater regulation:  food, banks, and drug companies.   Those 3 affect more people's lives than almost any other.
 
2013-02-01 08:24:32 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


It seems to me that the raving loony gun nuts have done more to put the tyrants in power than remove them.
 
2013-02-01 08:25:04 AM  

Ghastly: No industry will ever reform without regulation unless the reformation itself will increase profits. There isn't a corporation out there that wouldn't gladly murder a million people (especially if they're people off in some third world shiat hole) if they thought there was no chance of getting caught and the murders would lead to an increase of profits. They are completely amoral.


What? Seriously? You REALLY think that? Or are you just trolling?
 
2013-02-01 08:25:41 AM  

unlikely


Peter von Nostrand: Sucks when you forget what alt you're logged in as

It's fun to farky-mark them though, so it's kinda good for the rest of us.


Farky-markin' the funky bunch!
 
2013-02-01 08:25:57 AM  
The United States will never reform without outside regulation.
 
2013-02-01 08:26:30 AM  

mamoru: And, please notice, I said "sane regulations" and "sane restrictions". I clearly did not say BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!! I also did not say that such regulations or restrictions would SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS!!!!!


Ya know, I'm not a big fan of Obama but I was pretty happy with the regulations he came out with. The problem is, why are people still pushing for a ban? What Obama put through has a chance of making change, yet these people STILL go for the gold even though all the evidence points to this not making any change at all.
 
2013-02-01 08:27:04 AM  
Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


You're right. we should just give up that right.
In addition, the government has already shown free speech rights can be violated whenever they deem it necessary for national or public security.
So that outdated first amendment really should go, too. What, you think your "words" will stop the police or government?
 
2013-02-01 08:28:52 AM  
This article is awful.  Just because an industry disagrees with an administration's interpretation of a particular law, or any other group or individuals does not justify regulation.  Also, equating an espoused professional public stance on an issue with that person's personal beliefs is naive.  Candor goes out the window when money is involved.  Also quit trying to baby NFL players.  No one is forcing them to play football, they can just as well go work as a personal trainer or car rental place.  One of the primary reasons why NFL players, or any professional athlete, is paid so well is because of the APPARENT risk of injury.

This prevailing attitude that no risk should ever be taken by an individual without proper and perfect insurance and safety is sickening and absolutely ridiculous.
 
2013-02-01 08:31:03 AM  
What gun owners think it will be like fighting against the government:
1.bp.blogspot.com

What it will actually be like:

dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com
rt.com
 
2013-02-01 08:32:30 AM  

doubled99: You're right. we should just give up that right.


It's not the amendment that needs to go, it's the mindset of certain people. A little thing called an airstrike makes any talk of somehow talking on the government so much precious chatter. Course there's the little matter that your fellow citizens would necessarily let you get very far. In a very real way the first amendment is there so you don't need to bother with the guns against the government.
 
2013-02-01 08:32:43 AM  

CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.


If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.
 
2013-02-01 08:33:41 AM  

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich.


The news reports I saw when the spill occurred claimed regulations were scaled back massively in the time between Reagan's 'government is the problem' and Bush's 'let experts monitor experts', both which lead to industry insiders co-opt the regulatory agencies. Just like Wall Street. Apparently both should get off for free.

"If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule."

I can't think of a more irrelevant metric. "Considering how much lead is in car batteries, what do trace amounts in baby formula matter?'

Does being an industry lobbyist pay well?
 
2013-02-01 08:33:44 AM  

doubled99: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


You're right. we should just give up that right.
In addition, the government has already shown free speech rights can be violated whenever they deem it necessary for national or public security.
So that outdated first amendment really should go, too. What, you think your "words" will stop the police or government?


Over the past 100 years "words" have changed the actions of our government more than guns. See every SCOTUS case vs .... umm what rights have guns gotten us in the past century?
 
2013-02-01 08:34:16 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


Not really a gun nut but how about Libya, Egypt, and eventually Syria? Or closer to home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946">http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
 
2013-02-01 08:34:30 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.


Be fair. Maybe he just has really crappy aim.
 
2013-02-01 08:35:50 AM  

DubtodaIll: does not justify regulation.


Regulation is what happens when someone demonstrates themselves incapable of behaving in a manner that is fit for working within society. The government didn't invent environmental regs just to be a pain, they were devised when it became clear certain people just weren't going to do the right thing and needed to be hit with a clue by four. And there are still people who haven't learned to play along and get away with it, various coal mining companies come to mind.
 
2013-02-01 08:36:02 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


World War 2? Afghanistan against the Soviets? Bonus round question: why do occupying forces disarm the populace if the guns are hurr-durr irrelevant?
 
2013-02-01 08:38:02 AM  

Prank Monkey: Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?

Not really a gun nut but how about Libya, Egypt, and eventually Syria? Or closer to home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946">http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


DId Libya, Egypt or Syria have a right to gun ownership before their revolutions? Seems like it just proves that if there is a real need to fight against a tyrannical government people find a way to arm themselves.  Since the people who fought in the Battle of Athens got their guns by raiding the National Guard Armory it doesn't seem like a great argument for personal gun ownership either.
 
2013-02-01 08:40:22 AM  

vpb: Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Because of crazy people who think they have a right to a 20mm cannon or a minigun.


The gun industry needs reform because of the fact that there are crazy people out there. Wow.
 
2013-02-01 08:41:09 AM  

Carth: DId Libya, Egypt or Syria have a right to gun ownership before their revolutions?


Better way to look at it, all three were/are run by dictators, which is a case outside the scope of US government. We have a set up that doesn't let such people come to power and stay there. Oh yeah none of them, not even Egypt, was entirely down with the whole freedom of the press and speech thing. Then again, see my first point, run by dictators.
 
2013-02-01 08:41:56 AM  

Carth: What gun owners think it will be like fighting against the government:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 241x320]

What it will actually be like:

[dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com image 450x336]
[rt.com image 458x305]


I bet Khadafi wished he would have thought of that.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:11 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.


I carry 3 mags, but I use a 1911 which is sort of short on ammo to start. The main reason I carry 3 mags is because I have a double mag holder. While not everyone is as gifted a marksman as I, nothing says a person can carry only X rounds. It's prudent to carry as much as you can or what you feel comfortable carrying. Even I miss, and there's always the possibility of encountering more than one hostile. I'd rather carry extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it. Besides I don't dictate the particulars such as the location of a hostile encounter, the bad guys do.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:30 AM  

neenerist: Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?

World War 2? Afghanistan against the Soviets? Bonus round question: why do occupying forces disarm the populace if the guns are hurr-durr irrelevant?


World War 2  resistance movements and Afghans were funded and armed by foreign countries and the resident in both areas didn't have a right to gun before the event. They are great examples of why you don't need an absolute right to individual gun ownership and will still be able to fight against a tyrannical government if you have support of a superpower. Without super from other countries you resistance fighters don't really stand a chance.

What "occupying force" is a threat to the US? Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:49 AM  

Ronin FF: The gun industry needs reform because of the fact that there are crazy people out there. Wow.


If the car industry behaved like the gun industry, we'd have Pinto and Corvair fiascoes every week. And worse.
 
2013-02-01 08:43:35 AM  

swahnhennessy: I think gun rights advocates would get a lot more mileage if they dropped the paranoia angle. Tyranny! Apocalypse! Home Invaders! Black People Moving Into The Neighborhood!

Gun ownership should require the same regulations as car ownership. With similar specifications on what is "street legal".


Maybe you would not sound as dumb if you dropped your own rhetoric.
 
2013-02-01 08:43:50 AM  
one of these things is not like the other things...

seriously tho, american football is entertainment, the fact that it has that much money in it for players is partially why they're willing to be so risky in the first place... even the ones who love it for the game itself only got there on the backs of programs built with oodles of cash

point being, oil and gun industries are far more directly involved in our way of life than one league of one sport, regulating the sport has less to do with public safety and more to do with guilt-free time wasting
 
2013-02-01 08:47:13 AM  

AdamK: one of these things is not like the other things...

seriously tho, american football is entertainment, the fact that it has that much money in it for players is partially why they're willing to be so risky in the first place... even the ones who love it for the game itself only got there on the backs of programs built with oodles of cash

point being, oil and gun industries are far more directly involved in our way of life than one league of one sport, regulating the sport has less to do with public safety and more to do with guilt-free time wasting


What about the young children and high school students who play football, don't fully understand the risks, and suffer from multiple subconcussive impacts?
 
2013-02-01 08:51:53 AM  
This is simple.  The NFL sells a product (blood sport) we can't get else where.  Soccer is to boring and Americans don't understand Rugby.   There only issue is how much money goes to who.  Our government has no business whatsoever mucking about here.  I am waiting for the hand slapped moment.

The oil industry is not allowed to reform itself in this country.  Our refineries are 60% efficient and require major change overs twice a year.  European refineries are 90% efficient and require little downtime for a change over.  So 40% of our oil is lost (really it becomes a pollutant) and the oil companies are making obscene profits.  Why don't they upgrade?  Because our environmental laws and the lobbyists who push them will not allow it.  So all that money goes to profit not in upgrading the means of production as it would in any other industry.  If not for environmentalist laws and regulations we would be an all electric society running on Nuclear fuel.  Our power grid would be a fully modern smart grid, we would have no brown outs, and the bill would be cheap.  BTW-Google LA oil wells for some enlightening and entertaining knowledge.

The Gun industry is not really the debate.  The debate is the right of the people to be armed and why.    I have lived through a great deal of history and today find history books tell a different story than I learned and often a different story than the one I lived through.  Most people just don't pay attention to what is being said around them.  It's like you're playing Dungeons and Dragons and they are all NPC's.  The purpose of your right to keep and bear arms is to defend yourself.  It is not to hunt.  It has never been to hunt.  Unfortunately, most people understand the English language less than they know history and have never actually read the constitution.  Any law that restricts any type of gun ownership is unconstitutional.  Our founders expected the government to descend into corruption.  And fully expected more revolutions to overthrow that corruption.  Our founders would have already been shooting way back in Nixon's presidency.  So we live in the times of bread and circuses.

Just so you know.  It is very easy to make a gun.  The materials and machines are ubiquitous.  Bullets are more sophisticated.  There is a shortage of brass shells.  You cannot reload the steel ones.  Anybody that thinks more than one bullet is necessary for hunting, is not a good aim.  Anyone who thinks less than 50 is adequate for a gun fight has never been in one.  The New York gun law did not exempt law enforcement, they can only put 7 bullets in each clip.  Most clips hold 15 bullets.

Figures lie and liars figure.  The US has the lowest per capita incidence of gun violence.  We are just so big that the media feeds you raw numbers and it looks huge.  They also run a lot of stories that focus on the issue they want.  They are all propogandists in the end.  Lastly, all you preppers--secure a water supply first then a food source (animals and vegetables).  You will not have refined products such as oil and gas.  Do not rely on trucks jeeps and gas heat or even electric.  If you expect the end of civilization plan accordingly.   Buy a farm and learn how to work it.  Your model for survival is the Amish.  Albeit, if they were armed to the teeth.  The masses will probably be to busy starving and dieing to steal your stuff, worry about other preppers.  Liberals will try to pass a law and send somebody else to take your stuff.
 
2013-02-01 08:56:56 AM  

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.


Your right to bear arms has been infringed.  It's not horseshiat, it's an appeal to you to pull your head out of your ass for a second or two.  The second doesn't say "guns" it says "arms".  Since "arms" has been redefined over and over to exclude ordnance, and "unusual or dangerous weapons" already, it can EASILY be redefined to exclude other types of arms as well.

You will assume, despite me never saying so, that I want to take your guns.  This makes you a god damned lunatic.  Get a farking grip.
 
2013-02-01 08:57:55 AM  

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.


You do realize that you proved the conclusions of the article?

You claim: "I worked in the oil industry pollution monitoring and control"
To me this implies that your job is to minimize spills and accidents, and to work hand-in-hand with monitoring agencies to achieve that goal. However, you have the very same adversarial relationship mentioned in the article with these monitoring agencies, in re: "EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored."
You sound aggrieved that your company is  not allowed to do as they please, yet you're supposed to be the voice of reason and restraint. Much like the police oversight board mentioned in the article. You should find another job, as you are not attitudinally qualified to perform yours.
 
2013-02-01 08:59:26 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.


You know why we have this big push for gun control right now?

Because someone has to be punished.   You can't punish the Sandy Hook shooter, because he killed himself:  He cheated us out of punishing him for his foul deed.

It was a little different for both the Gabby Giffords shooting and for the Aurora theater shooting:  We caught the people responsible, and they are going to be punished and/or treated as required.

So, we have the impulse to do something, and we can't punish the person directly responsible.  Pretty much everything being asked for at the federal level was already state law in Connecticut where the shooting happened, and by all accounts, the shooter's mother (who actually owned the guns) complied with those laws.

Stepping outside the emotional framework, it's painfully obvious that none of the laws being proposed would have done anything to stop the Sandy Hook shooter.    After all, all handgun sales in Connecticut must go through an FFL, and thus must have a NICS check. There is a 2 week waiting period for long guns (rifles and shotguns).   Assault weapons are banned.   The police can even seize your guns without a warrant or court order if they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.  That's not even on the table at the federal level.

