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 44
    More: Interesting, NFL, Dan Le Batard, reforms, police corruption, industry, guns  
•       •       •

3377 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-31 09:00:35 PM
5 votes:
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 08:33:03 PM
5 votes:
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!
2013-02-01 01:49:33 AM
3 votes:

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 01:02:50 AM
3 votes:

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?
2013-01-31 11:00:24 PM
3 votes:

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 09:04:06 PM
3 votes:
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 08:46:48 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-02-01 08:59:26 AM
2 votes:

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 08:51:53 AM
2 votes:
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 08:32:43 AM
2 votes:

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 08:31:03 AM
2 votes:
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 08:10:21 AM
2 votes:
Livingroom: wall of derp


You sound derpy with a mix of paranoia, and possibly a side of smallcox
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-01 07:26:52 AM
2 votes:

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 05:24:31 AM
2 votes:

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?
2013-02-01 03:05:58 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-31 10:44:19 PM
2 votes:

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 09:38:39 PM
2 votes:
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 09:05:49 PM
2 votes:

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.

2013-02-01 05:55:10 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:13 PM
1 votes:

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 12:24:57 PM
1 votes:

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 11:55:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:47:37 AM
1 votes:

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 11:39:26 AM
1 votes:

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 11:30:30 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:20 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:16 AM
1 votes:

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 10:24:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:04:38 AM
1 votes:

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 09:43:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:57:55 AM
1 votes:

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 08:47:13 AM
1 votes:

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 08:42:11 AM
1 votes:

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 08:36:02 AM
1 votes:

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 08:34:16 AM
1 votes:

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 08:33:44 AM
1 votes:

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 08:19:44 AM
1 votes:
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 08:12:46 AM
1 votes:

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 02:39:18 AM
1 votes:

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 02:24:06 AM
1 votes:
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 12:45:51 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-31 09:37:40 PM
1 votes:
This article has something for everyone to biatch about. Should be good. Off to make popcorn.
2013-01-31 09:24:58 PM
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report