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.

(NPR)   Gun-ban proponent Senator Leahy (D-VT) admits that assault rifles may be needed by the general public in the event of zombie apocalypse   (npr.org) divider line 460
    More: Obvious, Weekend Edition, assault rifles, zombie apocalypse, Richard Blumenthal, shoestring catch  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 03:58:10 PM  

cman: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Core beliefs tend to bring out masses.

When a Republican files a bill to add red tape to get abortions, Democrats come out because woman's choice is one of their core beliefs. When a Democrat files a bill to add red tape on buying weapons, Republicans come out because the right to arm oneself is a core belief.


But who cares?  All of this arm waving about "law-abiding gun-owners" . . . opposing background checks?  Because . . . why?  It's hard to explain how nutty it seems for a non-gun-nut observing.
 
2013-03-16 03:58:15 PM  

vpb: Loughner was tackled and disarmed while trying to reload, so obviously it made a difference there.


Granted.

Of course, had he been standing a few feet further away, simply grabbed another magazine as opposed to trying to retrieve the one he dropped, or had a second gun then things could have been very different. In nearly all mass shooting situations (which are fortunately quite rare, statistically speaking) the shooter meets with essentially no resistance and can reload at their leisure. Loughner was the exception rather than the rule.
 
2013-03-16 03:58:17 PM  

cman: Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach that. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it.


Yeah, severity of punishment is an excellent deterrent! I mean, look at all those states that execute people for murder! Look at how low their murder rates are... oh, wait.

Tough-guy policies breed tough-guy reactions and tough-guy societies.
 
2013-03-16 03:59:00 PM  

Silverstaff: Think of the Children" is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.


Except, you know, for the ACTUAL DEAD CHILDREN!

I have no illusions that we can fix the violence problem with a few half hearted laws, but don't try and spin your way out of the brutal reality that children were murdered.

You can take that logic for what you want, but let's not pretend that it didn't happen.  Zombies, on the other hand, have yet to materialize.
 
2013-03-16 04:01:37 PM  

Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.


Yeah I agree with you.  That's just the first thing I thought of when I read it.  That and this lady I work with that is convinced that the government is going to take away her right to waste money on a useless arsenal.  All so she can protect her family from the FEMA death camps Glenn told her about.
 
2013-03-16 04:01:46 PM  

Gosling: heypete: Ultimately, any ban is doomed to failure: you can already 3D print perfectly functional AR-15 receivers (the only legally regulated part) and magazines using files freely available from the internet. Anyone who wants one can have one with the click of a button. The technology will only get better and cheaper as time goes on.

So, what, don't even try? Gun deaths are inevitable, so lie back and enjoy them?


You seem to be advocating the same thing.  You can't outdraw an armed gunman, so just lie down and take it was I believe the gist of one of your posts above?
 
2013-03-16 04:03:02 PM  

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.

No, I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

They claim that banning flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsible stocks etc. will make us "safer" as a nation, that it will have some appreciable effect on gun violence in general.

Simple logic AND FBI statistics prove, beyond all doubt, that their claim is patently false.

A lie.

Clearly then their goal is NOT what they claim it to be.

Feel free to rationalize, and tell us what you THINK their true goal(s) might be.


This makes me wonder why you refuse to answer my question.  What exactly are you afraid of?
 
2013-03-16 04:04:14 PM  

Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.


No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.
 
2013-03-16 04:04:18 PM  

vpb: Loughner was tackled and disarmed while trying to reload, so obviously it made a difference there.


Loughners firearm was found inoperational due to a jam. Jams are known to occur on the last round of these super high cap glock mags due to the follower that puts tension on the rounds by pushing them upwards so the slide of the firearm can strip off a bullet and load it into the chamber. The follower gets stuck sometimes and instead of the slide making contact with the back of the bullet the slide makes contact with a bullet whos front is facing upwards making the bullet stovepipe in the extraction port/slide area  Jams rarely if ever happen when you are loading a fresh magazine into the firearm,

Laughner was trying to clear a jam. The first thing you do when clearing a jam is drop the magazine and attempt to rack the slide and clear the jam.
 
2013-03-16 04:06:28 PM  
It seems that according to some, restricting magazine capacities will do nothing to slow down a shooter or lessen the number of victims shot during a massacre.  Yet the same restriction will render a person incapable of defending the home.
 
