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  
•       •       •

1797 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
 
2013-03-16 10:25:23 AM
This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.
 
2013-03-16 10:27:22 AM
How did things work out for the racist rednecks the last time they fought the US govt in a civil war?
 
2013-03-16 10:30:11 AM

cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.


Oh yeah, we're just fighting in the streets here in New York!

Seriously, try to tone it down a little?

Also, someone should send Leahy a copy of The Zombie Survival Guide and a bolt-action rifle.
 
2013-03-16 10:31:49 AM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Oh yeah, we're just fighting in the streets here in New York!

Seriously, try to tone it down a little?

Also, someone should send Leahy a copy of The Zombie Survival Guide and a bolt-action rifle.


You are not a crazy right-winger. Reread my post.
 
2013-03-16 10:33:00 AM

cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Oh yeah, we're just fighting in the streets here in New York!

Seriously, try to tone it down a little?

Also, someone should send Leahy a copy of The Zombie Survival Guide and a bolt-action rifle.

You are not a crazy right-winger. Reread my post.


I know I'm not a crazy right-winger. But you haven't been to New York state if you don't think we have crazy right-wingers with guns here.
 
2013-03-16 10:43:04 AM

cman: Perception is reality


Rather, perception is the filter that governs people's responses to reality.

There's not a lot of difference in implications between the two here, but other cases sometimes have more.
 
2013-03-16 10:45:46 AM
Well, one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!  Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.
 
2013-03-16 10:51:40 AM

Ennuipoet: Well, one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!  Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.


It's true.  Fewer dead children now will mean fewer undead children when the zombocalypse comes, but we still have to consider the issue of the children who are already dead.  How am I going to defend myself against them without an assault rifle?  See, it's a catch-22.
 
2013-03-16 11:10:23 AM

Ennuipoet: Well, one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!  Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.


You still have to admit, it's the best argument anyone can make against an assault rifle ban
 
2013-03-16 11:14:39 AM

Ennuipoet: Well, one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!


Americans love stupid shiat that doesn't exist.  Vampires, zombies, Jesus.  It's really all the same.
 
2013-03-16 11:16:08 AM

Ennuipoet: Well, one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!  Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.


Relax.  He was just using a rhetorical trick.  By exaggerating a situation in which assault weapons would be necessary, he makes his position sound more reasonable.  Our Congress is not actually debating the merits of weapon choice against the undead.  They're dumb, but they're not that dumb.
 
2013-03-16 11:19:26 AM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Oh yeah, we're just fighting in the streets here in New York!

Seriously, try to tone it down a little?

Also, someone should send Leahy a copy of The Zombie Survival Guide and a bolt-action rifle.

You are not a crazy right-winger. Reread my post.

I know I'm not a crazy right-winger. But you haven't been to New York state if you don't think we have crazy right-wingers with guns here.


So you know my inlaws then?
 
2013-03-16 11:23:24 AM

Mentat: Relax.  He was just using a rhetorical trick.  By exaggerating a situation in which assault weapons would be necessary, he makes his position sound more reasonable.  Our Congress is not actually debating the merits of weapon choice against the undead.  They're dumb, but they're not that dumb.


I understand that, but having heard this more than once it just ticks me off.
 
2013-03-16 11:25:31 AM
Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses
 
2013-03-16 11:32:02 AM

CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses


You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!
 
2013-03-16 11:36:27 AM

cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!


Oh, hell yes. Take my money now.
 
2013-03-16 11:37:02 AM
With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.
 
2013-03-16 11:39:28 AM

Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.


Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.
 
2013-03-16 11:46:24 AM

Mentat: Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.

Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.


Shaolin spades work well for that, i've heard
 
2013-03-16 11:56:16 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

What a room full of zombies might look like.


/The search for brains continues...
 
2013-03-16 11:58:07 AM

Mentat: Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.

Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.


If you have to get within melee distance of the zombies, you've already lost. It's smarter to rely on traps and a solid, defensible position. I'm not talking about a fortress (although that would probably work, I guess), I'm talking about like the tree house in Swiss Family Robinson.
 
2013-03-16 12:04:52 PM
I think it's time we had a rational discussion about bayonet lugs.
 
2013-03-16 12:09:49 PM

Amos Quito: [upload.wikimedia.org image 515x337]

What a room full of zombies might look like.


/The search for brains continues...


Hint: check the left side of the central aisle for brains. You won't find any on the right.
 
2013-03-16 12:29:02 PM
I don't think you guys understand what it's like when you experience delusions all day and night, believing that everyone is out to get you.  And the pants-pooping... oy.

/pills and cognitive therapy - the solution
//diapers - necessary for the time being
 
2013-03-16 12:34:33 PM
greengurlz.com

You know, I used to wonder why the Honorable Dianne Feinstein seemed to be on a personal mission to remove Assault Rifles from the hands of US citizens, and restrict their use only to responsible law enforcement personnel.

Yesterday I found out. For Senator Feinstein, it's PERSONAL.

Back in 1978, when Feinstein was serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, she witnessed a double homicide when a deranged man entered city hall and gunned down SF Mayor George Mocsone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Obviously this tragedy had a traumatic and life-changing effect on Dianne - who actually heard the shots and was among the first to see the carnage.

Ironically, the killer, Dan White, was himself a former San Francisco City Supervisor.

The weapon he used in the murder was a pistol - the service revolver he obtained from his former work as a police officer.

Hopefully now you to will understand why Feinstein wants to ban Assault Rifles - with their deadly flash-suppressors, pistol-grips, thumb-holes, and bayonet lugs, and leave such weapons only in the hands of police.

Godspeed, Dianne.
 
2013-03-16 01:26:20 PM
Zombies are more real than the rationale behind another Blah Weapons Ban.
 
2013-03-16 01:33:21 PM

Mentat: Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.

Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.


eh. Even if you sharpen a shovel all you can do s lunge with it. If I am going for a bladed weapon it's glaive all the way. With a blade suited to both thrust and slash.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 01:40:31 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Good.  We let the neanderthals off too easy last time.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 01:42:06 PM
Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.
 
2013-03-16 01:44:24 PM

vpb: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Good.  We let the neanderthals off too easy last time.


I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.
 
2013-03-16 01:46:14 PM

cman: They plan on using them.


For what exactly? Shopping trips to Walmart?
 
2013-03-16 01:46:18 PM

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



i1121.photobucket.com


What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?
 
2013-03-16 02:08:24 PM

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


It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:14:45 PM

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

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


To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

The whole "we can't ban weapons unless we ban everything else that causes people to die first" is precisely the sort of argument I was thinking of when I said that needing guns for zombies was a more rational argument.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:21:23 PM
cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.


Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:24:33 PM
violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun!  Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.
 
2013-03-16 02:24:39 PM

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


To make the frightened and foolish have a false illusion of safety once all those Scary Blah Guns are gone.
 
2013-03-16 02:25:12 PM

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

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


To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?
 
2013-03-16 02:26:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!


No. Please don't fark with any more classics.
 
2013-03-16 02:28:06 PM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?


What would that be?
 
2013-03-16 02:28:51 PM

cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Fark them. I'm not here to coddle crazy people. If they go over the edge because they're told their actions and attitude are no longer socially acceptable, it is not on me to back down and just let them do whatever the fark they want. For me to do that is to live my life in the exact kind of pants-shiatting fear that they do.
 
2013-03-16 02:30:00 PM
imageshack.us

New proposal:  Anyone who mentions Zombies for other than entertainment evaluation or ridicule purposes loses their right to own guns.  And possibly to speak too.

/Jesus God in Heaven, I'm sick of this damn fad.
 
2013-03-16 02:32:17 PM

SilentStrider: Shaolin spades work well for that, i've heard


For the record, Shaolin Spades would have made a great name for a Blaxploitation Kung-Fu movie.
 
2013-03-16 02:32:51 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


If the best argument is that, "gun-control legislation will incite the fascist right to violent revolution", then civil government in this country is already done for and we might as well do it instead of waiting for those trash to stage their own Kristallnacht.
 
2013-03-16 02:34:23 PM

vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.
 
2013-03-16 02:34:40 PM

vpb: cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.

Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.


Hey man, dont bunch me up with people based upon what you think is real. I may be in favor of gun rights, but claiming that I want a civil war solely due to me being on the right is a bit unfair. I am absolutely sure that a civil war will begin if assault weapons are banned. If that is because I have a want of civil war, that I cannot be absolutely sure of. I think about it a lot. How unbalanced everything has become makes it very apparent that something will happen soon.
 
2013-03-16 02:34:57 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: Kristallnacht  Krystalnacht

FTFY.. I'd be in on that.  That shiat is nasty


i0.wp.com
 
2013-03-16 02:36:25 PM
 Own a lot of guns, I inherited all but an SkS, .270 and my 9mm.

My SKS, I guess would considered an assault rifle and under the new assault weapons ban, it would still be legal for me to own and sell that weapon.

Also the other dozen or so weapons I own would also still be legal, so lets stop shiateing our pants and calling ppl gun grabbers plz.

I haven't shot any of my weapons in at least 10 years. Not a single shot.  I don't have to run out and buy new bullets because I still have the ones I used to have.


I own guns for one single reason, investment because stupid ppl always think someone is going to take away their guns and I can take advantage of those stupid ppl and sell my guns to them.

Then when those stupid ppl have spent all their money on weapons and they are broke, I can buy them back at half the price I sold them because stupid ppl get desperate.
 
2013-03-16 02:37:23 PM

Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.


So your argument is that we shouldn't regulate firearms because "rational gun owners" will start shooting people.
 
2013-03-16 02:37:37 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


No, they don't. (plan on using them)

They are far too chickenshiat.

That's why they buy guns like this, to make them feel big and strong and tough.  But they aren't really.

/the Nuge is pants-wetting reality, for example
 
2013-03-16 02:38:37 PM

Fart_Machine: Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.