So why are we talking about national laws similar to those of Connecticut, but in some ways still more lax?  Obviously it's not to prevent the next Sandy Hook, despite the rhetoric, because those laws didn't stop the Sandy Hook shooter.They don't even seem to have slowed him down.  He tried to buy a gun but because he didn't have a hunting license he had to wait the required 2 weeks.  If he didn't have access to his mother's guns, he could have merely waited out that time period, and then gone on his rampage.  I think, when the final report is out (due in the summer), we'll see some evidence that he was planning this for a while, at least days in advance if not weeks.  It wasn't just a person who snapped and immediately went on a rampage.

So why the rush to get new laws?  I think it comes from the urge to punish for such a foul deed.  Make no mistake, it was a horrific crime.  Because of that, and because the shooter killed himself before he could be apprehended, many people feel that *SOMETHING* must be done.   If we can't punish the person who actually committed the crime, then we can punish the people who didn't do it.

That's the root of this push for gun control, I think, combined with the false perception that we are a more violent society than ever, when in fact the homicide rate is the lowest it's been in over 50 years.
 
2013-02-01 09:22:13 AM  

whidbey: What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation


The oil and firearms industries are the most regulated that I have seen.
 
2013-02-01 09:23:32 AM  

pxlboy: I see this will probably become another derpfest gun thread. Carry on.


What we really need is gun thread control.

-you must have been on fark 4 years to submit a gun thread
-no gun threads longer than 200 posts
-no gunthreads outside the politics tab
-no farker may exceed 6 posts in any given gunthread
-no farmer may post in more than 2 gunthreads per day.

I'm sure we can all agree to these common sense restrictions.
 
2013-02-01 09:25:03 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

You're right. Laws never did anything. Ever. Why do we even have them?


You're right, because we don't actually have any at the moment. All those people in jail are there voluntarily.
 
2013-02-01 09:29:38 AM  

Ned Stark: pxlboy: I see this will probably become another derpfest gun thread. Carry on.

What we really need is gun thread control.

-you must have been on fark 4 years to submit a gun thread
-no gun threads longer than 200 posts
-no gunthreads outside the politics tab
-no farker may exceed 6 posts in any given gunthread
-no farmer may post in more than 2 gunthreads per day.

I'm sure we can all agree to these common sense restrictions.


what o you have against farmers?
 
2013-02-01 09:31:06 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Ned Stark: pxlboy: I see this will probably become another derpfest gun thread. Carry on.

What we really need is gun thread control.

-you must have been on fark 4 years to submit a gun thread
-no gun threads longer than 200 posts
-no gunthreads outside the politics tab
-no farker may exceed 6 posts in any given gunthread
-no farmer may post in more than 2 gunthreads per day.

I'm sure we can all agree to these common sense restrictions.

what o you have against farmers?


Fat fingers.
 
2013-02-01 09:31:13 AM  
DON'T TREAD ON US....anymore than you already have.
 
2013-02-01 09:33:04 AM  

Kome: Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Technically we have a right to bear arms, and a nuclear weapon is a type of arms. So the argument isn't invalid.


It's been around forever, and it's known as "The Nuclear Straw Man Argument", and it's been discussed ad infinitum before Fark was even a twinkle in Drew's eye, and found to be seriously wanting.

Short version:  No right is absolute.  Even under the most stringent pro-individual rights interpretation of the Constitution, "strict scrutiny", the government has the ability to control things that are as indiscriminate and dangerous as a nuclear weapon.
 
2013-02-01 09:41:48 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.

I carry 3 mags, but I use a 1911 which is sort of short on ammo to start. The main reason I carry 3 mags is because I have a double mag holder. While not everyone is as gifted a marksman as I, nothing says a person can carry only X rounds. It's prudent to carry as much as you can or what you feel comfortable carrying. Even I miss, and there's always the possibility of encountering more than one hostile. I'd rather carry extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it. Besides I don't dictate the particulars such as the location of a hostile encounter, the bad guys do.


Don't you have somewhere to be in 26 minutes?
 
2013-02-01 09:42:51 AM  
Welcome to San Angeles.
 
2013-02-01 09:43:36 AM  

Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...


"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.
 
2013-02-01 09:47:45 AM  

dittybopper: Kome: Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Technically we have a right to bear arms, and a nuclear weapon is a type of arms. So the argument isn't invalid.

It's been around forever, and it's known as "The Nuclear Straw Man Argument", and it's been discussed ad infinitum before Fark was even a twinkle in Drew's eye, and found to be seriously wanting.

Short version:  No right is absolute.  Even under the most stringent pro-individual rights interpretation of the Constitution, "strict scrutiny", the government has the ability to control things that are as indiscriminate and dangerous as a nuclear weapon large capacity magazine.


Not saying we should, I'm just pointing out that you're a god damned loony for not recognizing the point being made.  You're right though, we've discussed it ad infinitum.  We gave up not because it was wanting, but because you people are assholes.
 
2013-02-01 09:48:01 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...

"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.


Which (legally speaking) means nothing. The only part of the amendment with any legal weight is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
 
2013-02-01 09:49:00 AM  
"What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulationdeath penalties for the most egregious abusers"

Fixed that for ya.

/didn't read TFA
//or this thread
 
2013-02-01 09:55:43 AM  
If you don't like how an industry does business, but you give them your money anyways, than you're a farking hypocrite.  Then to whine about how they should be regulated because you don't have the balls to go without the services they offer makes you sound like a crybaby.
 
2013-02-01 09:59:51 AM  

Itstoearly: If you don't like how an industry does business, but you give them your money anyways, than you're a farking hypocrite.  Then to whine about how they should be regulated because you don't have the balls to go without the services they offer makes you sound like a crybaby.


And just how exactly is anyone supposed to boycott oil?

Yer dum.
 
2013-02-01 10:02:24 AM  
Workers often choose professions known for a certain dark side -- in particular, violence and aggression -- precisely because they already exhibit those darker qualities. That's why broken cultures, from Wall St. to the gridiron, cannot be fixed from within.

NFL players are taught to hurt people. They want to play the game at any cost. This adds up to a lot of damage: to their brains, sure, but to the rest of their bodies, as well.

A good cop is one who wants to catch bad guys, and when given the choice between taking a nap or keeping the peace, will go out and risk his life and pension to aggressively enforce the law.


I didn't know that Ray Fisman and Tom Sullivan were popular girl names.
 
2013-02-01 10:04:38 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...

"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.


Good, now go look up the 1790s definition of "well regulated" and read the whole thing, dont just stop at where you want to derp.
 
2013-02-01 10:11:30 AM  
Dittybopper: "The Nuclear Straw Man Argument", and it's been discussed ad infinitum before Fark was even a twinkle in Drew's eye, and found to be seriously wanting.
Short version:  No right is absolute.  Even under the most stringent pro-individual rights interpretation of the Constitution, "strict scrutiny", the government has the ability to control things that are as indiscriminate and dangerous as a  nuclear weapon large capacity magazine.

BeesNuts:Not saying we should, I'm just pointing out that you're a god damned loony for not recognizing the point being made.  You're right though, we've discussed it ad infinitum.  We gave up not because it was wanting, but because you people are assholes.I'm British but I can see this is why the US anti gun lobby consistently fail; they meet a point of view that they don't understand and/or agree with and out comes the abuse. Now if you were to exercise a little empathy and try to see what the other guys concerns are and engage with them then you might between you work out a common sense deal on mandatory US wide federal gun storage standards and inspection regimes for example.  But I guess that isn't as much fun as trying BEAT the other guy into submission, failing and hurling insults instead.Oh and if that fails try and muddy the whole issue by making everybody consfused about what a asssault rifle is, don't worry the media will be happy to help you on this. I mean here in the UKthe gun laws are based firmly around what the firearm DOES, not what it looks like. But you US anti gun types wouldn't want that kind of thing over there would you?
 
2013-02-01 10:18:06 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: maxalt: If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone.

Head injuries are just the price we pay to have the greatest sport in the world.


Because no other sport has this problem.  Oh wait.
 
2013-02-01 10:24:11 AM  
Are we talking regular regulated here or liberal/progressive regulated? There is a difference. Anybody who has worked in the oil industry will tell you it is reglalted as will anybody who works in the firearms industry or has purchased a firearm. Many of those reguations self imposed threough orgainizatisn such as API, ISO etc.

So we must assume the writer is applying the liberal/porgressive definition of regulated/unregulated. For example during California's multiple energy shortages the blame was placed on deregualtion despite the fact that retail energy prices were frozen by the the State of California. Normal people would take that as an example of an industry being regulated but not liberals/progressives.

As for more government regualtion being the answer it should be pointed out that goverment's failure to enforce existing regulations has been th source of many of our problems. In the financial sector for example, SEC emplyees were found to be too busy surfing for porn on the internent to be doing their jobs and the government employees at the old MMS found to be to incompetent and corrupt to enforce offshore drilling regualtions.

So one could argue that it is not a lack of existing regualtion but a lack of competent individuals to enforce those regualtions that is the problem.
 
2013-02-01 10:24:45 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.

I carry 3 mags, but I use a 1911 which is sort of short on ammo to start. The main reason I carry 3 mags is because I have a double mag holder. While not everyone is as gifted a marksman as I, nothing says a person can carry only X rounds. It's prudent to carry as much as you can or what you feel comfortable carrying. Even I miss, and there's always the possibility of encountering more than one hostile. I'd rather carry extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it. Besides I don't dictate the particulars such as the location of a hostile encounter, the bad guys do.


OK, lemme move this goal post a bit: If you can reasonably expect to encounter "hostiles", never mind "multiple hostiles" in the course of a normal day then the place you live is already pretty farked up and you should probably not live there or demand the authorities do something to make you less likely to be shot at.

But once you accept that an ordinary person can totally expect to find themselves on one side or another of a gun battle over lunch hour, there's no point in debating whether someone should be carrying this or that many mags.
 
2013-02-01 10:28:26 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...

"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.


I'm just going to leave this here:  http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
 
2013-02-01 10:30:42 AM  

HAMMERTOE: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.


lol- I have close to a hundred coat hangers in my closet. I must be terrified of a fetus uprising!


Or you expect to have to hang a lot of things.
If you carried a hundred coat hangers on your person at all times, the fetus thing would make sense.
 
2013-02-01 10:34:41 AM  

maxalt: So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.



Someone likes the word of the day calendar they got for Christmas.
 
2013-02-01 10:42:26 AM  
"What the gun anything industry, the oil you-name-it business, and the NFL family pet have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation"

Had to make some edits, there. Nobody, no company, and no animal does *anything* contrary to their own interests unless they are forced to by statute... or genetics.
 
2013-02-01 10:50:39 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.

I carry 3 mags, but I use a 1911 which is sort of short on ammo to start. The main reason I carry 3 mags is because I have a double mag holder. While not everyone is as gifted a marksman as I, nothing says a person can carry only X rounds. It's prudent to carry as much as you can or what you feel comfortable carrying. Even I miss, and there's always the possibility of encountering more than one hostile. I'd rather carry extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it. Besides I don't dictate the particulars such as the location of a hostile encounter, the bad guys do.

Don't you have somewhere to be in 26 minutes?



fa·ce·tious/fəˈsēSHəs/AdjectiveTreating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.Synonymsjocose - humorous - jocular - waggish - comic - funny
The idea that the gun control side spouts that "3 rounds is all you need" is based in movie fantasy, where everyone is an expert marksman, deadlier than Chuck Norris and great in bed.I suppose you thought Swift's proposal was in all seriousness too.
 
2013-02-01 10:56:30 AM  

Flakeloaf: OK, lemme move this goal post a bit: If you can reasonably expect to encounter "hostiles", never mind "multiple hostiles" in the course of a normal day then the place you live is already pretty farked up and you should probably not live there or demand the authorities do something to make you less likely to be shot at.


OK, I'll move to Chicago where guns already banned and.... ooh sorry. Find me one place on this planet where violent crime doesn't exist. Or are you arguing a slightly more stupid idea that only rich people can afford to not protect themselves? Remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. While I'd love to "just let the cops handle it", I also prefer not being dead, my wife not raped (or rape-raped for that matter).
 
2013-02-01 10:59:16 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: "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"

I'm just going to leave this here.


The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.
 
2013-02-01 11:01:20 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: OK, lemme move this goal post a bit: If you can reasonably expect to encounter "hostiles", never mind "multiple hostiles" in the course of a normal day then the place you live is already pretty farked up and you should probably not live there or demand the authorities do something to make you less likely to be shot at.

OK, I'll move to Chicago where guns already banned and.... ooh sorry. Find me one place on this planet where violent crime doesn't exist. Or are you arguing a slightly more stupid idea that only rich people can afford to not protect themselves? Remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. While I'd love to "just let the cops handle it", I also prefer not being dead, my wife not raped (or rape-raped for that matter).


There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.
 
2013-02-01 11:05:11 AM  

BeesNuts: dittybopper: Kome: Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Technically we have a right to bear arms, and a nuclear weapon is a type of arms. So the argument isn't invalid.

It's been around forever, and it's known as "The Nuclear Straw Man Argument", and it's been discussed ad infinitum before Fark was even a twinkle in Drew's eye, and found to be seriously wanting.

Short version:  No right is absolute.  Even under the most stringent pro-individual rights interpretation of the Constitution, "strict scrutiny", the government has the ability to control things that are as indiscriminate and dangerous as a nuclear weapon large capacity magazine.