2013-03-16 04:07:27 PM  

Farker Soze: You seem to be advocating the same thing. You can't outdraw an armed gunman, so just lie down and take it was I believe the gist of one of your posts above?


Yes. The police actually advise that. Your #1 goal in a situation with an armed gunman is to stay alive. That doesn't always involve taking out the gunman. The police generally advise that you just give the invader or the robber or whoever whatever they want. Money and jewelry and whatever else aren't worth your life. If you don't draw a gun, the odds are that the guy will just take your stuff and leave. You draw a gun and fail to put him away, the odds are that he shoots and kills you, THEN takes your stuff (your gun included) and leaves.
 
2013-03-16 04:08:38 PM  

carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.

No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.



Go start a thread that villifys the 1st, or 3rd,or  4th, or 5th etc....amendments and see what happens.

Hell just make one that claims you want to give out free IDs to voters so they can show it before they vote and see what happens.
 
2013-03-16 04:08:54 PM  

Silverstaff: violentsalvation: stickmangrit: Yeah, because the Brady bill worked great, just ask the Columbine survivors./and I thought it was the republicans who were supposed to be irrationally terrified of stupid shiat...

Democrats proving they aren't always the party of facts, data, and reason.

That's what makes me sad about this gun control "debate".

I'm a democrat, and a liberal.  That said, I'm pro-gun rights and a dues-paying member of the NRA.  I support all civil rights, from marriage equality to the right to bear arms.

I was so proud last fall to see the Democrats being the party of reason and logic, and seeing my fellows being proud of that.  They would present the cold, hard facts on how their plans would be best for America, and how Rmoney was lying and not staying with the facts.

. . .then Newtown happened.  The left-wing Derp started up.  Within a day we had a chorus of Farkers shouting about banning this and confiscating that, and it was much much worse in some other parts of the internet.  I left a number of left-wing groups I followed and participated on Facebook, because instantly there was a chorus of people basically saying that unless you want to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns then you were in favor of dead babies.  It was like a left-wing mirror universe version of the right-wing derp I'd spent the last year dealing with.

There is no gun control that is permissible under the Heller and McDonald precedents that is going to make a reasonable dent in gun violence.  It would be better to increase protection for sensitive sites, work on some mental healthcare solutions, and try to look at the deeper cause about why active shooter incidents only really started coming around in the last 15 years or so, and were ridiculously rare before that.  What has changed in our society?  It's not the availability of guns, it's something deeper.   An AWB is a band-aid on sunburn in terms of the wrong fix to the real problem.


I am not a democrat, though lately they have had the easier candidates to vote for. It is frustrating the damage they are trying to do to their own party for gun control measures that will have no impact on gun violence. By acting like ignorant, irrational, uneducated teabaggers of the left on this issue many of them will be elected out by people who'll work to undo a lot of good things they've accomplished the last 4 years.
 
2013-03-16 04:09:26 PM  

carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.

No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.


It's a mostly liberal site these days.  When you get people defending rape-rape loving politicians they're generally regarded as trolls and dismissed.  Guns have more supporters here.
 
2013-03-16 04:11:38 PM  

violentsalvation: By acting like ignorant, irrational, uneducated teabaggers of the left on this issue many of them will be elected out by people who'll work to undo a lot of good things they've accomplished the last 4 years.


A sub-1% return on investment from NRA money in 2012 begs to differ. It's a pathetically winnable fight if only they have the stomach to fight it.
 
2013-03-16 04:11:47 PM  

Ablejack: It seems that according to some, restricting magazine capacities will do nothing to slow down a shooter or lessen the number of victims shot during a massacre.  Yet the same restriction will render a person incapable of defending the home.


Shockingly enough, the two situations are quite different: a mass shooter is prepared for what they intend to do and comes with many spare magazines which they can use to reload their gun in a few seconds. (The Virginia Tech shooter had a whole bunch in his backpack, for example.) They have the luxury of time to plan their actions ahead of time. An arbitrary limit on magazine capacity will not have any significant effect.

Someone defending their home does not. It's rare for such a person to have ready access to any spare magazines or the time needed to get them, thus limiting them to what they have available in the gun itself. They are under a great deal of stress and are likely to miss -- even trained police officers have a very low hit rate (5-15% or so) in a shooting situation. An arbitrary limit on magazine capacity directly affects their ability to effectively defend themselves.
 