So your argument is that we shouldn't regulate firearms because "rational gun owners" will start shooting people.


No, I'm saying that vpb has a hard on for killing people.
 
2013-03-16 02:40:04 PM

vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.


What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.
 
2013-03-16 02:41:39 PM

derpy: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

No, they don't. (plan on using them)

They are far too chickenshiat.

That's why they buy guns like this, to make them feel big and strong and tough.  But they aren't really.

/the Nuge is pants-wetting reality, for example


These people are dangerous. Many of them are crazy. Get a bunch of them together and you get mob mentality. Remember Matthew Shepard? Man was murdered because he was gay. Now imagine that happening all across the south to every homosexual and every Muslim.

When it comes to killing minorities they really have no problem with it. They have time and time again showed that they are violent. These are the people who will revolt. Don't underestimate your enemy.
 
2013-03-16 02:42:31 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?


You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.
 
2013-03-16 02:44:58 PM

derpy: You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.


He'll just pull more derp out of his ass about how people murder each other with chainsaws and sharks and sharks dcut taoed to chainsaws.. Argument is pointless with such people.

Because if you can never stop people from murdering one another its best just to do nothing.  Either totally fix the problem or give up.  It's the right wing way.
 
2013-03-16 02:45:36 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: dcut taoed


*attached... not sure how that happened
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:46:16 PM
Amos Quito:
If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?


So you think it would be more reasonable to ban hands fists and feet than objects specifically designed to be weapons?  That's some fine logic there.

Banning "hands, fists, feet, etc"  would have certain practical difficulties.  The only problem with regulating or banning assault weapons is political.  The arguments that we need lunatic militias to protect us from the evil government and such are no more real then the Zombie threat.
 
2013-03-16 02:46:21 PM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?



Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?
 
2013-03-16 02:46:35 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Doktor_Zhivago: dcut taoed

*attached... not sure how that happened


Mmm, duck taco...
 
2013-03-16 02:47:32 PM

derpy: 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?

You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.



That'd be next
 
2013-03-16 02:48:31 PM

derpy: 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?

You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.


The general public likes handguns though.  So, they disingenuously go after the low hanging fruit and claim they're doing something and thinking of the children and making a difference.  Pathetic.
 
2013-03-16 02:50:23 PM
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...
 
2013-03-16 02:51:52 PM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?


I asked you what it would be? Are you really so dumb as to ask the question twice?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:54:08 PM

Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.


No, I was calling your bluff.  I don't think you have the balls the brains or the ability to be the sort of big bad terrorists threat that you like to imagine you are.

Not that I would care about criminals getting Darwin'd the way I care about murder victims.
 
2013-03-16 02:57:16 PM

vpb: Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.

No, I was calling your bluff.  I don't think you have the balls the brains or the ability to be the sort of big bad terrorists threat that you like to imagine you are.

Not that I would care about criminals getting Darwin'd the way I care about murder victims.



"vpb, if we try to take away someone's hard earned stuff, they might start shooting at us."

"Good, we can kill them then!  We can kill all those rednecks!  Oh yeah!  Uh.  Uh!  Oops, I just had an accident in my pants."

You're just as bad as a racist cross-burning Klansman.
 
2013-03-16 03:00:07 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:02:32 PM

bronyaur1: How did things work out for the racist rednecks the last time they fought the US govt in a civil war?


You don't have to be fighting the federal government to want these kinds of weapons. Residents of drug-cartel-embattled Guerrero state in Mexico took up arms and drove out the cartelistas and the corrupt cops who enabled them. They've since established a quasi-official police force and a makeshift prison and are keeping the drug gangs out. When civil order breaks down and the institutions of government itself become irredeemably corrupt, arms are the only means citizens have of reestablishing control.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:04:24 PM
cman:
Hey man, dont bunch me up with people based upon what you think is real. I may be in favor of gun rights, but claiming that I want a civil war solely due to me being on the right is a bit unfair. I am absolutely sure that a civil war will begin if assault weapons are banned. If that is because I have a want of civil war, that I cannot be absolutely sure of. I think about it a lot. How unbalanced everything has become makes it very apparent that something will happen soon.

I basing it on what you claim you think is real.  Specifically the belief that the lunatic fringe of the right is a real military threat or something to be feared at all.

Something will happen alright, but it will be the sort of things that lunatics usually do.  The idea that those people could form a real disciplined military force is laughable

So, bring it on tough guys!
 
2013-03-16 03:04:45 PM
Morans with fully automatic guns should head on down to where the real villains in this world are and bring them to justice

/otherwise known as wallstreet and the big mega banks.

//Otherwise shut the fark up and change your diapers as you keep soiling them every time guns and the big bad black president is mentioned.
 
2013-03-16 03:05:10 PM

Ennuipoet: Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.


i718.photobucket.com

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

Any time somebody says that we need to do anything because of "the children", I ignore them.  That goes for both sides of the aisle.

To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.
 
2013-03-16 03:06:35 PM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?

I asked you what it would be? Are you really so dumb as to ask the question twice?


I'm trying to make you think for yourself.
 
2013-03-16 03:07:25 PM

Silverstaff: To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.


Yes.  Not wanting our children to be gunned down in school is the same as being against them seeing boobies.

BSABSVR
 
2013-03-16 03:08:12 PM

vpb: To reduce the number of people killed.


There are things you can do to be safe on the road.
Wear your seat belt.  Avoid drinking and driving. Stop at all stop signs. Follow the speed limit.
There are things the government can do as well.
Enforce traffic laws more stringently, mark the roads more clearly, raise public awareness about safe driving.

There are things the government does in the name of road safety that are clearly about something else.
Like erecting speeding and stoplight cameras that automatically fine you.

There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

dl.dropbox.com


The AWB was the political equivalent of prayer.  Politicians showed how much they cared by crafting a law that didn't actually help anyone.
Mass shootings still happened. Crime still happened. No one could identify the one person saved by a mag limit, so there was effectively no benefit.
All it did was cost the Democrats votes when they could least afford to lose them.

/What the AWB is doing in Colorado is, once again, putting the democrats reelection plans in peril.
/Endangering their gains on Marijuana and gay marriage, as well as two thousand jobs in the weapons industry.
/That car gets crappy gas mileage and scares off the chicks.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:09:28 PM

violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.


No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:20 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Silverstaff: To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.

Yes.  Not wanting our children to be gunned down in school is the same as being against them seeing boobies.

BSABSVR


You are more likely to be gunned down by multiple assailants who are democrats in your home then your children are to be gunned down in a school by a republican.

facts, liberal bias, and all that.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:38 PM

Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.


Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?
 
2013-03-16 03:11:01 PM

Ambivalence: Mentat: Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.

Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.

eh. Even if you sharpen a shovel all you can do s lunge with it. If I am going for a bladed weapon it's glaive all the way. With a blade suited to both thrust and slash.


You don't need the AR-15s and AK-variants for the zombies, you need them to deal with The Governor and Negan. Everyone knows that after the initial outbreak, the zombies eventually become a manageable threat and the other groups of survivors become the real threat.

/Also, if you are setting up your own personal kingdom post apocalypse, tame tigers help your street cred immensely.
 
2013-03-16 03:11:23 PM

vpb: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.


And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.

/Two can play at that game
//En gard
 
2013-03-16 03:11:49 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:12:25 PM

Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.
 
2013-03-16 03:12:43 PM
fta "But nothing is impossible after Newtown, which so powerfully changed things. We are all different after Newtown."

Yes, the people want meaningful and effective gun control. But this is about politicians and their careers. It has next to nothing to do with the people.
 
2013-03-16 03:13:33 PM

Farker Soze: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?


No, that was teaching you how to tie your shoes.
 
2013-03-16 03:14:47 PM

Fart_Machine: avoid the question.


Interdasting......

Are democrats/gun control proponents still not trying to ban any weapons?
 
2013-03-16 03:15:53 PM

cman: These people are dangerous. Many of them are crazy. Get a bunch of them together and you get mob mentality. Remember Matthew Shepard? Man was murdered because he was gay. Now imagine that happening all across the south to every homosexual and every Muslim.

When it comes to killing minorities they really have no problem with it. They have time and time again showed that they are violent. These are the people who will revolt. Don't underestimate your enemy.


Then let them revolt. Let them show once and for all just what kind of country they want. I'm tired of 'soon'. If they want to start shooting, let them get their ass shot off by people that actually know what they're doing and let this whole thing farking end.
 
2013-03-16 03:16:03 PM

cman: And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.


So we should regulate firearms like we do explosives.  Ok then.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:16:06 PM
I think more people are bright enough to realize that the "gun control doesn't eliminate all crime therefore it doesn't work" argument is idiotic.

So keep making that argument. It will help people realize that you are sane and rational.
 
2013-03-16 03:16:51 PM
www.commondreams.org

Citizens took up arms to defend themselves and their property after the NOPD abandoned entire sections of New Orleans after Katrina.

www.humanevents.com

Korean store owners take up arms to defend their neighborhood after the LAPD abandons it to burn during the LA riots.
 
2013-03-16 03:17:30 PM

vpb: I think more people are bright enough to realize that the "gun control doesn't eliminate all crime therefore it doesn't work" argument is idiotic.

So keep making that argument. It will help people realize that you are sane and rational.


Your rebuttal doesn't end all arguments, therefore it doesn't work.
 
2013-03-16 03:17:43 PM
Not a fan of guns, but I don't think the assault weapon ban will accomplish anything other than wasting a lot of time and political capital to make a lot of people angry and defensive.

We should concentrate on more useful measures like universal background checks for all deadly weapons and mental health care availability.

If we want to talk about effective gun control that would actually cut down on gun violence, I'd support the banning *and confiscation* of all handguns and rifles unsuitable for hunting. Of course that won't happen, and I won't waste my time arguing for the impossible.
 