Not saying we should, I'm just pointing out that you're a god damned loony for not recognizing the point being made.  You're right though, we've discussed it ad infinitum.  We gave up not because it was wanting, but because you people are assholes.


I recognize the point being made, and I consider it morally bankrupt, because it equates a device capable all by itself of indiscriminately killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people in an instant with a box that has a spring in it.

One requires billions of dollars and exceedingly rare and controlled materials to manufacture, and the other can be, and is, produced by illiterate peasants in mud huts with hand tools.

Really, we're just arguing about where to draw the line, not in the context of "guns/atomic bombs" but in the context of the capacity of normal, everyday firearms.  Because I am doubtlessly more familiar with firearms than you are, I find it hard to understand how decreasing the capacity of a removable magazine from, say, 20 or 30 rounds to 10 (now 7 in my state) is going to make any difference in these sorts of incidents:  If by some legislative magic you somehow managed to make them all disappear, which is exceedingly unlikely because there are probably upwards of 50 to 100 million in circulation in the US*, you still have two problems:

1. Changing magazines is fast, *VERY* fast.  With very little practice, you can do it in 2 seconds.  That's not going to hinder someone significantly when slaughtering unarmed victims, especially if they plan ahead by bringing more than one gun, as most seem to do.

2. People can make them easily and cheaply.  Right now, you can print a 30 round magazine if you have a 3D printer.  Even if you don't have such a printer, making the body of a 20 round AR-style magazine merely requires you to cut out the proper shape in sheet aluminum and to use a low-tech wooden form and mallet to shape it.  It's just a simple box with a spring and a little doohicky on top of the spring called a "follower".


*My own estimate based upon an estimate of about 10 million "assault weapon" style rifles in circulation (approximately 4 million AR style guns, 4 million AK style guns, and at least 2 million in the "other" category), and an average of 5 to 10 magazines per gun.  Back when I owned an AR-15, I had 6 20 round magazines and a couple of 30 rounders, and that wasn't all that exceptional.  That doesn't include handgun magazines with more than 10 round capacity, which are even more common.
 
2013-02-01 11:09:31 AM  

Ghastly: There isn't a corporation out there that wouldn't gladly murder a million people (especially if they're people off in some third world shiat hole) if they thought there was no chance of getting caught and the murders would lead to an increase of profits.



i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-01 11:09:59 AM  

Carth: Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.


The guns were very practical in the scenarios given, the source irrelevant. Had those populations been armed, occupiers would have faced even greater resistance. In your mind the chance of the United States facing the threat of tyranny, internal or external, is impossible in principle? It's surprising how many countries found that incorrect. Some founders even drew a lesson from it.
 
2013-02-01 11:15:08 AM  

Flakeloaf: There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.


Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why?
 
2013-02-01 11:22:09 AM  

neenerist: Carth: Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.

The guns were very practical in the scenarios given, the source irrelevant. Had those populations been armed, occupiers would have faced even greater resistance. In your mind the chance of the United States facing the threat of tyranny, internal or external, is impossible in principle? It's surprising how many countries found that incorrect. Some founders even drew a lesson from it.


That may have been relevant then, but I'm not sure about how effective a few hundred thousand civilians with small arms would be today because of that whole not having planes and bombs thing. The far more likely threat would be the inevitable sedition and civil war that would come from the government invoking the insurrection act in order to prolong a regime generally regarded as tyrannical.

The "well-armed militia" would be a nuisance, sure, and they'd probably kill more than a few footmen and take hold of some lesser government offices for a spell, but their longevity would be dictated largely by the unwillingness of the opposing force to kill them and not because of the threat they pose in their own right.
 
2013-02-01 11:30:30 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.

Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why?


Just in case I run over one of your strawmen in the street, I guess.

A tire going flat is a reasonably foreseeable occurrence that we have all either experienced firsthand or actually seen several times. It's happened to me personally twice, and I've seen it on just about every road trip of more than a hundred kilometres or so. But I've gotten out of bed and walked around on this rock for near-on 36 years and have never once been within a mile of a gunfight in the middle of the street, never mind personally been threatened with a gun, even during the seven years for which intervening in gun fights was my actual paying job. Well ok there was this one time that an ANP guy shot his partner after the guy buttstroked him for being late to work and I heard the shot from my room about 30 yards away, but that was in Afghanistan and doesn't really contradict my underlying point here: If gunfights are the sort of thing that happen in your neighbourhood literally every day then 1) you live in a dangerously savage place and are right to be afraid and 2) nobody should be able to tell you how that carrying a pile of ammo around with you everywhere you go is more than a bit paranoid.
 
2013-02-01 11:33:36 AM  
In other news, the gun industry, oil producers and the NFL are consenting adults engaging in legal productive economic activity supplying goods and services to other consenting adults.

Can't have that, I guess.
 
2013-02-01 11:34:32 AM  
Atlantic Magazine Editorial Board claps in approval. Will not rest until there is Total Party Unity. Individual freedom not allowed. Must all be same.

assets.vice.com assets.vice.com
 
2013-02-01 11:37:38 AM  

Flakeloaf: neenerist: Carth: Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.

The guns were very practical in the scenarios given, the source irrelevant. Had those populations been armed, occupiers would have faced even greater resistance. In your mind the chance of the United States facing the threat of tyranny, internal or external, is impossible in principle? It's surprising how many countries found that incorrect. Some founders even drew a lesson from it.

That may have been relevant then, but I'm not sure about how effective a few hundred thousand civilians with small arms would be today because of that whole not having planes and bombs thing. The far more likely threat would be the inevitable sedition and civil war that would come from the government invoking the insurrection act in order to prolong a regime generally regarded as tyrannical.

The "well-armed militia" would be a nuisance, sure, and they'd probably kill more than a few footmen and take hold of some lesser government offices for a spell, but their longevity would be dictated largely by the unwillingness of the opposing force to kill them and not because of the threat they pose in their own right.


Several things drive the effectiveness of civilian resistance vs an oppressive government.  First off would be the government's willingness to order harsh reprisals.  Second is the military's stomach for actually following those orders.  That aside, here are some considerations:

1 - no one in their right mind would try to stand up in a straight fight with our military (outside of another superpower).  Iraq showed as that's damned foolish.  It took a few days or so for us to basically eliminate the 4th largest army in the world (at that time).  Subsequent occupation was a different thing.
2 - As Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown us, it becomes significantly more difficult to deal with a population that's actively resisting instead of fighting out in the open.
3 - Remember that the military takes an oath to the Constitution, not the President.  As such, it's very possible that many would just sit on their hands rather than take an active roll in the oppression.  Another option would be to half-ass the oppression to the point of making it ineffective.
4 - Some military units might actually elect to actively aid and abet the resistance.  If not entire units, specific individuals.
5 - The resistance doesn't even have to take out the actual units.  They can disrupt the supply chain quite nicely, which eventually renders tanks and other machines useless as they can't move, start, etc.
6 - Targeting doesn't even have to be military members.  It could be focused on politicians.  Remember, there are something on the order of 300 million firearms out there.  To think the government could effectively reduce that number by any appreciable amount without going to plaid levels of stupid (house to house searches with metal detectors, etc - and even then it wouldn't work due to manpower constraints, the above aiding and abetting) means that lots of folks will still have access to firearms.  200-300yd shots aren't all that difficult.  Blending into a sympathetic population is certainly easy.

The goal of resistance like this is to a) never have to use it by making the costs to high and then b) if forced to actively resist, damn well make the costs so high that it's simply unsustainable.
 
2013-02-01 11:38:43 AM  

Flakeloaf: neenerist: Carth: Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.

The guns were very practical in the scenarios given, the source irrelevant. Had those populations been armed, occupiers would have faced even greater resistance. In your mind the chance of the United States facing the threat of tyranny, internal or external, is impossible in principle? It's surprising how many countries found that incorrect. Some founders even drew a lesson from it.

That may have been relevant then, but I'm not sure about how effective a few hundred thousand civilians with small arms would be today because of that whole not having planes and bombs thing. The far more likely threat would be the inevitable sedition and civil war that would come from the government invoking the insurrection act in order to prolong a regime generally regarded as tyrannical.

The "well-armed militia" would be a nuisance, sure, and they'd probably kill more than a few footmen and take hold of some lesser government offices for a spell, but their longevity would be dictated largely by the unwillingness of the opposing force to kill them and not because of the threat they pose in their own right.


Exactly. It is telling the only examples of successful violent revolutions people can come up with are ones that were funded and armed by a great or superpowers. Anything else is just a drone strike away from being stopped.
 
2013-02-01 11:39:19 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...

"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.


And it means nothing.  And it will spawn another 100 posts of pointless, tired debate about semantics.

Gee, thanks for leaving that here.  We're all so grateful.
 
2013-02-01 11:39:26 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.

Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why?


In your country you have the right to carry whatever weapons and ammo you think you're going to need to make it from A to B in one piece. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to, and many of the countries of the world are full of people who are appalled that a reasonable person in a modern country would even think it necessary.
 
2013-02-01 11:42:32 AM  

Flakeloaf: If gunfights are the sort of thing that happen in your neighbourhood literally every day then 1) you live in a dangerously savage place and are right to be afraid and 2) nobody should be able to tell you how that carrying a pile of ammo around with you everywhere you go is more than a bit paranoid.


Sample size of 1.

I never said that violent crime is an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood. But it's going to suck when it turns out to be That Day and you don't have one. At the end of the day, I've inconvenienced nobody except myself. Same reason why one has a spare tire, a rubber in their wallet, or insurance - better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Not a lot of crime happens in my neighborhood, less so violent crime. But even in this little slice of sanity, I've had occasion to draw my weapon on someone. Things just happen. You do not get to dicate the where and when.
 
2013-02-01 11:45:11 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.

Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why?

Just in case I run over one of your strawmen in the street, I guess.

A tire going flat is a reasonably foreseeable occurrence that we have all either experienced firsthand or actually seen several times. It's happened to me personally twice, and I've seen it on just about every road trip of more than a hundred kilometres or so. But I've gotten out of bed and walked around on this rock for near-on 36 years and have never once been within a mile of a gunfight in the middle of the street, never mind personally been threatened with a gun, even during the seven years for which intervening in gun fights was my actual paying job. Well ok there was this one time that an ANP guy shot his partner after the guy buttstroked him for being late to work and I heard the shot from my room about 30 yards away, but that was in Afghanistan and doesn't really contradict my underlying point here: If gunfights are the sort of thing that happen in your neighbourhood literally every day then 1) you live in a dangerously savage place and are right to be afraid and 2) nobody should be able to tell you how that carrying a pile of ammo around with you everywhere you go is more than a bit paranoid.


1 - see the bolded part.  You have sucky maintenance of your vehicles or sucky roads.  I put 55K miles on my current set of tires, including 2 week long trips to Moab, UT for off-roading, several other trips, and many drives around the country and have had all of one flat.  That was on the trails in Utah (Elephant Hill) and was a freak occurrence.

Spare tires, tool sets, fire extinguishers, seat belts, home alarms, and all sorts of items that are designed to prevent or less the impact of a bad situation exist.  Firearms (and personal carry) are no different.  One does this because it's possible that something could go wrong.  It might be a once in a lifetime event - or it might not happen at all.  That doesn't mean appropriate preparations shouldn't be available if a person elects to take them.

Why elects?  Because then it's that person's choice.  The choice isn't removed from them - they get to make it.  If they elect not to carry or have any of the safety devices listed above, great.  They may or may not ever need them.  If they choose to carry or have them, great.  They may not ever need them.  But let the individual make the choice and live the with the consequences.
 
2013-02-01 11:47:37 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: Flakeloaf: There's a big difference between "a place where violent crime exists" and "a place where the citizenry must always walk around armed with handguns to respond to the inevitable and foreseeable shootings that occur on a regular basis".

You must live with a lot of fear.

Do you have a spare tire in your car? Why?

In your country you have the right to carry whatever weapons and ammo you think you're going to need to make it from A to B in one piece. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to, and many of the countries of the world are full of people who are appalled that a reasonable person in a modern country would even think it necessary.


I'm appalled that someone in a modern country would feel that it's appropriate to entrust their personal safety to others rather than themselves.
 
2013-02-01 11:49:05 AM  

Sensei Can You See: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS decided the right to privacy included the right to have an abortion.


Which, on a constitutional level is clearly trumped by the child's right to live. But that is ignored for what reason? Oh yeah, I think jbuist said it earlier, it is because politicians are.... "Just doing SOMETHING to make their constituents happy ".
 
2013-02-01 11:50:38 AM  

Flakeloaf: In your country you have the right to carry whatever weapons and ammo you think you're going to need to make it from A to B in one piece. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to, and many of the countries of the world are full of people who are appalled that a reasonable person in a modern country would even think it necessary.


No, we shouldn't have to but we do. But violent crime exists even in those countries that are appalled that a reasonable person in a moden world would think it's necessary. The difference is that in this country, we're allowed to be prepared for that situation.
 
2013-02-01 11:53:15 AM  

Joe Blowme: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve:"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"

I'm just going to leave this here.

Good, now go look up the 1790s definition of "well regulated" and read the whole thing, don't just stop at where you want to derp.