2013-03-16 04:12:28 PM  

Farker Soze: carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.

No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.

It's a mostly liberal site these days.  When you get people defending rape-rape loving politicians they're generally regarded as trolls and dismissed.  Guns have more supporters here.


OK . . . more specifically . . . why do so many people who never post otherwise suddenly appear in the gun threads?  I think you know where I'm going with this line of questioning.
 
2013-03-16 04:12:33 PM  

heypete: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

There was a federal AWB between 1994-2004. Several states continue to have state-level bans. There hasn't been any real effect on mass shootings. The CDC did a study in 2003 that reviewed the effectiveness of various gun laws and "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes".

Most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not AR-15s. Restricting ARs and other so-called "assault weapons" won't do much at all, as there's plenty of other guns which are functionally identical and equally lethal but don't look scary, and so wouldn't be banned.

There's plenty of things that could be done to actually affect violent crime, mass shootings, etc. Banning certain guns that look scary and restricting magazine sizes is incredibly politically divisive and, ultimately, ineffective. It's basically a red herring that distracts from meaningful action.

Ultimately, any ban is doomed to failure: you can already 3D print perfectly functional AR-15 receivers (the only legally regulated part) and magazines using files freely available from the internet. Anyone who wants one can have one with the click of a button. The technology will only get better and cheaper as time goes on.


Previous AWBs haven't done much because they've been completely toothless, banning mostly cosmetic features. What makes an assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun with a long barrel that is able to accept a detachable high capacity magazine. Those are the weapons Australia banned, and they haven't had a mass shooting for over a decade.

Until you can print an AR receiver that can fire more than 6 rounds without falling apart, we're not going to have to worry about 3D printing. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.
 
2013-03-16 04:14:25 PM  

carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.

No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.

It's a mostly liberal site these days.  When you get people defending rape-rape loving politicians they're generally regarded as trolls and dismissed.  Guns have more supporters here.

OK . . . more specifically . . . why do so many people who never post otherwise suddenly appear in the gun threads?  I think you know where I'm going with this line of questioning.


Paid shills for the NRA/Brady Campaign.  Definitely.
 
2013-03-16 04:15:13 PM  

Gosling: A sub-1% return on investment from NRA money in 2012 begs to differ. It's a pathetically winnable fight if only they have the stomach to fight it.


While I agree that the ROI for the NRA was quite low, guns weren't exactly a major campaign issue.
 
2013-03-16 04:16:38 PM  

Farker Soze: carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.

No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.

It's a mostly liberal site these days.  When you get people defending rape-rape loving politicians they're generally regarded as trolls and dismissed.  Guns have more supporters here.

OK . . . more specifically . . . why do so many people who never post otherwise suddenly appear in the gun threads?  I think you know where I'm going with this line of questioning.

Paid shills for the NRA/Brady Campaign.  Definitely.


Surely all readers must have the same sense of things.  Doesn't that deeply undermine the value of a discussion forum?
 
2013-03-16 04:17:31 PM  

Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.



How such a "set up" might start:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?
 
2013-03-16 04:18:07 PM  

Gosling: violentsalvation: By acting like ignorant, irrational, uneducated teabaggers of the left on this issue many of them will be elected out by people who'll work to undo a lot of good things they've accomplished the last 4 years.

A sub-1% return on investment from NRA money in 2012 begs to differ. It's a pathetically winnable fight if only they have the stomach to fight it.


There was no major push to further control guns at that time so the NRA's ratings of candidates were meaningless.
 
2013-03-16 04:19:29 PM  

Izicata: Previous AWBs haven't done much because they've been completely toothless, banning mostly cosmetic features. What makes an assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun with a long barrel that is able to accept a detachable high capacity magazine. Those are the weapons Australia banned, and they haven't had a mass shooting for over a decade.


So, pretty much any semi-auto rifle? The AR-15 is the most common rifle in private hands in the country, and for good reason. The majority of guns sold in the country are semi-auto and the Heller decision said that the Second Amendment specifically protects guns that are in "common use" so it's unlikely that any semi-auto ban would pass muster.

Until you can print an AR receiver that can fire more than 6 rounds without falling apart, we're not going to have to worry about 3D printing. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.

Here's the updated AR receiver from the same group that can fire 600+ rounds without failing. As I said, the tech is only going to get better.
 