2013-03-16 03:18:10 PM

Fart_Machine: cman: And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.

So we should regulate firearms like we do explosives.  Ok then.


I was being facetious
 
2013-03-16 03:18:45 PM

vpb: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.


Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?
 
2013-03-16 03:19:02 PM

wingedkat: Not a fan of guns, but I don't think the assault weapon ban will accomplish anything other than wasting a lot of time and political capital to make a lot of people angry and defensive.

We should concentrate on more useful measures like universal background checks for all deadly weapons and mental health care availability.

If we want to talk about effective gun control that would actually cut down on gun violence, I'd support the banning *and confiscation* of all handguns and rifles unsuitable for hunting. Of course that won't happen, and I won't waste my time arguing for the impossible.


Thank goodness every firearm is suitable for hunting.
 
2013-03-16 03:19:45 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Reality. Grip it.
 
2013-03-16 03:20:29 PM

Fart_Machine: Farker Soze: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?

No, that was teaching you how to tie your shoes.


Hercules had to time travel to complete that otherwise simple task.  Yes, time travel is hard.  See, you need to think about these things.
 
2013-03-16 03:23:16 PM

way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...


Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.
 
2013-03-16 03:24:46 PM

Farker Soze: Hercules had to time travel to complete that otherwise simple task.


He was also a fictional character.
 
2013-03-16 03:25:10 PM

vpb: No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower


Lanza would have had to make his shots count instead of pumping an average of something like 6 or 7 rounds into each victim.

He actually did reload often. According to the Hartford Courant the police found mulitple magazines with only a couple shots fired out of each one left the floor. He changed mags as as often as he changed targets.
 
2013-03-16 03:26:08 PM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?


They're targetting ones used in mass shootings. But you know that. You're just framing the argument dishonestly because you have no legitimate points
 
2013-03-16 03:26:23 PM

vpb: No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.


[citation needed]

The Virginia Tech shooter used guns with 10- and 15-round magazines with his handguns. The Newtown shooter reloaded frequently and many of the 30 round magazines he used were half-full when found by the police. He fired 152 rounds in about 15 minutes -- slightly more than 10 rounds per minute, which is well within the ability of someone with a bolt-action or lever-action gun. Neither met with any effective resistance that would have affected their ability to reload.

Would having a smaller magazine have made a difference? Maybe, but it doesn't really seem likely. Considering the federal restriction on magazine capacity for 10 years plus several state-level bans, there's plenty of evidence to show that such restrictions don't really have any meaningful effect on violent crime rates.
 
2013-03-16 03:26:28 PM

Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?


Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:26:50 PM
Farker Soze:

Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.
 
2013-03-16 03:27:13 PM

vpb: I think more people are bright enough to realize that the "gun control doesn't eliminate all crime therefore it doesn't work" argument is idiotic.

So keep making that argument. It will help people realize that you are sane and rational.



Gun control doesn't even eliminate the crime it targets. The effects of the last AWB are unmeasurable according to the ATF and other studies.
 
2013-03-16 03:29:30 PM

Gosling: Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.


Why is the guy who planned his spree all freaked out and nervous firing blindly but the person sitting in their home watching TV or freshly woken up by a noise when someone breaks in is all calm cool and collected?
 
2013-03-16 03:29:35 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.


 
2013-03-16 03:29:56 PM

dr-shotgun: Citizens took up arms to defend themselves and their property after the NOPD abandoned entire sections of New Orleans after Katrina.



Korean store owners take up arms to defend their neighborhood after the LAPD abandons it to burn during the LA riots.


The people with actual sense in NOLA and LA bugged out and then just filed insurance claims to replace the stuff they lost in the storm/looting. In the case of NOLA, you were already out your deductible from the storm damage and half your shiat was already waterlogged, so you might as well let it get stolen so your insurance company can buy you shiny new crap. I honestly can't think of anything I own that is worth killing someone over in non-apocalyptic conditions, since it can all be replaced.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:28 PM

TheOther: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.


My zombie link was shot in the head.  Fark it.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:36 PM

sheep snorter: Morans with fully automatic guns should head on down to where the real villains in this world are and bring them to justice

/otherwise known as wallstreet and the big mega banks.

//Otherwise shut the fark up and change your diapers as you keep soiling them every time guns and the big bad black president is mentioned.


Pretty decent on the derp side. Might get a few bites.
 
2013-03-16 03:31:01 PM

vpb: Farker Soze:

Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.
 
2013-03-16 03:31:06 PM

Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?


Well, that is because there is a huge difference between trying to defend yourself from someone trying to attack you and shooting up a room full of unarmed people.

People who are actively trying to attack you tend to be moving fast, they own the momentum (as they initiated the situation) and they are also armed, so shooting back. Getting hits in this scenario is extremely difficult - most police shootings have far more rounds expended than hits on the bad guy.

Shooting up a room full of unarmed, cowering people - even with the occasional one trying to rush you, does not take anywhere near as much effort. Mass shooters also tend to carry multiple weapons (so if someone tries to rush a reload, they have a backup) and lots and lots of magazines (making magazine capacity bans irrelevant).

So yes, magazine capacity restrictions will do FAR more to limit people's options for self-defense. Anyone who has learned about self-defense shooting in a class, in the military or in law enforcement picks up on that fact within about 3 minutes. Of course, when the national policy debate is primarily being conducted by people who know everything about guns from television and movies, you get asinine logic like the above.
 
2013-03-16 03:32:24 PM

vpb: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.


Yes because cornered first graders are really going to slow down a reload or reach into a dufflebag for another pistol or revolver. Gun control so tight it reduces civilian gun ownership to bolt or lever action or knives is not going to happen in our lifetime, even though you may mistakenly think it's a realistic option.
 
2013-03-16 03:32:33 PM

Giltric: vpb: Farker Soze:

Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.

The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.


farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-16 03:33:35 PM

vpb: No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


Home Invasion Robberies are far more common than workplace/school mass shootings.

It would be far more logical and prudent to prepare for a potential home invasion robbery, such as possessing sufficient firepower to defend yourself and your home and property with, than to make major alterations to our civil liberties to attempt to curtail an outlier event like a mass shooting in a school.
 
2013-03-16 03:34:00 PM

Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.


So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:26 PM

vpb: Farker Soze:

Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


You're more likely to be involved in a multiple intruder scenario than a mass shooting.  Who's paranoid again?
 
2013-03-16 03:35:33 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.


Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.
 
2013-03-16 03:36:09 PM
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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.
 
2013-03-16 03:36:21 PM

Giltric: Why is the guy who planned his spree all freaked out and nervous firing blindly but the person sitting in their home watching TV or freshly woken up by a noise when someone breaks in is all calm cool and collected?


Okay, firing blindly may not be the best word, but they sure as hell are firing rapidly, and that's the important thing. They're going to be firing more than 10 bullets, surely.

As for the guy in a home-invasion scenario, well, let's just say they'd damn well better be calm and collected or, again, they're farked no matter what they do, because they're not going to hit their target. Spray-and-pray does not equal a dead invader no matter how big your magazine is.
 
2013-03-16 03:37:09 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.


Yes what where those women thinking.  It's their own fault.
 
2013-03-16 03:37:55 PM

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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?
 
2013-03-16 03:39:18 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.

Yes what where those women thinking.  It's their own fault.


Even more deflection! Wow you are good at this game. Can I have your autograph, please?
 
2013-03-16 03:39:19 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.


And I love hypocrisy. Emotional appeals are only valid if you're using them from even more infrequent events in support of gun nuts.
 
2013-03-16 03:39:34 PM

cman: 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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?


Ahh, deflection.  I love that tactic.
 
2013-03-16 03:39:57 PM

violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.


Weapons should be feared, you moron.  They aren't farking toys, idiot.
 
2013-03-16 03:41:08 PM

born_yesterday: cman: 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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

Ahh, deflection.  I love that tactic.


I was humorously attempting to convey the message that Australia is not America. Just because it works in other countries doesnt mean it will work here.
 
2013-03-16 03:41:24 PM
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.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:22 PM

dr-shotgun: Shooting up a room full of unarmed, cowering people - even with the occasional one trying to rush you, does not take anywhere near as much effort. Mass shooters also tend to carry multiple weapons (so if someone tries to rush a reload, they have a backup) and lots and lots of magazines (making magazine capacity bans irrelevant).

So yes, magazine capacity restrictions will do FAR more to limit people's options for self-defense. Anyone who has learned about self-defense shooting in a class, in the military or in law enforcement picks up on that fact within about 3 minutes. Of course, when the national policy debate is primarily being conducted by people who know everything about guns from television and movies, you get asinine logic like the above.


Well, then I guess I'm dead in that situation.

Odds are you are too. Nobody ever says they'd be anything other than the big hero. Nobody ever stops to think that maybe they end up as one of the people who gets a lead enema before they even know what the hell is happening or one of the people who tries to fight back and loses to the guy who already has his gun out and pointed before they even clear the holster. (That's another thing: everybody thinks they're somehow going to outdraw a guy who already has his gun pointed at them. Perhaps through magic.) Oh, no. Every mass shooting can be stopped by the 28 Dirty Harrys in the crowd, and if they can't, well, it's the victims' fault for not carrying a bigger gun.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:38 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:42 PM

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.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:44:44 PM
cman:

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.

And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.


Yep.  You are exactly right.

Proof that weapons control laws work, staring everyone in the face.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:12 PM

cman: 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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:34 PM

cman: 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.


Single-issue voters aren't really that big of a factor since they're already committed to a party either way.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:41 PM
cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:48 PM

Gosling: Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.


Tell that to this guy

www.fieldandstream.com
 
2013-03-16 03:47:15 PM

Izicata: cman: 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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.


And you missed the point.

I was saying that Australia isnt America. What works there does not always mean it will work here, too.
 
2013-03-16 03:47:23 PM

iaazathot: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

Weapons should be feared, you moron.  They aren't farking toys, idiot.