RickN99: I'm just going to leave this here:  http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


"Disclaimer:
The information on this site is not "legal advice" that might help you achieve favorable outcomes in a court. If you seek an outcome in your case, rather than to take a principled position or to reform the system, you should consult a local lawyer familiar with the facts and "law" in your case
"

I've looked into it. That seems like a very reasonable and reliable site and does a great job making "well-regulated" a debatable term. It's really unfortunate there's no site available to give an unbiased interpretation of that terminology. I'm not anti-gun, I'm just concerned by the lack of proper safety, usage and the availability of firearms in modern North America. Firearms are an important part of our culture, I just think we're due forreassessing how we manage them. Let me ask you this, the second amendment was an alteration to the constitution, why is that amendment so inalterable when the constitution itself can see such changes? Since then there have been 25 other alterations in the last 220+ years and countless other laws made which impact how we view the constitution itself. The second amendment was put into law for a reason. It IS important and isn't something to be disregarded or fiddled with frequently but technology has changed since 1791. Society has changed. The impact of this law has changed. The quibbling about high-capacity magazines and pistol grips is driving everyone up the wall.   Maybe it's about time to have REASONED DEBATE about the future of firearms in America.

CthulhuCalling: The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.


Well that is just a mess.
 
2013-02-01 11:54:34 AM  

mamoru: Livingroom: And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain.

Last time I checked, the US Constitution says nothing at all about guns. It does, however, have some words about the subject of "arms", which is short for "armaments". Would you care to clarify how nuclear weapons are not armaments? Because I do seem to remember some kind of Cold War which very strongly involved "arms races" of building more and better nuclear weapons than the other guy.

Or would you care to explain why we could be sane enough as a society to ignore the literal words of the 2nd amendment in order to restrict access to such destructive armaments, but for some reason we are absolutely forbidden coming up with sane regulations with sane restrictions on access to smaller arms?

And, please notice, I said "sane regulations" and "sane restrictions". I clearly did not say BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!! I also did not say that such regulations or restrictions would SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS!!!!!

So please don't frame any responses as if I had.


It says to "Bear Arms".  As in to carry.  Reading comprehension and whatnot...
 
2013-02-01 11:55:28 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.

Well that is just a mess.


Your handwaving doesn't make it any less true.
 
2013-02-01 12:00:33 PM  
I live in an area of the country in which there are 3 firearms for every 2 people. Open carry of guns is legal and concealed carry permits are Shall Issue. I carry a gun every day much like I do my cell phone or wallet.

Crime is very low. Muggings are unhead of, house break ins are vanishingly rare. Children play unsupervised. People are friendly and strangers talk to eachother in the park or supermarket.

Polite. Law abiding. Armed.
 
2013-02-01 12:17:29 PM  

LargeCanine: I live in an area of the country in which there are 3 firearms for every 2 people. Open carry of guns is legal and concealed carry permits are Shall Issue. I carry a gun every day much like I do my cell phone or wallet.

Crime is very low. Muggings are unhead of, house break ins are vanishingly rare. Children play unsupervised. People are friendly and strangers talk to eachother in the park or supermarket.

Polite. Law abiding. Armed.


You live in South Dakota. There are like three people in the entire state. Of course you're polite.
 
2013-02-01 12:24:57 PM  

ronaprhys:

I'm appalled that someone in a modern country would feel that it's appropriate to entrust their personal safety to others rather than themselves.

Safety from what? The omnipresent threat of gun violence that necessitates self-protection is a local phenomenon; we don't live in that kind of fear here. We've had exactly one drive-by murder. Ask anyone in this town over thirty about "the drive-by" and I will give you a beer if that person can't come up with the name of Nicholas Battersby as the victim. Gun violence is extermely rare here and the few shootings that do happen are gang-on-gang. Their target discrimination is pretty good (even if their aim is not, as anyone from Toronto could expand upon) and that makes the shooters ridiculously easy to catch and throw in jail. Our police are pretty effective in that regard.

ronaprhys: 1 - see the bolded part. You have sucky maintenance of your vehicles or sucky roads.


I had a neighbour who was a farkwit and didn't count the nails he was using at the end of his driveway. I can't speak for all of those other muppets though, but statistically, in this place, someone is more likely to get a flat than they are to get a hole in the head.

Spare tires, tool sets, fire extinguishers, seat belts, home alarms, and all sorts of items that are designed to prevent or less the impact of a bad situation exist. Firearms (and personal carry) are no different. One does this because it's possible that something could go wrong. It might be a once in a lifetime event - or it might not happen at all. That doesn't mean appropriate preparations shouldn't be available if a person elects to take them.

Possible and probable are two different things. It is possible just about anywhere. It is not probable here so it is not what we do. That doesn't make it objectively wrong to continue to do it in places where getting shot at is probable.

Either way that's not a bell you can un-ring now. Some guys in your government a long time ago thought it would be a good idea to arm the public. The public is made of people, lots of people are stupid, greedy, careless or insane and they're using these weapons to kill each other. The only two solutions are to remove all civilian weapons from the entire country and beat them into ploughshares like a good Christian nation, or to make sure literally every single person in the country has a loaded AR-15 and at least one backup pistol just in case a Mexican kid pulls a three-pointer in the driveway. That first one just simply isn't going to happen, so you'd may as well just step back and let the public have whatever firearms they think they need to protect themselves from each other. Seriously that part isn't hyperbole, banning a kind of rifle or mag or a round that explodes into boiling hot radioactive acid and bees will just leave the public less able to defend themselves and that's not fair.

The rest of us can look on with horrified pity for the ordinary people who honestly (truthfully or otherwise) believe they require a gun to survive the day and say that it shouldn't be that way. That's what I'm doing.
 
2013-02-01 12:29:21 PM  

hdhale: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: maxalt: If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone.

Head injuries are just the price we pay to have the greatest sport in the world.

Because no other sport has this problem.  Oh wait.


My comment was meant to reference a popular counter-argument to increased gun regulation.
 
2013-02-01 12:39:35 PM  

Carth: AdamK: one of these things is not like the other things...

seriously tho, american football is entertainment, the fact that it has that much money in it for players is partially why they're willing to be so risky in the first place... even the ones who love it for the game itself only got there on the backs of programs built with oodles of cash

point being, oil and gun industries are far more directly involved in our way of life than one league of one sport, regulating the sport has less to do with public safety and more to do with guilt-free time wasting

What about the young children and high school students who play football, don't fully understand the risks, and suffer from multiple subconcussive impacts?


i'm all for education, that's part of that whole pesky "school teams" bit

i just don't see sports in the same context as guns and oil since it's entirely a participatory environment, not one that regularly affects everybody whether intended or not
 
2013-02-01 12:40:59 PM  

mamoru: felons


i'm not entirely sure if i agree. they can still buy guns perfectly well... just muzzle loaders. this includes muzzle loading revolvers. per the ATF website. soooo... while it's a technical infringement, you can still buy them. and ultimately, you could buy them up until what, 1968? and i dont agree with NFA or GCA1968 anyway, i think they're bogus.
 
2013-02-01 12:42:47 PM  

Livingroom: mamoru: felons

i'm not entirely sure if i agree. they can still buy guns perfectly well... just muzzle loaders. this includes muzzle loading revolvers. per the ATF website. not from stores, soooo... while it's a technical infringement, you can still buy them. and ultimately, you could buy them up until what, 1968? and i dont agree with NFA or GCA1968 anyway, i think they're bogus.

 
2013-02-01 12:43:23 PM  

lenfromak: whidbey: What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation

The oil and firearms industries are the most regulated that I have seen.


Not really.  Both still have an ungodly amount of power over this country.
 
2013-02-01 12:44:53 PM  

CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.

Well that is just a mess.

Your handwaving doesn't make it any less true.


The issue being your self-contradictory mutterings. If you could perhaps rephrase all of this so I understand what you mean to say I could offer a more satisfying response
 
2013-02-01 12:48:32 PM  

Flakeloaf: Livingroom: mamoru: felons

i'm not entirely sure if i agree. they can still buy guns perfectly well... just muzzle loaders. this includes muzzle loading revolvers. per the ATF website. not from stores, soooo... while it's a technical infringement, you can still buy them. and ultimately, you could buy them up until what, 1968? and i dont agree with NFA or GCA1968 anyway, i think they're bogus.


yes, they can buy them from stores. "antique" firearms do not require a background check and are (per the ATF) considered legal to own by felons. the definition of antique firearm includes any black-powder gun.
 
2013-02-01 12:49:45 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.

Well that is just a mess.

Your handwaving doesn't make it any less true.

The issue being your self-contradictory mutterings. If you could perhaps rephrase all of this so I understand what you mean to say I could offer a more satisfying response


If you can't keep up, don't interject yourself into the conversation.


The right to keep and bear arms is a right that belongs to the people. Membership in a militia is irrelevant.
 
2013-02-01 01:00:04 PM  
Hm, this is kinda neat: The US isn't even in the top ten for gun-related homicides per capita worldwide. Only 3.6 per hundred thousand people are likely to be murdered by a gun. El Salvador loses more than 50 per hundred thousand to that same cause of death. Canada's rate is 0.5. Romania reports a mystifying 0.04.
 
2013-02-01 01:02:24 PM  

Flakeloaf: Hm, this is kinda neat: The US isn't even in the top ten for gun-related homicides per capita worldwide


So since we're not as bad as the violence El Salvador (which we had a hand in causing, BTW)  we shouldn't do the right thing of enacting any kind of sensible gun regulation system in our country because it isn't necessary to do so in a progressive society, we're cool enough.

Yeah, that's what you said.
 
2013-02-01 01:03:51 PM  

CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: The militia does not possess the right to bear arms. It is a right of the people. Says it right there. A militia is a group of people, each of him individually have the right to keep and bear arms, not by virtue of membership in any particular group.

Well that is just a mess.

Your handwaving doesn't make it any less true.

The issue being your self-contradictory mutterings. If you could perhaps rephrase all of this so I understand what you mean to say I could offer a more satisfying response

If you can't keep up, don't interject yourself into the conversation.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right that belongs to the people. Membership in a militia is irrelevant.


That's better. Glad to see there's nothing contradictory with anything I've said here. Proceed with your aggression.
 
2013-02-01 01:09:14 PM  

mamoru: Livingroom: The rights of convicted felons to legally buy firearms is infringed.


Felons explicitly have rights removed as punishment. This is like their voting rights, or even rights to associate (felons while on parole can have restrictions on with whom they can associate, on pain of returning to prison).
 
2013-02-01 01:12:16 PM  
What they also have in common is that none of them need to be any more regulated than they already are today.
 
2013-02-01 01:12:50 PM  
The vagina is sandy with this one.
 
2013-02-01 01:16:13 PM  

CthulhuCalling: The right to keep and bear arms is a right that belongs to the people. Membership in a militia is irrelevant.


Then why is the Amendment NOT worded to say simply "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Why do you feel the Founding Fathers felt the need to clarify the statement with other qualifiers?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why for example, is there a comma after the word "Arms?"

In other words,  the 2nd Amendment really isn't as cut and dried as some insist it is, and is subject to legal interpretation--the same as all of the Constitutional Amendments per Marbury v Madison .
 
2013-02-01 01:19:08 PM  

whidbey: In other words,  the 2nd Amendment really isn't as cut and dried as some insist it is, and is subject to legal interpretation--the same as all of the Constitutional Amendments per Marbury v Madison .


Perhaps by the SCotUS.  Perhaps as it has been repeatedly over the last decade.  Perhaps to a conclusion that the People in the 2nd Amendment are the same People as in the other Amendments, and that the prefatory clause doesn't matter with reference to those rights.
 
2013-02-01 01:20:40 PM  

whidbey: Flakeloaf: Hm, this is kinda neat: The US isn't even in the top ten for gun-related homicides per capita worldwide

So since we're not as bad as the violence El Salvador (which we had a hand in causing, BTW)  we shouldn't do the right thing of enacting any kind of sensible gun regulation system in our country because it isn't necessary to do so in a progressive society, we're cool enough.

Yeah, that's what you said.


No, I said that one you've armed the populace you will never disarm them and all sorts of stupid, expensive things will happen if you try. Go ahead and ban the AK and eleventy-dozen-round mags if it makes you feel better. I'll even assume a fantasy world where all banned things cease to exist. Your bad guy will just bring more mags or more weapons. Either everyone has guns or nobody does.
 
2013-02-01 01:23:26 PM  

stevarooni: whidbey: In other words,  the 2nd Amendment really isn't as cut and dried as some insist it is, and is subject to legal interpretation--the same as all of the Constitutional Amendments per Marbury v Madison .

Perhaps by the SCotUS.  Perhaps as it has been repeatedly over the last decade.  Perhaps to a conclusion that the People in the 2nd Amendment are the same People as in the other Amendments, and that the prefatory clause doesn't matter with reference to those rights.


I would still like an official legal definition of the "prefatory clause," or at least a link to some Federalist Paper I haven't read or some letter which explaiins why the Founding Fathers didn't just go for the literal meaning that many interpret it as.

Yes, I realize in 2008 the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the individual.  I haven't looked at that case, maybe the clarification is there.
 
2013-02-01 01:26:31 PM  

Flakeloaf: Yeah, that's what you said.