2013-03-16 04:21:24 PM  

Amos Quito: Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.


How such a "set up" might start:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?


Must suck to be you.  Your comment comes across as naked, delusional paranoia.  So, apparently, good company with other pro-gun folks.
 
2013-03-16 04:23:05 PM  
At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.
 
2013-03-16 04:23:19 PM  

Amos Quito: When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think


Yes your AR and your love of freedom will stop this:
www.usmilitary.com
And this:
upload.wikimedia.org
And this:
aeronauticpictures.com

It's not 1776 anymore where the height of military tech is a big metal tube.  But keep dreaming derping.
 
2013-03-16 04:23:32 PM  

Amos Quito: Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.


How such a "set up" might start:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?


Well here we go. So you believe it's a massive government conspiracy. I knew I'd get answer to my question sooner or later.
 
2013-03-16 04:26:50 PM  
No references to World War Z's conclusion that slow-firing weapons are better?

For shame, Fark!
 
2013-03-16 04:27:12 PM  

udhq: That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.


The vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners own and use their firearms in safe, lawful ways that cause no harm to anyone nor cause any disturbance to the general welfare.

A relatively small amount of criminals use them to commit acts of violence.

It makes sense to focus on the criminals, rather than the law-abiding folks and inanimate objects.
 
2013-03-16 04:27:58 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Amos Quito: When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think

Yes your AR and your love of freedom will stop this:
[www.usmilitary.com image 378x375]
And this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x207]
And this:
[aeronauticpictures.com image 485x359]

It's not 1776 anymore where the height of military tech is a big metal tube.  But keep dreaming derping.


Didn't those pictures all have the caption, "Not particularly useful against an insurgency," in 2005, or is that inconvenient now?
 
2013-03-16 04:28:04 PM  

Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.


[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?


It's emotional.  Libs think with their bleeding heart, not their brain.  If it feels right, they want to do it.  Who cares if what they are going after only contributes to a tiny fraction of the problem, in their hearts they know that it's big and black and scary, and that's all that really matters.  Oh yeah, also a Senator saw someone shot once with a pistol so we should obviously ban rifles.
 
2013-03-16 04:29:53 PM  

Ablejack: It seems that according to some, restricting magazine capacities will do nothing to slow down a shooter or lessen the number of victims shot during a massacre.  Yet the same restriction will render a person incapable of defending the home.


Yup.

It's absolutely useless and yet it will destroy everything all at the same time. Neat trick.

The 2nd amendment isn't an absolute right. That's already well established. People who talk about gun control arguments in absolutes like there isn't already some level of restrictions on gun ownership seem to abound on these threads.

Anything interesting in the article itself?

FTA: Leahy says, he's always been perfectly satisfied with his .45-caliber at home.

"Even when we had people escaping from prison announcing they were going to kill me, I felt pretty comfortable with that," he said.


 Okay, I like this quote.
 
2013-03-16 04:31:29 PM  

Amos Quito: Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.


How such a "set up" might start:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?


Re-read the text of the 2nd amendment for me:

"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."

You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?  That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it.  The 2nd amendment is not a license to substitute violence for democracy when you've unilaterally decided that the winner of the last election is a tyrant.

The founding fathers wrote the periodic turnover of government through democratic elections into our founding documents for a reason.  To argue that you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing a democratic government when you see fit only proves the point of the gun control people:  that you clearly can't handle such a freedom.
 
2013-03-16 04:32:03 PM  

vygramul: Didn't those pictures all have the caption, "Not particularly useful against an insurgency," in 2005, or is that inconvenient now?


I don't think wanna be militia men jerking off in the woods to anti-government fantasy count as an insurgency.  So no it's not that inconvenient.
 
2013-03-16 04:32:32 PM  

udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.


What damaging the general welfare might look like...

www.shtfplan.com
img16.imageshack.us
en.academic.ru
 
2013-03-16 04:32:49 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Amos Quito: When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think

Yes your AR and your love of freedom will stop this:
[www.usmilitary.com image 378x375]
And this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x207]
And this:
[aeronauticpictures.com image 485x359]

It's not 1776 anymore where the height of military tech is a big metal tube.  But keep dreaming derping.


Exactly.  You can't fight the government because it has tanks and planes.  No one has ever done that before.  Derp.
 