Especially the black ones.
 
2013-03-16 03:47:38 PM

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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


I'll ignore the MoJo link since they are pretty fast and loose with facts and often do not provide citations, just a chart.

I'll ignore Autralia also because they do not have constitutional protections where as I thank the creator we actually have protections of our rights which were endowed by our creator, although the founders left a mechanism in place for people to abridge those rights properly but it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of working so politicians try to weasel around it and make emotional pleas instead.
 
2013-03-16 03:48:19 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:48:44 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:10 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.


DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. 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. They may not care about how the victim feels, but people sure do care about what others think of us.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:24 PM

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?
 
2013-03-16 03:52:34 PM

burninbeaver: Gosling: Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.

Tell that to this guy

[www.fieldandstream.com image 850x742]


Only one M60?  Wimp.
 
2013-03-16 03:52:44 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.

DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach men to stop raping. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it. One may not care about how a victim feels, but one sure does care about what others think of oneself.

 
2013-03-16 03:52:57 PM

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.
 
2013-03-16 03:53:23 PM

cman: cman: Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.

DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach men to stop raping. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it. One may not care about how a victim feels, but one sure does care about what others think of oneself.


WHoops, and fixed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:53:48 PM
heypete:
The Virginia Tech shooter used guns with 10- and 15-round magazines with his handguns. The Newtown shooter reloaded frequently and many of the 30 round magazines he used were half-full when found by the police. He fired 152 rounds in about 15 minutes -- slightly more than 10 rounds per minute, which is well within the ability of someone with a bolt-action or lever-action gun. Neither met with any effective resistance that would have affected their ability to reload.

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

Or you could just wonder why the army shifted from the Springfield bolt action rifle to the Garand and then to the M-14 and now to Ar-15 derivitives.
 
2013-03-16 03:54:00 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.


By that same logic, maybe it's not the guns, but the people murdering others with them?
 
2013-03-16 03:54:45 PM

cman: Izicata: cman: 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.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.

And you missed the point.

I was saying that Australia isnt America. What works there does not always mean it will work here, too.


Australia and America are not exactly the same, but are similar enough that comparisons can be made and useful data is available. I'm comparing two first world, western, industrialized, democratic countries; not America and Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-03-16 03:54:52 PM

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


My point is that there's plenty of things that can be done that are effective at reducing homicide (both gun-related and not). Banning certain popular guns that look scary and are rarely used in crime is not effective, so you might as well try something that is more effective and is less politically divisive.

Even with strict regulations and severe penalties for their possession and use, drugs are still widely available pretty much anywhere in the country. It's clear that prohibition of drugs is not the solution. Why would it be any different for guns, particularly when they can be easily made by unskilled people with a device that costs less than $2,000 (and is only bound to get cheaper)?
 
2013-03-16 03:56:00 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.


Settle down Beavis.  It was a joke, probably.
 
2013-03-16 03:57:36 PM

Fart_Machine: cman: 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.

Single-issue voters aren't really that big of a factor since they're already committed to a party either way.


During CTs hearings on sb 1076 one of the politicians felt threatened that the people (of both parties) coming up to give testimony against proposed firearm legislation in CT claimed that this will turn them into one issue voters....3:05 mark in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2arOY9bkIPM
 
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?
 
2013-03-16 04:44:44 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: 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.


The problem with this nonsensical debate is that both sides insist on pretending there is only one scenario for every unfolding of interaction involving a firearm. There are no variables, according to the most die-hard positions, only constants. That's how you get gun-owners cowering in fear before a mass shooter, but unarmed people rising up to tackle that same guy because he has to swap mags. That's how you get gun-owners insisting that the Founders intended an armed society, but refusing to admit the greater capability increases the penalty to society and that it might have changed their calculations knowing that. It's as if the Founders were as narrow-minded and unsophisticated in their thinking as Wayne LaPierre.
 
2013-03-16 04:44:59 PM
Not name calling . . . just telling you how I perceive you.  It's an honest statement.  You know, discourse.  It might be useful information to you . . . you appear to be a delusional paranoiac to me.  I'm a relatively clever, well-educated, well-read guy.  Up to you to use that information.
 
2013-03-16 04:45:39 PM

udhq: 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.


I'm not really sure what you're getting at: in the US, rights default to "on" and people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court (or through some other due process). The vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding people and remain so their whole lives and don't commit violent acts. Only a tiny fraction are or become criminals.

There's plenty of things that can be done to help reduce violent crime that don't infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm a big fan of more resources for low-income communities that are plagued by drug and gang-related violence. Helping people get a leg up in the world through grants, scholarships, improving schools, job training, etc., rather than turning to gangs as a way to make ends meet, would be helpful. Ending the useless and harmful "War on Drugs", focusing on harm reduction, and treating drug use like a medical issue rather than a crime would help cut out the drug traffickers that fuel a lot of the violence. Cracking down on straw purchasers and those who supply criminals with guns would help too. Having a solid healthcare system, both medical and mental, would go a long way.

Such things aren't cheap and and they aren't easy, but they're a lot more effective than trying to restrict certain types of popular guns that are rarely used in crime.
 
2013-03-16 04:46:16 PM

carpbrain: Not name calling . . . just telling you how I perceive you.  It's an honest statement.  You know, discourse.  It might be useful information to you . . . you appear to be a delusional paranoiac to me.  I'm a relatively clever, well-educated, well-read guy.  Up to you to use that information.


I'll use that information by plonking an obvious troll.  Bye.
 
2013-03-16 04:49:13 PM

Silly Jesus: 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?


The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:05 PM

heypete: 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."


I'm familiar with Heller, and while it does affirm a personal right to bear arms, what it decidedly does not do is nullify the first clause of the 2nd amendment.

My comment was in response to the implication that the right to bear arms somehow includes and unspoken right to overthrow the government.  This is not the case, and was never an intended justification for the inclusion 2nd amendment.  The "public" justification behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure "the security of a free state", i.e. the continuity and stability of the federal government and it's jurisdiction.  The "actual" reason had more to do with a network of militias in the south that existed for the purpose of enforcing slavery.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:13 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.



And who do you think mans those tanks, flies those planes, and has immediate command over those troops?

Robots?

The military is staffed with men who have sworn to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION - NOT the would-be Authoritarian plutocrats. Their families - their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters are THE PEOPLE of the United States. And that is where their hearts are.

These men have a track record of being willing to fight and, if necessary give their lives in the name of preserving the freedoms and liberties enshrined in the Constitution - and they ALSO have an unusual appreciation for arms, and what the consequences of finding oneself defenseless can bring.

This is not Saddam's "Republican Guard".

Good luck convincing them to turn their weapons on their own.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:14 PM

heypete: 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.


I'm not from the United States, so I really don't comprehend this obsession with guns and the 2nd amendment that seems so prevalent in the USA.  Assault weapon bans that actually ban assault weapons have worked in every other first world, westernized, industrial, democratic country that has passed and enforced them. Society has not collapsed. Australia is not a dictatorship, Canada is not Mad Max on ice, and the UK is not burning as we speak.

The 2nd amendment is clearly not vital for protection from a tyrannical government. There are a bunch of countries that don't have any equivalent of a second amendment (i.e. a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in some fashion). Canadians, for example,  have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but Canada hasn't degenerated into a police state.

What the Supreme Court currently permits as constitutional does not change whether or not Assault Weapon Bans work. How the law functions must, eventually, change to take into account how reality functions. Probably some time after Scalia dies.

And if Australia suddenly sees a massive increase in mass shootings committed with 3d constructed weaponry, I guess we'll have to just ban the ownership or sale of AR-15 upper receivers as well.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:24 PM

vygramul: The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


GPS was designed to kill people. We should ban it.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:30 PM

Silly Jesus: 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?


I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:48 PM

vygramul: Silly Jesus: 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?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.
 
2013-03-16 04:56:42 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: vygramul: The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

GPS was designed to kill people. We should ban it.


Does the clovis point count?  It was designed to kill animals too, and that's kind of barbaric.  Can we ban all edged objects?

SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare

Guns were designed by anarchists?
 
2013-03-16 05:01:04 PM
I believe the PC term for gun control nuts is slappers only"
 
2013-03-16 05:01:58 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: Silly Jesus: 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?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.


But we do allow folks to own machine guns
 
2013-03-16 05:03:05 PM

carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.


The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.
 
2013-03-16 05:03:17 PM

Izicata: What the Supreme Court currently permits as constitutional does not change whether or not Assault Weapon Bans work. How the law functions must, eventually, change to take into account how reality functions. Probably some time after Scalia dies.


Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

For various reasons, guns are part of the American culture and there's a lot of people who aren't so keen on restrictions on what they consider to be basic rights. I, for one, am quite outspoken about free speech, privacy, protection from unlawful search and seizures, warrantless wiretapping, etc. in addition to gun rights.

And if Australia suddenly sees a massive increase in mass shootings committed with 3d constructed weaponry, I guess we'll have to just ban the ownership or sale of AR-15 upper receivers as well.

As on who abhors violence, I hope such an eventuality doesn't occur.

Of course, one can make uppers and other parts out of metal using machine tools even without 3D-printers. There's quite a few guns that are quite easy to make and require a relatively small amount of work (the Sten gun, for example, can be made with about 5 man-hours of work). While not unheard of, it's not terribly common for people to make their own guns, as it's usually cheaper and easier in most countries to just buy a gun (particularly in the US).
 
2013-03-16 05:05:31 PM

vygramul: Silly Jesus: 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?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


I don't understand the point of that argument.  It's a damn Olympic sport to shoot a rifle at targets...of what relevance is your drum beating about it being able to kill more people than a revolutionary war rifle?  The person that I was responding to said that the sole purpose of the weapons is, essentially, harm.  I pointed out that they are widely used for purposes other than that.  How does your "advances in efficiency" line of conversation tie into that in any reasonable way?
 