No, I said that one you've armed the populace you will never disarm them and all sorts of stupid, expensive things will happen if you try. Go ahead and ban the AK and eleventy-dozen-round mags if it makes you feel better. I'll even assume a fantasy world where all banned things cease to exist. Your bad guy will just bring more mags or more weapons. Either everyone has guns or nobody does.


The populace is already armed.   Regulating the means by which people acquire those weapons isn't "disarming" them.
 
2013-02-01 01:27:01 PM  

Flakeloaf: Livingroom: mamoru: felons

i'm not entirely sure if i agree. they can still buy guns perfectly well... just muzzle loaders. this includes muzzle loading revolvers. per the ATF website. not from stores, soooo... while it's a technical infringement, you can still buy them. and ultimately, you could buy them up until what, 1968? and i dont agree with NFA or GCA1968 anyway, i think they're bogus.


Yes from stores.  There is no NICS check for muzzleloading firearms, or indeed for firearms manufactured before 1898, whether they are muzzleloaders or not.

You can walk into a store, purchase a Uberti or Pietta copy of a .44 caliber Remington 1858 New Army revolver, and walk out no questions asked.

You can even buy them through the mail, and they'll ship them right to your door.
 
2013-02-01 01:28:53 PM  

whidbey: stevarooni: whidbey: In other words,  the 2nd Amendment really isn't as cut and dried as some insist it is, and is subject to legal interpretation--the same as all of the Constitutional Amendments per Marbury v Madison .

Perhaps by the SCotUS.  Perhaps as it has been repeatedly over the last decade.  Perhaps to a conclusion that the People in the 2nd Amendment are the same People as in the other Amendments, and that the prefatory clause doesn't matter with reference to those rights.

I would still like an official legal definition of the "prefatory clause," or at least a link to some Federalist Paper I haven't read or some letter which explaiins why the Founding Fathers didn't just go for the literal meaning that many interpret it as.

Yes, I realize in 2008 the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the individual.  I haven't looked at that case, maybe the clarification is there.


It is there:

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
 
2013-02-01 01:29:28 PM  

whidbey: CthulhuCalling: The right to keep and bear arms is a right that belongs to the people. Membership in a militia is irrelevant.

Then why is the Amendment NOT worded to say simply "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Why do you feel the Founding Fathers felt the need to clarify the statement with other qualifiers?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why for example, is there a comma after the word "Arms?"

In other words,  the 2nd Amendment really isn't as cut and dried as some insist it is, and is subject to legal interpretation--the same as all of the Constitutional Amendments per Marbury v Madison .


It is actually- "I like pie, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does my declaration of pie change the meaning of the Amendment in any way? What happens if I don't like pie, or you don't like pie? What kind of pie? Do pizzas count as pie?! They're not even American! Irrelevant.

The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.
 
2013-02-01 01:30:47 PM  

whidbey: I would still like an official legal definition of the "prefatory clause," or at least a link to some Federalist Paper I haven't read or some letter which explaiins why the Founding Fathers didn't just go for the literal meaning that many interpret it as.


Even if you don't ignore the prefatory clause (meaning: relating to a preface, in case you think that there's some magical definition I'm using; "that first part before the operative clause of the sentence"), the language of the clause  at the time of the writing means that the militia (all able-bodied men) should be capable of acting as a militia (meaning, equipped sufficiently and practiced at using their arms and tactical procedures).  So, in order that all of the people (upgrade to avoid sexism, as we do) are able to react by bringing suitable weapons of a national defense force, "the right of the people shall not be infringed".  Until the Civil War and the risk of black people having  that right, too, there's no significant dispute that the right was anything but an individual one.
 
2013-02-01 01:32:06 PM  

CthulhuCalling: The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.


I dunno.  So what's stopping the "militia" from having nuclear weaponry as part of the arsenal?

I seriously doubt the 2nd Amendment is that absolute.
 
2013-02-01 01:34:41 PM  

whidbey: So since we're not as bad as the violence El Salvador (which we had a hand in causing, BTW)  we shouldn't do the right thing of enacting any kind of sensible gun regulation system in our country because it isn't necessary to do so in a progressive society, we're cool enough.

Yeah, that's what you said.


You're assuming we don't already have enough regulation in place that's either not followed, not enforced properly, etc.  Also, you're potentially assuming that any of the suggestions that are floating around right now, specifically Obama's proposal, would actually do anything to curb or lower the homicide rate.  Everything he's suggested has been tried before and hasn't work or is already a law and some states, for some reason, don't seem to be following it.

Flakeloaf: ronaprhys:

Safety from what? The omnipresent threat of gun violence that necessitates self-protection is a local phenomenon; we don't live in that kind of fear here. We've had exactly one drive-by murder. Ask anyone in this town over thirty about "the drive-by" and I will give you a beer if that person can't come up with the name of Nicholas Battersby as the victim. Gun violence is extermely rare here and the few shootings that do happen are gang-on-gang. Their target discrimination is pretty good (even if their aim is not, as anyone from Toronto could expand upon) and that makes the shooters ridiculously easy to catch and throw in jail. Our police are pretty effective in that regard.


Where I live is pretty safe, too.  Hell, I'm pretty safe from house fires (new house, new appliances, mostly electric and not gas) too.  I still have more than one fire extinguisher just in case.  A firearm is no different.  In all honesty, outside of gang neighborhoods, firearm violence in the US is on par with Canada and other countries.  However, why remove someone's ability to prepare if they want to?

Also, I do like to hike and camp.  Who knows what we'll run across in the woods.

ronaprhys: 1 - see the bolded part. You have sucky maintenance of your vehicles or sucky roads.

I had a neighbour who was a farkwit and didn't count the nails he was using at the end of his driveway. I can't speak for all of those other muppets though, but statistically, in this place, someone is more likely to get a flat than they are to get a hole in the head.


That seems to be at odds with your statement.  You said it happens on almost every road trip of any substantial length.  That's different than my neighbor's an idiot.  What gives?

Possible and probable are two different things. It is possible just about anywhere. It is not probable here so it is not what we do. That doesn't make it objectively wrong to continue to do it in places where getting shot at is probable.

Yeah - and I addressed possible and probably in my statement. Very clearly (once in a lifetime ring a bell).  All I'm saying is that you should have a choice.  You do not have that choice.  We do.  I'd like to the ability for us to choose to continue.  If someone doesn't want to own a firearm or carry a firearm - that's great.  It's not my problem.  But don't take away my right to do so.

Either way that's not a bell you can un-ring now. Some guys in your government a long time ago thought it would be a good idea to arm the public. The public is made of people, lots of people are stupid, greedy, careless or insane and they're using these weapons to kill each other. The only two solutions are to remove all civilian weapons from the entire country and beat them into ploughshares like a good Christian nation, or to make sure literally every single person in the country has a loaded AR-15 and at least one backup pistol just in case a Mexican kid pulls a three-pointer in the driveway. That first one just simply isn't going to happen, so you'd may as well just step back and let the public have whatever firearms they think they need to protect themselves from each other. Seriously that part isn't hyperbole, banning a kind of rifle or mag or a round that explodes into boiling hot radioactive acid and bees will just leave the public less able to defend themselves and that's not fair.

Yes - they did.  Look at the history of why they made that determination.  Those reasons are still just as true today as they were back then.  It's not my fault you don't understand our history.

As for the killings, if you look at the statistics, the vast majority of said killings are gang or drug related.  Somewhere north of 99% of the law-abiding firearm owners (there will always be some that snap or do something stupid) never commit a crime with their firearm.  Ever.

As for your solutions, does the word hyperbole mean anything to you?  Neither of those are solutions.  They're both the extremes.  Try again.

The rest of us can look on with horrified pity for the ordinary people who honestly (truthfully or otherwise) believe they require a gun to survive the day and say that it shouldn't be that way. That's what I'm doing.
 
No one is saying they require a firearm at all times.  What we're saying is that they should have the choice - and not leave that choice to someone in Washington who has no idea what their particular situation is.
 
2013-02-01 01:37:57 PM  

whidbey: CthulhuCalling: The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.

I dunno.  So what's stopping the "militia" from having nuclear weaponry as part of the arsenal?

I seriously doubt the 2nd Amendment is that absolute.


You're still stuck on this militia thing. The right to keep and bear arms does not belong to a militia. Your right to own a gun is not dependent on your membership in any paramilitary group. Now stop it with the nuclear bomb argument. It's silly and stupid. See dittybopper's reference on the Nuclear Straw Man Argument

The major barrier to possessing any military-grade firepower? Cost.
 
2013-02-01 01:39:37 PM  

whidbey: CthulhuCalling: The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.

I dunno.  So what's stopping the "militia" from having nuclear weaponry as part of the arsenal?

I seriously doubt the 2nd Amendment is that absolute.


Arms vs armaments vs ordnance.  These are all separate things and the Founders knew that, too.
 
2013-02-01 01:44:03 PM  

dittybopper: Short version: No right is absolute. Even under the most stringent pro-individual rights interpretation of the Constitution, "strict scrutiny", the government has the ability to control things that are as indiscriminate and dangerous as a nuclear weapon.


CthulhuCalling: See dittybopper's reference on the Nuclear Straw Man Argument


I'm totally fine with this  analysis   Noted.
 
2013-02-01 01:45:04 PM  

ronaprhys: whidbey: CthulhuCalling: The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.

I dunno.  So what's stopping the "militia" from having nuclear weaponry as part of the arsenal?

I seriously doubt the 2nd Amendment is that absolute.

Arms vs armaments vs ordnance.  These are all separate things and the Founders knew that, too.


Some of us own ordnance.  I've got a mortar.  I can "bear" it, but just barely, and I certainly wouldn't want to fire it while holding it.

Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, individuals also owned ordnance.  Privately owned cannons weren't necessarily common, mainly due to their high cost, but they did exist.
 
2013-02-01 01:46:40 PM  

ronaprhys: You're assuming we don't already have enough regulation in place that's either not followed, not enforced properly, etc. Also, you're potentially assuming that any of the suggestions that are floating around right now, specifically Obama's proposal, would actually do anything to curb or lower the homicide rate. Everything he's suggested has been tried before and hasn't work or is already a law and some states, for some reason, don't seem to be following it.


Agreed. If there are already provisions on the books, then they need to be enforced.

Their not being enforced indicates that we really do not have a comprehensive system of firearms regulation in practice.
 
2013-02-01 02:02:41 PM  

CthulhuCalling:  Membership in a militia is irrelevant.
It is actually- "I like pie, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does my declaration of pie change the meaning of the Amendment in any way? What happens if I don't like pie, or you don't like pie? What kind of pie? Do pizzas count as pie?! They're not even American! Irrelevant.

The "well regulated militia" part is just a clause, some context as to WHY the right of the People shall not be infringed. It's very cut and dry and says right there in the text: the right of the PEOPLE, not "members of a well-regulated militia". Remember that the Bill of Rights is not granting us our freedoms. We already have them by virtue of being born. The BoR is a set of prohibitions on what the Government can do.

You're still stuck on this militia thing. The right to keep and bear arms does not belong to a militia. Your right to own a gun is not dependent on your membership in any paramilitary group. Now stop it with the nuclear bomb argument. It's silly and stupid. See dittybopper's reference on the Nuclear Straw Man Argument


Sorry to jump back in, but it seems as though you've elected that the words you choose to have no bearing. As seen in this thread alone here is the second amendment wording as you see it:

"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."

Now I'm sure using my words will get me nowhere with you, as such I'm going to use those of someone who took part in the adoption of the amendment into law. Albiet he was a Federalist.

"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.
...If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia."


 - Alexander Hamilton

So now I ask you, do those words you choose to disregard have no bearing on the law? Or is the general public afforded a looser interpretation of the second amendment than originally intended?
 
2013-02-01 02:13:05 PM  

ronaprhys: firearm violence in the US is on par with Canada and other countries.


Nope. Our per capita gun death rate is a sixth of what yours is and most of that happens in Toronto :)

That seems to be at odds with your statement.  You said it happens on almost every road trip of any substantial length.  That's different than my neighbor's an idiot.  What gives?

I see people with flat tires on every road trip. I myself have had two flat tires.

No one is saying they require a firearm at all times.

Livingroom did in this very thread. That's where my argument started.

Yes - they did.  Look at the history of why they made that determination.  Those reasons are still just as true today as they were back then.  It's not my fault you don't understand our history.

As for the killings, if you look at the statistics, the vast majority of said killings are gang or drug related.  Somewhere north of 99% of the law-abiding firearm owners (there will always be some that snap or do something stupid) never commit a crime with their firearm.  Ever.

As for your solutions, does the word hyperbole mean anything to you?  Neither of those are solutions.  They're both the extremes.  Try again.


I understand your history just fine. Their decision made sense then. One could argue that it makes sense now even though an armed populace won't be particularly effective against internal tyranny. They would, however, be spectacularly good at repelling external tyranny and every living thing on the planet knows it.

Hyperbole is just how I lampshade things to stop them from getting too serious because this is the internet and we're way too laid back for that shiat.If the problem is "people are using guns to kill each other" then you either fix the guns or the people. Can't really fix the gun thing because everybody has them now, so you need to do a better job of controlling crazy people. If that system fails, acivilian's only recourseis with a gun (despite the fact that this very nearly never happens). Most thinking adults know that licensed, legal gun owners are not the problem.