2013-03-16 04:34:24 PM  

carpbrain: Must suck to be you. Your comment comes across as naked, delusional paranoia. So, apparently, good company with other pro-gun folks.


Go back to your Brady board.
 
2013-03-16 04:35:16 PM  

udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it


Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
 
2013-03-16 04:35:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: It's emotional.  Libs think with their bleeding heart, not their brain.


America's annual gun death statistics compared to the rest of the civilized world make people with a brain haz a sad.
 
2013-03-16 04:36:12 PM  
Alright when you brave farkers decide to overthrow the government with your awesome insurgency you may notify me and I will take back all my snark.

until then keep having those wet dreams.

jackholes
 
2013-03-16 04:36:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.

No, I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

They claim that banning flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsible stocks etc. will make us "safer" as a nation, that it will have some appreciable effect on gun violence in general.

Simple logic AND FBI statistics prove, beyond all doubt, that their claim is patently false.

A lie.

Clearly then their goal is NOT what they claim it to be.

Feel free to rationalize, and tell us what you THINK their true goal(s) might be.

This makes me wonder why you refuse to answer my question.  What exactly are you afraid of?



As a student of political history and an observer of human nature, I recognize that the "American Experiment" has produced a unique experience in individual and social liberty.

We here have enjoyed many freedoms that you may notice are not enjoyed by other cultures and civilizations - indeed, in this respect, the US has long been the envy of the world.

Have you ever paused to ask yourself why these other societies don't simply grant themselves the same freedoms and liberties that we enjoy? Do they not want freedom of speech and expression? The ability to openly criticize their governments without fear of retaliation, etc?

Liberties are hard won, but easily surrendered, and once they're gone, they're damn near impossible to regain.

If you think this is about anything other than Authoritarian control, you're mistaken.
 
2013-03-16 04:36:32 PM  

Farker Soze: carpbrain: Must suck to be you. Your comment comes across as naked, delusional paranoia. So, apparently, good company with other pro-gun folks.

Go back to your Brady board.


I apologize, but I have no idea what you mean with those words.  Feel safe, though, I still think you sound like delusional paranoiac, perhaps in need of medical attention, before someone gets hurt.
 
2013-03-16 04:37:50 PM  

heypete: udhq: That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

The vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners own and use their firearms in safe, lawful ways that cause no harm to anyone nor cause any disturbance to the general welfare.

A relatively small amount of criminals use them to commit acts of violence.

It makes sense to focus on the criminals, rather than the law-abiding folks and inanimate objects.


That answer amounts to doing nothing to prevent violent crime, only responding to it after it has taken place.

After all, every gun owner is safe and law-abiding, until they aren't.
 
2013-03-16 04:39:21 PM  

quatchi: America's annual gun death statistics compared to the rest of the civilized world make people with a brain haz a sad.


Outside of certain "hotspots" of criminal activity like New Orleans, DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc., the rate of gun-related homicide in the US is roughly comparable to many other western countries. These "hotspots" contribute disproportionately to national crime statistics. There's quite a few states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah, etc. that have very lax gun laws, lots of guns, and very low crime rates.

It looks like the problem isn't the average gun-owner.

That said, could the US do better in regards to reducing violent crime? Absolutely. Should it? Yes.
 
2013-03-16 04:39:23 PM  
Good to see you guys are taking this seriously.
 
2013-03-16 04:39:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]


Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....
 
2013-03-16 04:41:05 PM  

quatchi: Silly Jesus: It's emotional.  Libs think with their bleeding heart, not their brain.

America's annual gun death statistics compared to the rest of the civilized world make people with a brain haz a sad.


And that automatically means that the guns are the problem, and not the culture.  Derp.

Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.
 
2013-03-16 04:42:21 PM  

carpbrain: Farker Soze: carpbrain: Must suck to be you. Your comment comes across as naked, delusional paranoia. So, apparently, good company with other pro-gun folks.

Go back to your Brady board.

I apologize, but I have no idea what you mean with those words.  Feel safe, though, I still think you sound like delusional paranoiac, perhaps in need of medical attention, before someone gets hurt.


No, really, this is mostly a civil place these days.  But the gun threads are just like open sewers.  Why is that?  "Deeply held beliefs"?  Really?  I think it's largely something else.


You complain about gun threads being an open sewer, then come and make them so by needless name calling.  Go away.
 
2013-03-16 04:43:41 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....


You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report