2013-03-16 05:06:59 PM

heypete: udhq: 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.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at: in the US, rights default to "on" and people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court (or through some other due process). The vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding people and remain so their whole lives and don't commit violent acts. Only a tiny fraction are or become criminals.

There's plenty of things that can be done to help reduce violent crime that don't infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm a big fan of more resources for low-income communities that are plagued by drug and gang-related violence. Helping people get a leg up in the world through grants, scholarships, improving schools, job training, etc., rather than turning to gangs as a way to make ends meet, would be helpful. Ending the useless and harmful "War on Drugs", focusing on harm reduction, and treating drug use like a medical issue rather than a crime would help cut out the drug traffickers that fuel a lot of the violence. Cracking down on straw purchasers and those who supply criminals with guns would help too. Having a solid healthcare system, both medical and mental, would go a long way.

Such things aren't cheap and and they aren't easy, but they're a lot more effective than trying to restrict certain types of popular guns that are rarely used in crime.



Can't say I disagree with much of any of that.  I would just add that "gun crime" and "mass shootings" are 2 different issues.  Your proposals address the first, but not necessarily the 2nd.

You can argue that "mass shootings" aren't really a significant national problem, that a small handful of over-reported incidents are driving public opinion, but I tend to think their frequency, even if not increasing, merits action.  Mental healthcare is part of that, but I also believe in drawing a legal distinction between the tools needed to commit murder vs. mass murder.
 
2013-03-16 05:08:11 PM
Izicata:  Canadians, for example,  have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but Canada hasn't degenerated into a police state.

A surprisingly high number of Canadians (at least by European standards) own firearms, especially in the rural areas and in the north. Living around coyotes, grizzlies, and polar bears does tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Still, Canada's gun laws are in some respects absurdly restrictive, and are likely to become even more so after the coronation of King Trudeau II in 2015.

As for the police state -- as is currently the case in the US, it will happen so incrementally that relatively few will notice or complain until it's too late.
 
2013-03-16 05:08:31 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.


Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.
 
2013-03-16 05:09:58 PM

udhq: 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.


Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.

Power corrupts.

"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

-- Thomas Jefferson 1787
 
2013-03-16 05:10:23 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: Silly Jesus: 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?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should h ...


If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?
 
2013-03-16 05:10:26 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.


Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.
 
2013-03-16 05:11:09 PM

udhq: I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.


They can't. Biathlon rules do not allow semi-automatic actions.
/I understand as well as you do that this topic has nothing to do with any assault weapons ban.
 
2013-03-16 05:12:34 PM

Silly Jesus: Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.


And if you do live in Detroit where the crime rate is astronomical and the police response time can be measured in hours, you might be very glad to have a firearm for personal protection.

/naw hell, what am I saying?! The government can be trusted to look after us and keep us safe from all harm! All when they can't or won't, it's probably our fault anyway for not giving them enough money.
 
2013-03-16 05:13:31 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.


Do you not care about the Newtown School full of black kids killed in Chicago on a weekly basis by handguns?
 
2013-03-16 05:13:48 PM

carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.


You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?
 
2013-03-16 05:14:19 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.


Biathlon weapons are scary looking and lethal. Nobody (that I know of) is talking about banning them because of their exotic furniture..
 
2013-03-16 05:14:46 PM

Amos Quito: udhq: 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.

Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREV ...


Only one major rebellion in the 225 years history of the US.  Which side are you on?
 
2013-03-16 05:15:26 PM

Silly Jesus: 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.


Certain crazy people having virtually unrestricted access to certain guns are certainly part of the problem that includes but is not limited to the failed war on drugs, the criminal element, bad mental health care nationally and a knee jerk rejection to any potential changes to gun control legislation. It's a big problem that requires a comprehensive approach and understanding to even begin to resolve. But thanks for attributing a false absolutist argument to me and then declaring it derp. That's always fun.

Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.

*blink*

Gosh, I wonder why your mind went there first.

/Not really.

You're almost as much fun as that "pockets of gun violence" guy.

/Again, not really.
 
2013-03-16 05:17:44 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?


Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.
 
2013-03-16 05:18:05 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: 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.

Certain crazy people having virtually unrestricted access to certain guns are certainly part of the problem that includes but is not limited to the failed war on drugs, the criminal element, bad mental health care nationally and a knee jerk rejection to any potential changes to gun control legislation. It's a big problem that requires a comprehensive approach and understanding to even begin to resolve. But thanks for attributing a false absolutist argument to me and then declaring it derp. That's always fun.

Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.

*blink*

Gosh, I wonder why your mind went there first.

/Not really.

You're almost as much fun as that "pockets of gun violence" guy.

/Again, not really.


If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.
 
2013-03-16 05:18:36 PM

Silly Jesus: I don't understand the point of that argument.  It's a damn Olympic sport to shoot a rifle at targets...of what relevance is your drum beating about it being able to kill more people than a revolutionary war rifle?  The person that I was responding to said that the sole purpose of the weapons is, essentially, harm.  I pointed out that they are widely used for purposes other than that.  How does your "advances in efficiency" line of conversation tie into that in any reasonable way?


It's pointing out that his argument holds no water because it applies equally well to weapons he says he's willing to leave legal.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:01 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.


I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:42 PM

heypeteBeing that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

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.

 
2013-03-16 05:19:47 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Are you OK with pistols being freely available?  If so, why?  Keep in mind that their contribution to gun deaths vs. rifles is about 95-5.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:51 PM

Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?


I think what you fail to understand is that it was only acceptable to express scepticism about the scope and power of the US government prior to the presidential election of 2008... whereas dissent was once the highest form of patriotism, now it is a thinly veiled form of racism and/or a sign of right-wing extremism. The Founders could not possibly have been expected to foresee that in our day, for the first time in US history, the government would be led by people who were utterly noble and altruistic; that is why, as the New York Times has so sagely asserted, it is time to scrap the Constitution, since there is no need for checks and balances on a totally benevolent administration.
 
2013-03-16 05:20:09 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.
 
2013-03-16 05:21:11 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.
 
2013-03-16 05:21:55 PM

udhq: Can't say I disagree with much of any of that. I would just add that "gun crime" and "mass shootings" are 2 different issues. Your proposals address the first, but not necessarily the 2nd.

You can argue that "mass shootings" aren't really a significant national problem, that a small handful of over-reported incidents are driving public opinion, but I tend to think their frequency, even if not increasing, merits action. Mental healthcare is part of that, but I also believe in drawing a legal distinction between the tools needed to commit murder vs. mass murder.


With some exceptions, pretty much any firearm legally available in the US is suitable for committing mass murder. With a bit of practice, a revolver can be reloaded in a matter of seconds (there's certain experts who can reload them in a fraction of a second, but that's unreasonable for most people). A pump-action shotgun can fire hundreds of pellets in just a few seconds. A semi-auto handgun, even if restricted to low-capacity magazines, can still be fired and reloaded quite quickly. Of course, the same properties that make a gun dangerous in the hands of a criminal or madman also make the gun more effective in the hands of someone using it for self-defense.

I agree that mass shootings certainly merit action, though I don't think that restricting the most popular guns in the country is the right (or even an effective) way of going about reducing mass shootings. Restrictions on certain types of guns and magazine limits were implemented nationally from 1994-2004. There really wasn't any effect. Trying to do the same thing again doesn't seem likely to be any more effective. I think a lot more effort to focus on people, rather than the guns themselves, would be helpful. I'm certainly no expert, of course.
 
2013-03-16 05:22:28 PM

Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

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.


An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-03-16 05:23:08 PM

Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?


Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.
 
2013-03-16 05:23:51 PM

Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

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.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


Links are in the original post.
 
2013-03-16 05:25:04 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.


You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.
 
2013-03-16 05:26:06 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.


That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.
 
2013-03-16 05:28:01 PM

Ablejack: Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?

Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.


Because they are chosen, often by teenagers who like neat, scary looking things, for these massacres does not mean that they are the most efficient item for such a task.  Many combinations of weapons not involving these scary guns would be just as, if not more, lethal.

Background checks - Fine with me, but most criminals don't do things the legally way...hence the criminal title.

Restricting magazines is asinine.  If nobody had any use for a larger magazine in self defense then whey are Dems so quick to allow an exemption for police?  Also, as has been pointed out by many...with very little practice a magazine can be changed rather quickly.  This ban is just a nonsense feel good measure that is only added red tape with no real impact.
 
2013-03-16 05:28:12 PM

carpbrain: Only one major rebellion in the 225 years history of the US.


i50.tinypic.com



carpbrain: Which side are you on?



I'm on the side of We The People retaining our liberties - and our ability to DEFEND, if necessary, those liberties.

Seems to me that if we can manage to do that, no such "rebellion" will be necessary.

:-)
 
2013-03-16 05:28:16 PM

Izicata: Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

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.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Links are in the original post.


You might want to look at all of Australia's firearms laws for an explanation as to why an AWB alone will not succeed.
 
2013-03-16 05:29:58 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


Look up NFA 34, FOPA 86 Hughes amendment, then reevaluate your position
 
2013-03-16 05:30:06 PM

Izicata: Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

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.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Links are in the original post.


There are numerous links to our ban here doing nothing.

Causation vs. correlation.

Also, you can't discount the amount that are already in circulation and you can't discount our very different cultures.  It's not as simple as banning the scary gun.
 
2013-03-16 05:30:44 PM

Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries. Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.


Stop posting HateFacts. Everyone knows that the real danger to America is the suburban or rural white NRA member with a .270 in his closet, not the inner-city gangster with a fondness for spraying bullets from his handgun. Anyway, the gangster is a victim of telepathic racism from the NRA member, so he can hardly be blamed for (say) Chicago's massive death toll. White privilege is to blame for that.