I made the mistake of conflating gang violence with the massacres that inspired your current legislative debate. They're two different problems. One is from criminals using illegal weapons to do bad things mostly to each other, and one is from deranged individuals using a weapon (or a series of weapons) to kill a lotta buncha people in a single place. Neither of these problems can be fixed with legislating away a kind of gun or a magazine, or by taking these things away from people who are licensed to have them.

Yeah - and I addressed possible and probably in my statement. Very clearly (once in a lifetime ring a bell).  All I'm saying is that you should have a choice.  You do not have that choice.  We do.  I'd like to the ability for us to choose to continue.  If someone doesn't want to own a firearm or carry a firearm - that's great.  It's not my problem.  But don't take away my right to do so.

Extending that choice is the tip of the spear that sent my people this way and your people that way. What each of us does wouldn't make sense for the other. But we can still totally hang out, right? I'm not drinking all this beer myself.
 
2013-02-01 02:13:46 PM  

whidbey: Agreed. If there are already provisions on the books, then they need to be enforced.


There are.  Many of them, in fact.  I'd also argue that there are many useless laws out there, too.  Removing them would be a Very Good Thing.  For example, NY just passed some laws that need to be removed.

Their not being enforced indicates that we really do not have a comprehensive system of firearms regulation in practice.

No, that does not follow.  If a law is not being appropriately enforced it doesn't mean that we don't have comprehensive laws in place.  It means nothing more than the law isn't being enforced.  That law may or may not be all that's needed - but that's a separate argument.

Try again.

dittybopper: Some of us own ordnance.  I've got a mortar.  I can "bear" it, but just barely, and I certainly wouldn't want to fire it while holding it.

Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, individuals also owned ordnance.  Privately owned cannons weren't necessarily common, mainly due to their high cost, but they did exist.


Which, first off, is cool.  It'd be nice to own a mortar.  And I do know that folks can own all sorts of fun stuff by going through the channels.  All of that aside, there's a difference between those and I don't believe that the 2A necessarily covers ordnance (or at least I'm not aware of some provision along those lines)
 
2013-02-01 02:15:04 PM  
Wow that one paragraph was not formatted at all well. Love the new text editor though.
 
2013-02-01 02:17:25 PM  

ronaprhys: No, that does not follow.  If a law is not being appropriately enforced it doesn't mean that we don't have comprehensive laws in place.  It means nothing more than the law isn't being enforced.  That law may or may not be all that's needed - but that's a separate argument.


If you invented a pill that could convince the judiciary to apply their existing tools correctly so legislators didn't need to scramble around and dream up seven or eight variations on a perfectly good law they already have, you could retire comfortably.
 
2013-02-01 02:17:27 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: So now I ask you, do those words you choose to disregard have no bearing on the law? Or is the general public afforded a looser interpretation of the second amendment than originally intended?


There's more after that Hamilton quote. Hamilton was arguing for the formation of a paramilitary force in order to reduce dependance on a standing army, which he also saw as a threat to liberty. As such, your argument is irrelevant. It has no impact on what the Second Amendment has to say. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a privilege afforded to those who have membership in some group.

I would be interested in hearing Hamilton's view on gun control after his duel with Aaron Burr.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:10 PM  

Flakeloaf: If you invented a pill that could convince the judiciary to apply their existing tools correctly so legislators didn't need to scramble around and dream up seven or eight variations on a perfectly good law they already have, you could retire comfortably.


A better solution would be for legislators to take time and write laws carefully and with an eye both for the rights of people and actually (and only) addressing the problem at hand.  This leaves less wiggle room for "enforcers" to abuse their power, while giving less room for criminals to evade prosecution on a technicality.  But might as well suggest a pill for justices, or plaid unicorns.  :D
 
2013-02-01 02:21:29 PM  

ronaprhys: Which, first off, is cool.  It'd be nice to own a mortar.  And I do know that folks can own all sorts of fun stuff by going through the channels.  All of that aside, there's a difference between those and I don't believe that the 2A necessarily covers ordnance (or at least I'm not aware of some provision along those lines)


All you need to buy mortars, machine guns and other fun stuff is a Class III license, a tax stamp and a farkton of money. It's perfectly legal, much to a lot of people's surprise. I have a friend that makes his own AK47s in his machine shop. ATF will never hear about them, nor do they care since he's making them by hand and they're for his own use. They will have to be destroyed after he dies, but they're mostly abominations anyway.
 
2013-02-01 02:48:14 PM  

Livingroom: mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

what sane restrictions do you propose? you do realize that three 10 round magazines and one 30 round magazine will take the average practiced shooter the same amount of time to fire, right? the "stop him when he reloads" myth is just that. i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less. sometimes more than one gun. what do you do then? with a magazine holster, if a ten round magazine was all i'd be allowed to carry, i'd still have 30-50 rounds on me, i'd just be mildly inconvenienced to have to reload more often, which consists of pushing a button, sliding the new mag in until it clicks, and then pushing another button, a process that takes less than a second. whats more, the 10 round magazines are often standard-capacity magazines with a piece of plastic in them, to prevent the follower from depressing past 10 rounds... and is easily defeated by the unscrupulous. sometimes i have more than one gun on me. what do you do when a guy has 3 10-round guns tucked in his waistband? woah! no reloading there, is there? so that whole magazine capacity argument serves only one purpose:

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, m ...


My problem is that there are a lot of Americans who think they can instantly judge a situation, identify bad actors, and act as executioners. We're talking about real life here but people think that a shooting situation would be like in the movies or on TV, where the protagonist quickly figures out who the bad guy is and takes matters into his own hands.

If I get shot by somebody trying to play hero, aren't my constitutional rights being infringed upon?
 
2013-02-01 02:51:50 PM  

Flakeloaf: ronaprhys: firearm violence in the US is on par with Canada and other countries.

Nope. Our per capita gun death rate is a sixth of what yours is and most of that happens in Toronto :)


Canada is also significantly whiter.

The sad fact is that fully half the homicide victims in the United States are Black, despite being only 13% of the population. That skews our numbers.

Also, about 1 in 20 people in the US hunts.  Only 1 out of every 117 people in Canada hunts.  That alone would account for the difference (117/20 = ~6)
 
2013-02-01 02:57:03 PM  

CthulhuCalling: All you need to buy mortars, machine guns and other fun stuff is a Class III license, a tax stamp and a farkton of money.


Actually, if it's muzzleloading artillery of any size, no license, tax stamp, or background check needed.  You got the clams to buy a Rodman-style columbiad with a 20" bore, you can, and so long as you use solid shot, no one is going to care (unless you pull a MythBusters).
 
2013-02-01 02:58:30 PM  

Flakeloaf: Nope. Our per capita gun death rate is a sixth of what yours is and most of that happens in Toronto :)


You didn't fully quote that - you know that, don't you.  I said that if you remove gang and drug-related homicides, we'd be on par.  That's very different than what you quoted.  Now, if you're going to debate with me, I'm okay with that.  Free speech and all.  However, quote me properly.

I see people with flat tires on every road trip. I myself have had two flat tires.

No one argues that people do get flats.  You stated that it happens on pretty much every long road trip.  This is you moving the goalposts pretty far from that original statement. 

Livingroom did in this very thread. That's where my argument started.

In the context of my statement that is not every single person should have a firearm at all times. If Livingroom said that, then you've got a point.  If this person just said that they feel the need to carry at all times, then your statement is false.  Your response (the one to which I was replying) was arm everyone.  That's clearly asinine.  Everyone who can legally own a firearm should have the choice.  If they elect not to, that's fine. 

I understand your history just fine. Their decision made sense then. One could argue that it makes sense now even though an armed populace won't be particularly effective against internal tyranny. They would, however, be spectacularly good at repelling external tyranny and every living thing on the planet knows it.

Sort of agreed - the same reasons that make an external tyranny impossible also work internally, unless those internal tyrants are willing to creep up the level of tyranny over decades (which is what seems to be happening).

Hyperbole is just how I lampshade things to stop them from getting too serious because this is the internet and we're way too laid back for that shiat.If the problem is "people are using guns to kill each other" then you either fix the guns or the people. Can't really fix the gun thing because everybody has them now, so you need to do a better job of controlling crazy people. If that system fails, acivilian's only recourseis with a gun (despite the fact that this very nearly never happens). Most thinking adults know that licensed, legal gun owners are not the problem.

Do you realize that we don't have licenses to own most firearms?  Concealed carry, maybe (depends on the state).  Certain automatic firearms require all sorts of special permissions, but that's not quite a license.

That aside, one can have a discussion without resorting to hyperbole.  It cheapens the discussion.  Just ignore the idiots and reply to those who are actually debating, educating, etc.

I made the mistake of conflating gang violence with the massacres that inspired your current legislative debate. They're two different problems. One is from criminals using illegal weapons to do bad things mostly to each other, and one is from deranged individuals using a weapon (or a series of weapons) to kill a lotta buncha people in a single place. Neither of these problems can be fixed with legislating away a kind of gun or a magazine, or by taking these things away from people who are licensed to have them.

Yes, they're two different things.  One has involved the murder of less than 100 people (which is still horrific) and the other involves thousands every year.  So all of this legislation is focusing on fleetingly rare incidents.  That doesn't make them less horrific - but the problem is that the suggestions will do absolutely nothing to curb nor prevent those.  It's a product of Something Must Be Done mentalities.

Extending that choice is the tip of the spear that sent my people this way and your people that way. What each of us does wouldn't make sense for the other. But we can still totally hang out, right? I'm not drinking all this beer myself.

Absolutely - I give not a single damn whether or not you want to own firearms.  Many of my friends don't.  Many of my friends do.  I have friends who are remarkably liberal, others who are remarkably conservative.  I'm neither - I'm of that libertarian mindset that involves the maximum amount of personal liberty and minimum amount of government.  I'm also enough of a realist to know that this means bad things will happen to people.  Give humans freedom and idiots will do things they shouldn't.
 
2013-02-01 03:02:31 PM  

Flakeloaf: If you invented a pill that could convince the judiciary to apply their existing tools correctly so legislators didn't need to scramble around and dream up seven or eight variations on a perfectly good law they already have, you could retire comfortably.


That wouldn't be the judiciary.  That'd be the police.  Enforcement is their province.

CthulhuCalling: All you need to buy mortars, machine guns and other fun stuff is a Class III license, a tax stamp and a farkton of money. It's perfectly legal, much to a lot of people's surprise. I have a friend that makes his own AK47s in his machine shop. ATF will never hear about them, nor do they care since he's making them by hand and they're for his own use. They will have to be destroyed after he dies, but they're mostly abominations anyway.


Yeah - I don't have the CIII license or the farkton of money.  Because, if I did, I would.   I'd also have a huge amount of land so I could legally fire these things without needing to go to a range.

Since I do like fabrication, I'd probably work on making some of my own - just because.  I think it'd be cool to try and fabricate a 1911.
 
2013-02-01 03:07:51 PM  

CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: So now I ask you, do those words you choose to disregard have no bearing on the law? Or is the general public afforded a looser interpretation of the second amendment than originally intended?

There's more after that Hamilton quote. Hamilton was arguing for the formation of a paramilitary force in order to reduce dependance on a standing army, which he also saw as a threat to liberty. As such, your argument is irrelevant. It has no impact on what the Second Amendment has to say. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a privilege afforded to those who have membership in some group.

I would be interested in hearing Hamilton's view on gun control after his duel with Aaron Burr.


You're assuming he'd be more pro-gun following being shot in an illegal voluntary duel?

As for the "irrelevance" of the  well regulated militia you're essentially just arguing the spirit of the law over the letter. I'm just trying to provide some of the framing of that "spirit" and imploring you to
understand how the modern interpretation that we've grown accustomed to is a compromise. I fail to see how a little regulation on that could be a bad thing when multiple casualty public shootings are a regular occurrence at peace time.
 
2013-02-01 03:11:32 PM  
truthinreligionandpolitics.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-01 03:19:15 PM  

ronaprhys: Flakeloaf: If you invented a pill that could convince the judiciary to apply their existing tools correctly so legislators didn't need to scramble around and dream up seven or eight variations on a perfectly good law they already have, you could retire comfortably.

That wouldn't be the judiciary.  That'd be the police.  Enforcement is their province.

CthulhuCalling: All you need to buy mortars, machine guns and other fun stuff is a Class III license, a tax stamp and a farkton of money. It's perfectly legal, much to a lot of people's surprise. I have a friend that makes his own AK47s in his machine shop. ATF will never hear about them, nor do they care since he's making them by hand and they're for his own use. They will have to be destroyed after he dies, but they're mostly abominations anyway.

Yeah - I don't have the CIII license or the farkton of money.  Because, if I did, I would.   I'd also have a huge amount of land so I could legally fire these things without needing to go to a range.

Since I do like fabrication, I'd probably work on making some of my own - just because.  I think it'd be cool to try and fabricate a 1911.


its perfectly legal to make your own guns so long as they're not "automatic" semi-automatic or revolver is fine. you cant sell them, trade them, etc and they must be destroyed when you die. knock yourself out! 3dprint yourself a 1911 :D
 
2013-02-01 03:19:37 PM  

docrhody: he US has the lowest per capita incidence of gun violence.