Ultimately the problem of gun violence can all be solved with more laws -- which means more policemen, more bureaucrats, and more prisons, all of which can be easily paid for by increasing the taxes of the middle-class (who well afford it, since they're pretty flush at the moment thanks to Obama). Once a few gun owners with no previous criminal record find themselves being beaten and sodomized in prison for holding on to their formerly- legal high- capacity magazines, the compassionate nature of gun control will be made evident.
 
2013-03-16 05:31:24 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.

That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


From above:  The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets.
 
2013-03-16 05:31:39 PM

udhq: I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of. What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


With the exception of a small number of very strictly-regulated privately owned machine guns (which haven't been used in crimes since the 1980s), all guns owned in the US (and all guns currently legal for sale from shops) can only fire one shot per trigger pull. A gun may look like a military rifle that's full-auto, but the civilian-legal gun can only fire one shot per trigger pull. It's a common misconception that so-called "assault weapons" refer to machine guns, rather than "scary looking" semi-auto guns.

carpbrain: AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them? Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well. Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Basically, yes: It's the most popular rifle in the country and is used almost exclusively for lawful purposes like sport and competition. There's no functional difference between the AR-15 and any of gobs of other semi-auto rifles that would not be affected by such a ban: they fire the same ammo at the same velocity from detachable magazines. People focus on the AR because it looks like an M16, even though it fires only one shot per pull of the trigger. The bill proposed by Senator Feinstein would ban certain guns like the AR, but specifically exempt other functionally identical guns like the Mini-14 even though there's no real difference in terms of lethality. Indeed, the "ranch rifle" (wood stock, looks like something your grandfather would have) variant of the Mini-14 would be specifically exempt from the ban while the "tactical" version (which is the exact same gun, but has a black plastic stock) would be banned.
 
2013-03-16 05:33:38 PM
I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.
 
2013-03-16 05:34:13 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.

That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


"A tiny amount in one direction" that to be effective would require confiscation of the single most popular rifle in the US and the single most popular/common magazine used to feed it.

How is this "a tiny amount" of change?
 
2013-03-16 05:34:53 PM

Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.
 
2013-03-16 05:35:19 PM

Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.



The founding fathers were rebelling against a government that did not allow for the peaceful transfer of power through elections.  Yes, they feared tyranny.  Their solution to that was to mandate a regular demonstration of democracy through elections, not violent overthrow.

The constitution is a charter of negative liberties, meaning it's more a list of what government is NOT allowed to do more than a list of rights conferred upon individuals, but at the same time, it is a 2nd draft that provides for a strong, centralized federal government after the failure of the libertarian Articles of Confederation.
 
2013-03-16 05:35:33 PM

Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


Maybe you shouldn't be watching other men and their penises from the shoe section.  Sounds kind of creepy.
 
2013-03-16 05:36:30 PM

vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.


I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.
 
2013-03-16 05:36:44 PM

carpbrain: There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.


The .22, being such a cheap and common round, is responsible for more gun deaths than any other caliber... which means your "plinking" (such a deceptively gentle term for such an anti- social activity!) is directly responsible for the deaths of little children. Sir, I ask you sir, have you no shame, sir? Sir?
 
2013-03-16 05:36:45 PM

Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.




Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?
 
2013-03-16 05:37:10 PM

carpbrain: The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction. No, it won't end violent crime. No, it won't end mass shootings. But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


In addition to restricting the AR-15, the most popular gun in the country, Senator Feinstein's proposed ban would also restrict many other commonly used firearms that are rarely used in crime. That's hardly a "small" change. Being that such a ban and limitations on magazine sizes have been tried before at both the state and federal level and there's no evidence that the ban has had any effect at all on mass shootings or violent crime rates in general, it doesn't really seem "sensible" either.

People are "going to the mat" to oppose this because it's a substantial change in gun laws, restricts some of the most popular guns in the country, has been tried before without any benefits, and because they don't think it's a good idea.
 
2013-03-16 05:38:35 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including ...


Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.
 
2013-03-16 05:39:26 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.


What does optimized for combat even mean?  Many guns that aren't included in the ban shoot the same piece of metal at the same speed and at the same fire rate.  How are you differentiating from the evil ones and good ones?
 
2013-03-16 05:40:13 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.


Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?
 
2013-03-16 05:40:23 PM

Delay: I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


Freudianism: turning people's brains into pudding since 1880.
 
2013-03-16 05:40:56 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Inc ...


Your "tiny tweaks" would involve the confiscation of millions of weapons and magazines to be at all effective.  It's asinine to call that a "tiny tweak."
 
2013-03-16 05:43:34 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?


Huh?  Assault rifles are a subset of Assault weapons.  You clearly thought that some sort of weapon that fired more than one round per trigger pull was a part of this conversation.  Only a few of those are owned privately and they are heavily restricted.  That has never been a part of these conversations.  You were caught with your pants down, man up.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:08 PM

Silly Jesus:
There are numerous links to our ban here doing nothing.

Causation vs. correlation.

Also, you can't discount the amount that are already in circulation and you can't discount our very different cultures.  It's not as simple as banning the scary gun.


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.


Izicata:Australia and America are not exactly the same, but are similar enough that comparisons can be made and useful data is available. I'm comparing two first world, western, industrialized, democratic countries; not America and Saudi Arabia.

Look, why don't you just read all the comments I've made in this thread? You haven't brought up any arguments I haven't already responded to.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:13 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.


Except that this is being done without first studying the issue to make sure this isn't going to make things worse. The Aurora shooter's AR-15 jammed, probably because the idiot wanted to look like Rambo with a bad-ass 100-round mag. The army doesn't use 100-round mags despite issuing hundreds of rounds to each soldier. That's because they jam. So by limiting mag sizes, you are reducing jams. In addition, if you look at something like the VA Tech shooter, who was using two handguns, he reloaded something like 15 times and killed more people. It's possible that, not being able to have an AR-15, shooting every time he pulled the trigger, the Aurora theater shooter would have selected instead to go with two handguns, meaning TWO bullets because he now had TWO trigger fingers.

That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:33 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

I think what you fail to understand is that it was only acceptable to express scepticism about the scope and power of the US government prior to the presidential election of 2008... whereas dissent was once the highest form of patriotism, now it is a thinly veiled form of racism and/or a sign of right-wing extremism. The Founders could not possibly have been expected to foresee that in our day, for the first time in US history, the government would be led by people who were utterly noble and altruistic; that is why, as the New York Times has so sagely asserted, it is time to scrap the Constitution, since there is no need for checks and balances on a totally benevolent administration.



I think you've made some powerful points here.

Indeed, many of the farkers that are PRESENTLY so willing to hand unlimited power to the current administration would be shiatting bricks at the idea of such powers being in the hands of some Right Wing Conservative asshat - A Romney, McCain, Bush, or even a remake of David Duke.

But apparently foresight is not their strong suit - because IF they should manage to "win" in their efforts to disarm the American public - and IF, following such an action the illusion of Democracy should survive between our shores, they should be VERY prepared for these same unbridled powers to be handed to those whom they hate, fear, and despise, because the backlash will be overwhelming.

But in any case, none of us should expect that any subsequent administration would DREAM of restoring any of the rights we foolishly squander.

Authoritarian asshats are interested in power, and they will take it any way they can get it. Party and politics are just games - a means to an end.

Once Liberty is gone, it's gone.
 
2013-03-16 05:46:20 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?


That seems to be a common thread.  I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.
 
2013-03-16 05:46:25 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Delay: I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

Freudianism: turning people's brains into pudding since 1880.


Dunno. If I needed a gun I would go into Dick's sporting goods here in Utah and buy that gun. I wouldn't look so creepy about the size of my dick as most of the buyers do.
 
2013-03-16 05:47:27 PM

Farker Soze: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: 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?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?

That seems to be a common thread.  I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.


Projection 101.
 
2013-03-16 05:48:15 PM

carpbrain: So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?


Because they're the most popular types of guns in the country and are used very rarely in crime.

Put simply, because a ban would have essentially no benefit and infringe on the rights of law-abiding people.

And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?

There's no evidence that such a ban would have any effect on mass shootings or violent crime in general. It's been tried before and it didn't work.

Such magazines are standard for the majority of firearms purchased today, and are very popular for both sport and self-defense purposes.

Mass shooters can (and do) carry lots of spare magazines and can reload quickly and without any meaningful resistance. Having limited-capacity magazines would not be a huge downside. People in a self-defense situation often only have a single magazine, so limiting magazine capacity would limit their ability to defend themselves. Considering how frequently even trained police officers miss in a shooting situation, having a few more shots available could be the difference between life and death for someone defending themselves.
 

And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

Two reasons:
1. I like the idea of being able to transfer private property to a family member or close friend who I know is not a criminal without needing to ask permission.
2. It's completely unenforceable without a national registry of firearms and their owners, and I think that's a bad idea.
 
2013-03-16 05:52:42 PM

cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.


lolno.
 
2013-03-16 05:53:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.

What does optimized for combat even mean?  Many guns that aren't included in the ban shoot the same piece of metal at the same speed and at the same fire rate.  How are you differentiating from the evil ones and good ones?


The legal definitions proposed usually start with the weapon being semi- or fully- automatic. Any other action is not included in any proposal I know of. On top of the action, other features (often cosmetic) are included in an effort to allow as many configurations of hunting rifles as possible while trying to enact an effective law. But you are right, banning any auto-loader from future sales would be much cleaner and more effective legislation.
 
2013-03-16 05:53:56 PM

Delay: Dunno. If I needed a gun I would go into Dick's sporting goods here in Utah and buy that gun. I wouldn't look so creepy about the size of my dick as most of the buyers do.


You see a complete stranger in a store and the first thing you think about is his penis... and yet gun owners are the ones with the problem?

/"I sure wish gun owners would stop shoving their right to own phallic substitutes down my throat!"
 
2013-03-16 05:54:24 PM

carpbrain: Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.