Oh please. What a line of hooey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_de at h_rate
 
2013-02-01 03:20:07 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: As for the "irrelevance" of the  well regulated militia you're essentially just arguing the spirit of the law over the letter. I'm just trying to provide some of the framing of that "spirit" and imploring you to understand how the modern interpretation that we've grown accustomed to is a compromise. I fail to see how a little regulation on that could be a bad thing when multiple casualty public shootings are a regular occurrence at peace time.


Uhmm - a significant amount of regulation now exists.  What you're arguing for is not a little regulation.  It's a little more regulation.  And if you're supporting what President Obama stated, then you're asking for more regulation which would've done absolutely nothing to prevent any of the recent tragedies.
 
2013-02-01 03:21:53 PM  

Livingroom: its perfectly legal to make your own guns so long as they're not "automatic" semi-automatic or revolver is fine. you cant sell them, trade them, etc and they must be destroyed when you die. knock yourself out! 3dprint yourself a 1911 :D


3D printing isn't as much fun.  I'd rather break out a mill, lathe, sheetmetal presses and breaks, etc.  That way I get the tactile sensation and personal satisfaction of manufacturing every single part to spec.
 
2013-02-01 03:23:20 PM  
www.frugal-cafe.com
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
 
2013-02-01 03:31:56 PM  

ronaprhys: Livingroom did in this very thread. That's where my argument started.

In the context of my statement that is not every single person should have a firearm at all times.


all i said was "i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less. sometimes more than one gun. what do you do then?" i never said i "require" a firearm at all times, just that i generally have one at all times. its important to note that i work in the courthouses of TN, KY, SC/NC and AR... and you cant carry into those.
 
2013-02-01 03:34:30 PM  

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.


As far as the actual weapon laws are concerned, you can have a nuke.  The ATF would classify it as a destructive device, pay your $200 tax and fill out a form, and you're good there.

The US might be in violation of the non-proliferation treaty, but that's not your problem, and that's actually not ATF's problem either.

Where you're going to have an issue is the possession of the components, specifically the radioactive bits.  You need a permit for those, whether you're going to be using them in a bomb or a power-generating reactor, and they're almost certainly not going to give you that permit.

And then, of course, there's nowhere in the world you can legally use it, even for target practice.
 
2013-02-01 03:38:14 PM  

ronaprhys: I think it'd be cool to try and fabricate a 1911.


I know someone who did that.  They got an "80% frame casting" (probably more like a "60%")  for cheap, and a relatively inexpensive parts kit, and they managed to turn a sow's ear into a very nice silk purse, but it was a lot of work.  A lot of hand-fitting is involved.

I don't think those frame castings are as cheap anymore, I think his cost him something like $20 or $30, and the parts kit was about $200, so for under $250 cash he got a very nice custom 1911, but it did cost him a lot of work.    That was well over a decade ago.
 
2013-02-01 03:44:47 PM  

Carth: What about the young children and high school students who play football, don't fully understand the risks, and suffer from multiple subconcussive impacts?


By high school age parents will already have long figured out if they have a future sanitation plant worker or scientist on their hands.  You don't suit up the scientists.
 
2013-02-01 03:45:33 PM  

dittybopper: ronaprhys: I think it'd be cool to try and fabricate a 1911.

I know someone who did that.  They got an "80% frame casting" (probably more like a "60%")  for cheap, and a relatively inexpensive parts kit, and they managed to turn a sow's ear into a very nice silk purse, but it was a lot of work.  A lot of hand-fitting is involved.

I don't think those frame castings are as cheap anymore, I think his cost him something like $20 or $30, and the parts kit was about $200, so for under $250 cash he got a very nice custom 1911, but it did cost him a lot of work.    That was well over a decade ago.


Well, this started with the assumption of "If I had a farkton of money", which I'll assume to be I won a 9-figure lottery (after taxes).  At that point, time is something I've certainly got lots of.  I've not worked much with the modern CNC mills, but I'm wondering if one could realistically mill their own frame from a solid chunk of steel or aluminum?  I've not disassembled a 1911 to examine it with that in mind.
 
2013-02-01 04:00:29 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: maxalt: So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.


Someone likes the word of the day calendar they got for Christmas.


Quite to the contrary. I spent my time in school learning and I continue to educate myself everyday. Try learning 3 new words from the dictionary everyday, it will improve your dictation, stretch your mind and lastly you MIGHT learn self respect through education.
 
2013-02-01 04:01:04 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: maxalt: So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.


Someone likes the word of the day calendar they got for Christmas.


I was studious while being educated and have continued my education on a daily basis, quite the opposite of democrats and 99% of Farkers.
 
2013-02-01 04:02:29 PM  

Joe Blowme: [www.frugal-cafe.com image 459x506]
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!


Cars are heavily regulated, thoroughly tracked, and you need training to get a license in order to drive.   The license can be taken away for bad behavior.

So that poses a good question, how come guns aren't regulated as much as cars???
 
2013-02-01 04:11:25 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

You do realize that you proved the conclusions of the article?

You claim: "I worked in the oil industry pollution monitoring and control"
To me this implies that your job is to minimize spills and accidents, and to work hand-in-hand with monitoring agencies to achieve that goal. However, you have the very same adversarial relationship mentioned in the article with these monitoring agencies, in re: "EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored."
You sound aggrieved that your company is  not allowed to do as they please, yet you're supposed to be the voice of reason and restraint. Much like the police oversight board mentioned in the article. You should find another job, as you are not attitudinally qualified to perform yours.


EPA personal are just little people who can not get respect through their own accomplishments. They need the power of the federal and state government to make themselves important. I by the way showed that by using the equipment we designed the companies could keep the EPA at bay but more importantly show the refineries how to be cleaner and increase profit. One more thing, I have yet to meet an EPA official, and I went pretty high up the chain, who could not be "persuaded" to sign off on a project if the right incentives were offered.
 
2013-02-01 04:14:40 PM  

ronaprhys: Flakeloaf: Nope. Our per capita gun death rate is a sixth of what yours is and most of that happens in Toronto :)


You didn't fully quote that - you know that, don't you.  I said that if you remove gang and drug-related homicides, we'd be on par.  That's very different than what you quoted.  Now, if you're going to debate with me, I'm okay with that.  Free speech and all.  However, quote me properly.

Yup. IOU one freebie for failing at reading comprehension.

No one argues that people do get flats.  You stated that it happens on pretty much every long road trip.  This is you moving the goalposts pretty far from that original statement.

And now I don't: "It's happened to me personally twice, and I've seen it on just about every road trip of more than a hundred kilometres or so". The "I've seen it" here refers to a thing I perceived with my eyes. It's contrasted with my own flat tires in the same sentence. It has happened to someone on a plurality of the long trips I've taken. Additionally, I have (well, my car has) also had a flat tire on two separate occasions.

If this person just said that they feel the need to carry at all times, then your statement is false.

That is what he said. I expressed dismay at the reality of either his situation or his mental state that led to this perceived need to carry. They are both unfortunate.

Your response (the one to which I was replying) was arm everyone.  That's clearly asinine.  Everyone who can legally own a firearm should have the choice.  If they elect not to, that's fine.

Not really what I meant. You can't stop gun violence by disarming everyone, so rather than disarm a lot of them and risk leaving an imbalance between the good guys and the bad guys, it's better to just not impede the innocent from defending themselves. Obviously you can't forcibly arm people, that would be absurd (but it would lead to some hilarious unarmed standoffs).

Sort of agreed - the same reasons that make an external tyranny impossible also work internally, unless those internal tyrants are willing to creep up the level of tyranny over decades (which is what seems to be happening).

Coming soon: The Walmart and Haliburton amendments!

Do you realize that we don't have licenses to own most firearms?  Concealed carry, maybe (depends on the state).  Certain automatic firearms require all sorts of special permissions, but that's not quite a license.

Oops. The absence of a prohibition is not explicit permission. Strike in favour of "legal gun owners and licensed CCW types". The point's the same though: People who are legally allowed to have the guns they have aren't normally the ones causing trouble.

Yes, they're two different things.  One has involved the murder of less than 100 people (which is still horrific) and the other involves thousands every year.  So all of this legislation is focusing on fleetingly rare incidents.  That doesn't make them less horrific - but the problem is that the suggestions will do absolutely nothing to curb nor prevent those.  It's a product of Something Must Be Done mentalities.

The solution to the September 11 attacks wasn't to ban planes, it was to make sure crazy people couldn't get control of one. A firearm is not a plane, ordinary people don't routinely control aircraft and there's no constitutional right to bear wings but the underlying idea's the same. In their haste to "solve the problem", legislators will almost certainly come up with something offtarget and ineffective that will harm the rights of law-abiding citizens much more than it will harm a conscious effort from an unbalanced individual to do something annoying.

Absolutely - I give not a single damn whether or not you want to own firearms.  Many of my friends don't.  Many of my friends do.  I have friends who are remarkably liberal, others who are remarkably conservative.  I'm neither - I'm of that libertarian mindset that involves the maximum amount of personal liberty and minimum amount of government.  I'm also enough of a realist to know that this means bad things will happen to people.  Give humans freedom and idiots will do things they shouldn't.
 
Even when it's used to do terrible things, more freedom is generally preferable to less. My own democratic socialist principles are ok with wearing the handcuffs I gave the government to put on me because that's what keeps our wheels turning - but if that government does something it shouldn't then I'll be ready to demand change and vote against the party I dislike the most so someone else can abuse me from a different side of centre.

It is not legal for me to keep a gun in the house in a way that would make it useful for home defense, which I don't mind because I don't have need a gun to do that. If I reasonably believed that I did, one then I'd acquire two whether they were legal or not and everyone who lives in that house would know how to use them.
 
2013-02-01 04:17:07 PM  
ronaprhys:

Well, this started with the assumption of "If I had a farkton of money", which I'll assume to be I won a 9-figure lottery (after taxes).  At that point, time is something I've certainly got lots of.  I've not worked much with the modern CNC mills, but I'm wondering if one could realistically mill their own frame from a solid chunk of steel or aluminum?  I've not disassembled a 1911 to examine it with that in mind.

You should see some of the dissimulated weapons made by Chechens. Take pretty much any solid compound, hit it with a rock in just the right way, put bullets into it, now go kill a guy. I have no doubt that someone with access to a milling machine and good metal would be able to do quite a good job.
 
2013-02-01 04:21:58 PM  
It's a travesty that the gun industry is completely unregulated.

Congress should pass some sort of National Firearms Act immediately.
 
2013-02-01 04:24:57 PM  

maxalt: One more thing, I have yet to meet an EPA official, and I went pretty high up the chain, who could not be "persuaded" to sign off on a project if the right incentives were offered.


Good to know. Once again, I say that you are attitudinally challenged in your particular job. Your approach is diametrically opposed to the goals you should be striving to attain. Just sayin'.
 
2013-02-01 04:44:30 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: CthulhuCalling: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: So now I ask you, do those words you choose to disregard have no bearing on the law? Or is the general public afforded a looser interpretation of the second amendment than originally intended?

There's more after that Hamilton quote. Hamilton was arguing for the formation of a paramilitary force in order to reduce dependance on a standing army, which he also saw as a threat to liberty. As such, your argument is irrelevant. It has no impact on what the Second Amendment has to say. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a privilege afforded to those who have membership in some group.

I would be interested in hearing Hamilton's view on gun control after his duel with Aaron Burr.

You're assuming he'd be more pro-gun following being shot in an illegal voluntary duel?

As for the "irrelevance" of the  well regulated militia you're essentially just arguing the spirit of the law over the letter. I'm just trying to provide some of the framing of that "spirit" and imploring you to
understand how the modern interpretation that we've grown accustomed to is a compromise. I fail to see how a little regulation on that could be a bad thing when multiple casualty public shootings are a regular occurrence at peace time.


Mainly because its due to militias being completely irrelevant to the argument. Militias are not people, they have no right to bear arms. Now, maybe if they incorporated....

Now I'm not saying there isn't a.problem in this country but I think people are attacking the issue from the wrong angle.
 
2013-02-01 05:00:26 PM  

Flakeloaf: Yup. IOU one freebie for failing at reading comprehension.


Fair enough, and as it seems, I misread something as well.

And now I don't: "It's happened to me personally twice, and I've seen it on just about every road trip of more than a hundred kilometres or so". The "I've seen it" here refers to a thing I perceived with my eyes. It's contrasted with my own flat tires in the same sentence. It has happened to someone on a plurality of the long trips I've taken. Additionally, I have (well, my car has) also had a flat tire on two separate occasions.

There's my mis-read. 

That is what he said. I expressed dismay at the reality of either his situation or his mental state that led to this perceived need to carry. They are both unfortunate.

I've no problem with folks carrying, either openly or concealed.  If the police can do it, there's no good reason a private citizen shouldn't be allowed to do so as well.  I'm actually getting ready to pursue getting my CCW.  That doesn't mean I'll carry everywhere, just that I want the capacity to be able to do so.  I can already carry openly here in Ohio, but I'd rather not.  Plus, due to reciprocity with other states I visit, having the CCW could be very useful if I'm hiking or the like in the middle of nowhere. 

Not really what I meant. You can't stop gun violence by disarming everyone, so rather than disarm a lot of them and risk leaving an imbalance between the good guys and the bad guys, it's better to just not impede the innocent from defending themselves. Obviously you can't forcibly arm people, that would be absurd (but it would lead to some hilarious unarmed standoffs).

Fair enough, but that's how it read.  Arm everyone.  However, the statement above seems to line up with my sentiments.

Coming soon: The Walmart and Haliburton amendments!

Patriot Act was one step of many that have occurred.  We have a habit of making something illegal, then when that doesn't stop the crime, we make it double plus ungood illegal (tacking additional penalties on).  Oddly enough, that really doesn't seem to help.  See Drunk Driving.

Oops. The absence of a prohibition is not explicit permission. Strike in favour of "legal gun owners and licensed CCW types". The point's the same though: People who are legally allowed to have the guns they have aren't normally the ones causing trouble.

Absolutely true.  Some do, but for the most part, legal owners remain legal owners with no issues.

The solution to the September 11 attacks wasn't to ban planes, it was to make sure crazy people couldn't get control of one. A firearm is not a plane, ordinary people don't routinely control aircraft and there's no constitutional right to bear wings but the underlying idea's the same. In their haste to "solve the problem", legislators will almost certainly come up with something offtarget and ineffective that will harm the rights of law-abiding citizens much more than it will harm a conscious effort from an unbalanced individual to do something annoying.

Actually, part of the solution to Sept 11 was the TSA, which is another basically useless agency somewhat equivalent to the currently-suggested laws.  They'll do nothing to actually prevent a hijacking (see the shoe bomber, underwear bomber), inconvenience the shiat out of normal folks, and cost a bunch of money.  Same with the suggestions being bandied about now.

Even when it's used to do terrible things, more freedom is generally preferable to less. My own democratic socialist principles are ok with wearing the handcuffs I gave the government to put on me because that's what keeps our wheels turning - but if that government does something it shouldn't then I'll be ready to demand change and vote against the party I dislike the most so someone else can abuse me from a different side of centre.

Basically a true statement.  It's the start of the 4 boxes concept.

It is not legal for me to keep a gun in the house in a way that would make it useful for home defense, which I don't mind because I don't have need a gun to do that. If I reasonably believed that I did, one then I'd acquire two whether they were legal or not and everyone who lives in that house would know how to use them.

That's unfortunate that you don't have the legal ability.  You should.  Not that should be forced to have one, but the choice should be yours.  Self-defense, be it from the government or some random crackhead, is a human right.  A firearm happens to be one of the most efficient ways to do that.
 
2013-02-01 05:55:10 PM  

Flakeloaf: ronaprhys:

Well, this started with the assumption of "If I had a farkton of money", which I'll assume to be I won a 9-figure lottery (after taxes).  At that point, time is something I've certainly got lots of.  I've not worked much with the modern CNC mills, but I'm wondering if one could realistically mill their own frame from a solid chunk of steel or aluminum?  I've not disassembled a 1911 to examine it with that in mind.

You should see some of the dissimulated weapons made by Chechens. Take pretty much any solid compound, hit it with a rock in just the right way, put bullets into it, now go kill a guy. I have no doubt that someone with access to a milling machine and good metal would be able to do quite a good job.


My father built a smoothbore flintlock trade gun from scratch, using just a band saw, a drill press, a grinder, and a lathe.  All the other tools he used were hand tools.

And I'm not talking about throwing together a kit or parts, he made every part, including the screws, from scratch.

/Smoothbore because he didn't want to bother with making a rifling bench.
 
2013-02-01 08:27:29 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: One more thing, I have yet to meet an EPA official, and I went pretty high up the chain, who could not be "persuaded" to sign off on a project if the right incentives were offered.

Good to know. Once again, I say that you are attitudinally challenged in your particular job. Your approach is diametrically opposed to the goals you should be striving to attain. Just sayin'.


I worked for Beckman the best in the industry we were more conscious of the goal of cleaning up the air than the government. The government seemed to me to be in the industry of creating more government. I started because I wanted to help the environment and we succeeded.  Government now is making rules to make rules. What do you get when you teach a person that moving up in the chain involves making rules? More and sometimes useless rules and regulations. Take CO2, the amount now is greater than in 1950, so global warming right? The amount of free CO2 has been greater when the earth was in a cooling period. In the Rocky Mountains there is a supply of CO2 in a frozen state 1000000 times greater than all the CO2 in the air today. The oil industry uses the CO2 from those mountains to push oil to the well head for extraction with the governments blessing, The air is cleaner now but the earths temperature is fluctuating because the temperature is controlled by the heater usually called the Sun. Anyway the Chinese make more pollution in one month than the US AND Europe make in a year, so everything we do is for naught. Lastly the plan is to turn the USA into a consumer nation. Read Carroll Quigleys'  Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time It's a long read but it lays out the world plan, by the by Carroll Quigley was Bill Clintons' mentor and Clinton loves the idea of a world counsel to run the planet.
 
2013-02-01 09:56:59 PM  

maxalt: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: One more thing, I have yet to meet an EPA official, and I went pretty high up the chain, who could not be "persuaded" to sign off on a project if the right incentives were offered.

Good to know. Once again, I say that you are attitudinally challenged in your particular job. Your approach is diametrically opposed to the goals you should be striving to attain. Just sayin'.

I worked for Beckman the best in the industry we were more conscious of the goal of cleaning up the air than the government. The government seemed to me to be in the industry of creating more government. I started because I wanted to help the environment and we succeeded.  Government now is making rules to make rules. What do you get when you teach a person that moving up in the chain involves making rules? More and sometimes useless rules and regulations. Take CO2, the amount now is greater than in 1950, so global warming right? The amount of free CO2 has been greater when the earth was in a cooling period. In the Rocky Mountains there is a supply of CO2 in a frozen state 1000000 times greater than all the CO2 in the air today. The oil industry uses the CO2 from those mountains to push oil to the well head for extraction with the governments blessing, The air is cleaner now but the earths temperature is fluctuating because the temperature is controlled by the heater usually called the Sun. Anyway the Chinese make more pollution in one month than the US AND Europe make in a year, so everything we do is for naught. Lastly the plan is to turn the USA into a consumer nation. Read Carroll Quigleys'  Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time It's a long read but it lays out the world plan, by the by Carroll Quigley was Bill Clintons' mentor and Clinton loves the idea of a world counsel to run the planet.


Thank you for your reply, and your responses to my comments. I'll look into Carroll Quigley's book. I've found it in pdf form. I'll download it onto my Nook. You can find it here: http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

It is missing page 62 and 63.

My grandfather worked in the oil industry, for 48 years, as did two of my uncles. He was a specialist in getting drills unstuck. He would fly out on a moment's notice to a wellsite, to attempt recovery of expensive drillbits. He would be the first to tell you that the industry is much cleaner now than in his working day (1918-1965). However, I'm sure that most of it was not voluntary and required governmental nudging and coercing to change environmental practices. I'll not denigrate the oil industry, as it allowed my family to survive and prosper. But I'll not kid myself that the oil industry cleaned itself up out of the goodness of its heart.
 
2013-02-01 11:10:22 PM  

ronaprhys: Self-defense is the right of every individual.


I'll take your word on that. Canadian self-defense laws are so bazoo that our own Supremes have ruled that not even they understand what it is we're allowed to do. The law says we can't use force intended to cause grievous harm or death, but that we can use as much force as is reasonably necessary to repel an attack, except an attack against property isn't an attack unless we try to retake it and the offender resists where he ought reasonably to have fled, but should he flee and we pursue then he now grows a right to self-defense from our unreasonable use of force which now becomes an unprovoked assauoh god i just swallowed my neck
 
wee
2013-02-02 03:07:24 PM  

vpb: Because of crazy people who think they have a right to a 20mm cannon or a minigun.


Crazy people with about 30-50 grand aren't crazy.  They're "eccentric".  And they have every right to be.
 
2013-02-02 04:47:46 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: One more thing, I have yet to meet an EPA official, and I went pretty high up the chain, who could not be "persuaded" to sign off on a project if the right incentives were offered.

Good to know. Once again, I say that you are attitudinally challenged in your particular job. Your approach is diametrically opposed to the goals you should be striving to attain. Just sayin'.

I worked for Beckman the best in the industry we were more conscious of the goal of cleaning up the air than the government. The government seemed to me to be in the industry of creating more government. I started because I wanted to help the environment and we succeeded.  Government now is making rules to make rules. What do you get when you teach a person that moving up in the chain involves making rules? More and sometimes useless rules and regulations. Take CO2, the amount now is greater than in 1950, so global warming right? The amount of free CO2 has been greater when the earth was in a cooling period. In the Rocky Mountains there is a supply of CO2 in a frozen state 1000000 times greater than all the CO2 in the air today. The oil industry uses the CO2 from those mountains to push oil to the well head for extraction with the governments blessing, The air is cleaner now but the earths temperature is fluctuating because the temperature is controlled by the heater usually called the Sun. Anyway the Chinese make more pollution in one month than the US AND Europe make in a year, so everything we do is for naught. Lastly the plan is to turn the USA into a consumer nation. Read Carroll Quigleys'  Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time It's a long read but it lays out the world plan, by the by Carroll Quigley was Bill Clintons' mentor and Clinton loves the idea of a world counsel to run the planet.

Thank you for your reply, and your responses to my comments. I'll look into Carroll Quigley's book. I've found it in pdf form. I'll download it onto my ...


I agree with you the oil industry needed a nudge, a nudge with a 88mm cannon to change their ways. But generational changes made a big difference. I am Vietnam war age and jumped in with both feet to the environmental movement was there for the first Earth Day. What a joke just a bunch of phony people making LOTS of money and not an iota of difference in the air & water quality. They get lots of people walking around with their chest puffed out bragging that they are concerned about the future. Here is something to ponder, electric cars need to be charged, mostly they are charged by power plants, power plants create electrical power by converting one form of energy ie. gas, oil, coal into electricity. The laws of conservation dictate that when one form of energy is converted into a different form of energy there is a loss of energy. Thinking that through electric cars actually use MORE energy per mile than a high efficiency gas powered vehicle.  Learning to be helpful to both the environmental concerns and helping maximize profits proved to be mostly successful.
 
2013-02-03 10:39:26 AM  

maxalt: I agree with you the oil industry needed a nudge, a nudge with a 88mm cannon to change their ways. But generational changes made a big difference. I am Vietnam war age and jumped in with both feet to the environmental movement was there for the first Earth Day. What a joke just a bunch of phony people making LOTS of money and not an iota of difference in the air & water quality. They get lots of people walking around with their chest puffed out bragging that they are concerned about the future. Here is something to ponder, electric cars need to be charged, mostly they are charged by power plants, power plants create electrical power by converting one form of energy ie. gas, oil, coal into electricity. The laws of conservation dictate that when one form of energy is converted into a different form of energy there is a loss of energy. Thinking that through electric cars actually use MORE energy per mile than a high efficiency gas powered vehicle. Learning to be helpful to both the environmental concerns and helping maximize profits proved to be mostly successful.


I'm glad you patiently stuck with this thread and elaborated on your statements. You have persuaded me that my original opinion of your motivations and mindset were incorrect. I apologize for that. My initial impression of you was that you were working at cross-purposes to your job title. I was disappointed because you had seemed reasonable in other threads I've seen you post in, and I tend to hold people I respect to a higher standard.

This isn't the first time I've had to apologize for mistaking a few offhand sentences for someone's life philosophy, and it probably won't be the last. If we had these same exchanges a year from now, this conversation would probably follow a similar arc. The important thing is that we both have a better, less flawed understanding of where each is coming from. Thank you, maxalt, we're more similar than I had supposed.
 
2013-02-03 03:23:54 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: maxalt: I agree with you the oil industry needed a nudge, a nudge with a 88mm cannon to change their ways. But generational changes made a big difference. I am Vietnam war age and jumped in with both feet to the environmental movement was there for the first Earth Day. What a joke just a bunch of phony people making LOTS of money and not an iota of difference in the air & water quality. They get lots of people walking around with their chest puffed out bragging that they are concerned about the future. Here is something to ponder, electric cars need to be charged, mostly they are charged by power plants, power plants create electrical power by converting one form of energy ie. gas, oil, coal into electricity. The laws of conservation dictate that when one form of energy is converted into a different form of energy there is a loss of energy. Thinking that through electric cars actually use MORE energy per mile than a high efficiency gas powered vehicle. Learning to be helpful to both the environmental concerns and helping maximize profits proved to be mostly successful.

I'm glad you patiently stuck with this thread and elaborated on your statements. You have persuaded me that my original opinion of your motivations and mindset were incorrect. I apologize for that. My initial impression of you was that you were working at cross-purposes to your job title. I was disappointed because you had seemed reasonable in other threads I've seen you post in, and I tend to hold people I respect to a higher standard.

This isn't the first time I've had to apologize for mistaking a few offhand sentences for someone's life philosophy, and it probably won't be the last. If we had these same exchanges a year from now, this conversation would probably follow a similar arc. The important thing is that we both have a better, less flawed understanding of where each is coming from. Thank you, maxalt, we're more similar than I had supposed.


You never need to apologize to me for anything. When someone disagrees with me I just except that we are in disagreement. Now people whom would express their differences by insulting me, my family or expressing thoughts that are unrelated to the discussion I will then return the insult. Discussions are enlightening, most times a learning experience and occasionally opinion changing. I thoroughly enjoy intelligent exchange of ideas.  But to my own disappointment with myself I do on occasion lower my own standards and rely on insults, please except my weaknesses.
 
Displayed 222 of 222 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report