First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere. As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions). So I am a gun owner who wants a ban. I don't keep a loaded gun in my dresser - I keep guns unloaded and in a gun safe. I will continue to own them because the risk of having one used against me (or anyone else) is minimal. I just recognize few gun owners mirror my caution.

I believe an assault weapons ban will likely have zero impact on mass shootings. It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better. If so, it will not be measurably so. If I am going to give up weapons and magazines, I would prefer it not be for pointless exercises.
 
2013-03-16 05:57:06 PM

way south: Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.

Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?


Why are you opposed to it?  What harm would it cause?  Similar law was on the books for years, somehow the planet kept spinning around.  Are you against the high capacity magazine ban too?  Why?  How about universal background checks?

Really hard to understand where some folks are coming from on these issues.
 
2013-03-16 05:58:35 PM

carpbrain: way south: Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.

Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?

Why are you opposed to it?  What harm would it cause?  Similar law was on the books for years, somehow the planet kept spinning around.  Are you against the high capacity magazine ban too?  Why?  How about universal background checks?

Really hard to understand where some folks are coming from on these issues.


Do you have something showing that your proposed ideas would work?  Or should everyone just add red tape to everything on your unicorn farts perfect world whim?
 
2013-03-16 05:59:23 PM

Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.


"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.
 
2013-03-16 06:02:26 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.

First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere. As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions). So I am a gun owner who wants a ban. I don't keep a loaded gun in my dresser - I keep guns unloaded and in a gun safe. I will continue to own them because the risk of having one used against me (or anyone else) is minimal. I just recognize few gun owners mirror my caution.

I believe an assault weapons ban will likely have zero impact on mass shootings. It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better. If so, it will not be measurably so. If I am going to give up weapons and magazines, I would prefer it not be for pointless exercises.


Maybe it won't help so much (although it seems like things would have been different in Newtown and Aurora).  Maybe it will.  Why oppose it?

And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.
 
2013-03-16 06:04:05 PM

vygramul: First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere.


Your hobby doesn't enable jack sh*t, unless your firearms are in the habit of leaving your house at night without your knowledge, shooting people, and then returning home before you wake up in the morning. It's like saying I shouldn't own a hammer or a swimming pool because hammers have been used in murders and little kids drown in pools (far more often than they get shot, by the way). Take this logic to its conclusion and we'd end up banning practically everything that makes our lives enjoyable -- cars, booze, violent movies -- because WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions).

Shame that Australia's gun ban hasn't stopped its crime rate from increasing... that goes to show you how useful moral hysteria and magic thinking are in shaping public policy.

It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better.

I'm amazed you have the courage to leave your house in the morning. Don't you know that there's a non-zero chance you could be struck and killed by a falling piano?
 
2013-03-16 06:05:18 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.

If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.
 
2013-03-16 06:06:10 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.


Wow...missed the point completely.  I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant.  In this case, as one example, I brought up culture.  Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem.  That easier to understand?
 
2013-03-16 06:07:26 PM

Silly Jesus: Huh? Assault rifles are a subset of Assault weapons. You clearly thought that some sort of weapon that fired more than one round per trigger pull was a part of this conversation. Only a few of those are owned privately and they are heavily restricted. That has never been a part of these conversations. You were caught with your pants down, man up.


Yeah, I don't think this is true.  Just last summer I received permission from the FBI to sell a burst-fire rifle to a private gun dealer.

CSB, it wasn't mine, cleaning out my grandpa's house after he died we found he had quite the armory, including a collection of "personal explosive devices", i.e. different types and styles of grenades.  Those, as well as the tripod-mounted, chain-fed machine gun, we had to surrender to the FBI.

What was scary was the legal stuff though.  He was mentally gone, and no one knew he had any of them, it could have easily turned real ugly.
 
2013-03-16 06:07:32 PM

electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.



You fought in the first Civil War?
 
2013-03-16 06:08:07 PM

carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.


I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.
 
2013-03-16 06:08:15 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?


There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:07 PM

vygramul: That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.


We have already had such a federal ban. It was allowed to expire so it is difficult to comment on it's success. Even then it is hard to effectively calculate the number of people 'not shot' because of regulations. But certainly there is less violence committed and accidents that happen with outright banned weapons than with readily available weapons. Another issue is that these measures are enacted for long term results and have no planned immediate effect on the number of these weapons "on the streets." Even with NY's new restrictions, if you already have what qualifies as an assault weapon, you may keep it - unmodified. You must simply register it and you cannot sell it in state unless you make changes to bring it in accordance with the new laws.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:09 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: vygramul: First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere.

Your hobby doesn't enable jack sh*t, unless your firearms are in the habit of leaving your house at night without your knowledge, shooting people, and then returning home before you wake up in the morning. It's like saying I shouldn't own a hammer or a swimming pool because hammers have been used in murders and little kids drown in pools (far more often than they get shot, by the way). Take this logic to its conclusion and we'd end up banning practically everything that makes our lives enjoyable -- cars, booze, violent movies -- because WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions).

Shame that Australia's gun ban hasn't stopped its crime rate from increasing... that goes to show you how useful moral hysteria and magic thinking are in shaping public policy.

It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better.

I'm amazed you have the courage to leave your house in the morning. Don't you know that there's a non-zero chance you could be struck and killed by a falling piano?


This brings up another interesting point.  How many parents do you know who would never let their child go to a house with a gun in it yet wouldn't think twice about letting them go to a home with a swimming pool?  Pools are responsible for MANY more deaths of children than guns each year, but guns are scary and cause more of an emotional response.  This is a pretty good study for how liberals often think.  Emotionally rather than logically.  It shows up repeatedly in this debate.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:57 PM
SHUT UP ABOUT ZOMBIES ALREADY!


/get a new fad monster
 
2013-03-16 06:10:40 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.


Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:03 PM

cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the Civil War?


Fixt. Only one war so far.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:03 PM

cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the first Civil War?


No the North did.

The Civil ones will beat the uncivil ones in this Civil War.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:16 PM

Ennuipoet: 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.


"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise?
 
2013-03-16 06:12:10 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

 
2013-03-16 06:12:35 PM

Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.


It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.
 
2013-03-16 06:13:21 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.

We have already had such a federal ban. It was allowed to expire so it is difficult to comment on it's success. Even then it is hard to effectively calculate the number of people 'not shot' because of regulations. But certainly there is less violence committed and accidents that happen with outright banned weapons than with readily available weapons. Another issue is that these measures are enacted for long term results and have no planned immediate effect on the number of these weapons "on the streets." Even with NY's new restrictions, if you already have what qualifies as an assault weapon, you may keep it - unmodified. You must simply register it and you cannot sell it in state unless you make changes to bring it in accordance with the new laws.


On that one, I am certain it did nothing. Because it banned nothing of note. You might sleep better knowing that a school shooter doesn't have a bayonet, but I'm fairly certain it makes no difference. To say that such a pretend-ban did anything is like saying you're banning spoilers and undercarriage lights and that will have an impact on street racing.
 
2013-03-16 06:13:58 PM

electronicmaji: cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the first Civil War?

No the North did.

The Civil ones will beat the uncivil ones in this Civil War.


"We" indicates possession.

You cannot take credit and own something that you had absolutely nothing to do with. The reverse is true; the sins of the father shouldnt be cast upon the son.
 
2013-03-16 06:14:09 PM

Silverstaff: Ennuipoet: 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.

"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.


THIS
 
2013-03-16 06:14:16 PM
electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
 
2013-03-16 06:14:24 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.


I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.
 
2013-03-16 06:15:09 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.


hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please
 
2013-03-16 06:17:31 PM

carpbrain: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please


English not your first language?
 
2013-03-16 06:18:01 PM

Silly Jesus: There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.


There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist. I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.
 
2013-03-16 06:18:26 PM

Silly Jesus: Silverstaff: Ennuipoet: 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.

"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

THIS


second.
 
2013-03-16 06:19:54 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.


Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?
 
2013-03-16 06:20:58 PM

udhq: carpbrain: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please

English not your first language?


Your sentence sucked.
 
2013-03-16 06:21:48 PM

Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.


Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.
 
2013-03-16 06:23:31 PM
Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.
 
2013-03-16 06:24:14 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.


No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.
 
2013-03-16 06:27:32 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.


I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger.  You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy.  It's projection, and you don't realize it.
 
2013-03-16 06:29:43 PM

Farker Soze: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger.  You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy.  It's projection, and you don't realize it.


Oops was that some friendly fire?
 
2013-03-16 06:32:48 PM

Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!


Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.
 
2013-03-16 06:33:09 PM

carpbrain: Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.


To the gun industry, it is their only business. They of course are interested in being heard, and do have an effective lobby based heavily on a large sporting community.  The sporting set have a grand and sympathetic narrative in American history and policy,  although they are not the intended target of these proposed bans.
 
2013-03-16 06:34:06 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Who is a "gun grabber"?  Yet another nutty sentiment that seems to pop out.
 
2013-03-16 06:34:59 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.

Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?


Mostly, it's a genuine distrust of government. Not necessarily all government, or even necessarily this one, although many people have fallen for the Obama = Socialist nonsense. They have internalized the possibility that government will, in fact, turn to abject tyranny, and that, along with loyal military units, will successfully defend us from such usurpation.

It's not that they hope to rise against a government in their lifetimes (except some libertarians who think we're already there). They see themselves as the caretakers of that capability. They mostly believe that we're way past what it should be. A true M-16 should be available, most of them would tell you in private. Maybe even support weapons, counting on their expense to keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane. (After all, rich criminals express their sociopathy on Wall Street, right?)

It's flawed, but it's absolute, and it's reinforced by how much fun the hobby itself is. Not just the hobby - but the culture itself.

/Nickel and dime psychoanalysis and worth what you paid for it.
 
2013-03-16 06:35:38 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Gun grabbers don't exist either.
 
2013-03-16 06:36:07 PM

Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.


I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blacks, for example, is at least partly attributable to the breakdown of black family life that followed Johnson's vast extension of the welfare state in the 1960s.

I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.

I'm always intrigued by the suggestion that race doesn't exist or doesn't matter, from the same people who readily blame all kinds of social problems on "white racism". If nobody knows what white and black are, how can whites be said to oppress blacks? Doublethink.
 
2013-03-16 06:38:59 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.


In the Ovens?


These aren't crazy ideas.


If a certain population of people are willing to commit treason and go to war over a common sense law than they will be treated as treasonous.


They are lucky they aren't all brought up on charges of Treason.


The sentence for Treason is death you know.
 
2013-03-16 06:39:00 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Feinstein, who's been at it for 30 years, can't be bothered to learn that imploding bullets don't exist.  But bring up zombies, Oh my!
 
2013-03-16 06:39:14 PM

doglover: If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Nothing is wrong with emotional arguments. They are indeed very effective.
 
2013-03-16 06:40:26 PM

carpbrain: Who is a "gun grabber"?


Every teenage boy.

i14.photobucket.com">


But actually anyone who supports bans and pointless regulations like magazine limitations and other silly things. Bloomberg, for example. Basically anyone who wants to regulate society by passing laws to enforce their mores as opposed to leading by example and pinching off problems at the source.
 
2013-03-16 06:41:41 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.


what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

And for what? A false sense of security? And creating criminals because what they own/do didn't used to be illegal. Banning guns is as stupid as banning pot, and it is another means of some elite douchebag who lives in a gated community and has private security anyway to tell us dumb average folk how we need to live in THEIR imagined version of utopia. You just eat it up because YEAH IT'S DOING.... SOMETHING.

It absolutely IS surrendering a basic civil right, Because "Right to bear arms" doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean "Right to what paltry selection of arms the government decides". And also because if I give an inch here you will keep pushing to take that mile.

YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A .22 SINGLE SHOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF!

Go to Britain and get stabbed, and then arrested because you fought the assailant.
 
2013-03-16 06:42:37 PM

Farker Soze: doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.

Feinstein, who's been at it for 30 years, can't be bothered to learn that imploding bullets don't exist.  But bring up zombies, Oh my!


What do you imagine is Feinstein's goal, and what is her motivation?  Trying to get another glimpse of the view of the other side.
 
2013-03-16 06:42:50 PM

electronicmaji: EvilRacistNaziFascist: electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

In the Ovens?


These aren't crazy ideas.


If a certain population of people are willing to commit treason and go to war over a common sense law than they will be treated as treasonous.


They are lucky they aren't all brought up on charges of Treason.


The sentence for Treason is death you know.


It's why George Washington swung from a tree.
 
2013-03-16 06:45:09 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.

what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

And for what? A false sense of security? And creating criminals because what they own/do didn't used to be illegal. Banning guns is as stupid as banning pot, and it is another means of some elite douchebag who lives in a gated community and has private security anyway to tell us dumb average folk how we need to live in THEIR imagined version of utopia. You just eat it up because YEAH IT'S DOING.... SOMETHING.

It absolutely IS surrendering a basic civil right, Because "Right to bear arms" doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean "Right to what paltry selection of arms the government decides". And also because if I give an inch here you will keep pushing to take that mile.

YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A .22 SINGLE SHOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF!

Go to Britain and get stabbed, and then arrested because you fought the assailant.


Again, my point.  Posters who just seem nutty and post near-nonsense.  Where do these folks come from?
 
2013-03-16 06:46:13 PM

Ablejack: Silly Jesus: There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist. I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.


I meant to post a picture of a bucket of popcorn after that comment (the words were someone elses)  Fark's new picture system shows the picture in the preview and then when you hit post it says "OMG YOU CAN'T POST THAT PICTURE / BAD LINK" and just goes ahead and posts it without the intended image...creating your confusion.
 
2013-03-16 06:46:28 PM

vpb: cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.

Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.


Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan, they obviously haven't gotten the memo that they were only supposed to be able to last 2 hours vs our military.
 
2013-03-16 06:48:03 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.

Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?


Do you have a rational regulation that has been shown to be effective?  No?  Didn't think so.  There's your answer.
 
2013-03-16 06:48:26 PM

Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.


No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:12 PM

Amos Quito: 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.


Yup it's only a lack of firearms that prevent other nations from achieving democracy.

/not sure if serious or a looney.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:20 PM

Jegred2: vpb: cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.

Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.

Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan, they obviously haven't gotten the memo that they were only supposed to be able to last 2 hours vs our military.


Whuh oh.  Is Jegred2 advocating violent overthrow of the US govt.?  And again, is that what's behind the nuttiness I keep seeing in threads like this?
 
2013-03-16 06:49:39 PM

Farker Soze: Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.


But at least I can pat myself on the back for theoretically saving some white people while I ignore all of the black people being murdered every day by non assault weapons.
 
2013-03-16 06:50:27 PM

carpbrain: Again, my point.  Posters who just seem nutty and post near-nonsense.  Where do these folks come from?


keep trying to push an ideal that has nothing to back it up but "think of the children!" and "we need to do something!"

Also, nice using an ad hominem this post as a stand in for your shiatty argument.

because im nutty and calling your bullshiat means im posting nonsense. It's not shocking your profile says you are frisco.
 
2013-03-16 06:53:47 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.


I suspect that "those communities" have other factors that actually contribute to the type of crimes committed. I did not call you a racist nor did I deny that there is such a distinction. I mean to suggest that crimes are committed for other reasons than what someone looks like. I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally. If you don't really mean that it's race that somehow causes crime, I suggest you could be more careful.
/I also had a chuckle with your login in light of this.
 
2013-03-16 06:54:58 PM
Well, to your credit, I wrote "near-nonsense."  Yes, also wrote "seem nutty" but that's just being honest.  But have never seen you post before, and you're all over a gun thread.  It's a marvel!
 
2013-03-16 06:55:05 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.


Is a pistol a weapon of mass murder?
 
2013-03-16 06:55:09 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.


That pretty much defines projection.
 
2013-03-16 06:56:14 PM

Ablejack: I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally.


statistics are unintentionally racist.
 
2013-03-16 06:57:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Farker Soze: Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.

But at least I can pat myself on the back for theoretically saving some white people while I ignore all of the black people being murdered every day by non assault weapons.


Racist!
 
2013-03-16 06:57:13 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?


It's like they didn't grow up watching the anti-smoking movement's lies or something.
 
2013-03-16 06:57:49 PM

Ablejack: EvilRacistNaziFascist: You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I suspect that "those communities" have other factors that actually contribute to the type of crimes committed. I did not call you a racist nor did I deny that there is such a distinction. I mean to suggest that crimes are committed for other reasons than what someone looks like. I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally. If you don't really mean that it's race that somehow causes crime, I suggest you could be more careful.
/I also had a chuckle with your login in light of this.


Those that are the biggest fans of the culture of looking down on those that get an education, sticking around after they impregnate someone etc. tend to have something in common.  It's not racism to make that observation.  It's not being argued that it's a causal connection.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:07 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.

Is a pistol a weapon of mass murder?


a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:15 PM

Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.

Wow...missed the point completely.  I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant.  In this case, as one example, I brought up culture.  Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem.  That easier to understand?


Who said guns were the problem?

Guns are inanimate objects. Pretty harmless all by themselves. I mean if we are gonna just get silly here, right?

"Remove a certain culture"? What does that even mean? I thought we were talking about reality here.

I was actually all for the AWB before I realized it wasn't an Attention Whore Ban.

Then when I saw an actual AWB put on the table my first thought was that the Dems were taking a brave (but possibly doomed) political stand here backed up by public opinion increasingly sick of "outlier incidents" (as Wayne LaPierre's crew are fond of calling them) the end result being either A) Get the AWB done which, even if it does nothing to prevent repeats of various mass killings (as I've heard argued here) it would at least send a signal that society at large is increasingly pro gun control or more likely B) Use it as a bargaining chip to try to get other useful things done like improved mental care, removing the gun sale loophole, better tracking of said sales by LEOs, etc leaving both parties with something to take back to their bases.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:43 PM

Silly Jesus: Fark's new picture system shows the picture in the preview and then when you hit post it says "OMG YOU CAN'T POST THAT PICTURE / BAD LINK" and just goes ahead and posts it without the intended image...creating your confusion.


I know right? It is a nuisance.
 
2013-03-16 06:59:59 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally.

statistics are unintentionally racist.


They can be interpreted that way, it's true.
 
2013-03-16 07:01:26 PM

doglover: Dr. Goldshnoz: what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

It's like they didn't grow up watching the anti-smoking movement's lies or something.


actually that crusade came to fruition with glorious bloomberg's "no 2 liter with a pizza" law. I'm sure there are more examples, I seem to recall refillable sodas over X ounces being banned places as well.
 
2013-03-16 07:02:19 PM
Romero-style zombies: probably not going to happen. Biologically impossible.

Hordes of frantic, desperate, scared people after a huge catastrophe: Much more realistic. Not zombies by definition, but in the same ball park. And if some other country is finally successful in a cyber attack that cripples are financial or power system, this scenario could very well happen.

I'm not trying to sound like a doomsday fanatic but I think it's definitely in the realm of possibility.
 
2013-03-16 07:03:26 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.

Wow...missed the point completely.  I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant.  In this case, as one example, I brought up culture.  Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem.  That easier to understand?

Who said guns were the problem?

Guns are inanimate objects. Pretty harmless all by themselves. I mean if we are gonna just get silly here, right?

"Remove a certain culture"? What does that even mean? I thought we were talking about reality here.

I was actually all for the AWB before I realized it wasn't an Attention Whore Ban.

Then when I saw an actual AWB put on the table my first thought was that the Dems were taking a brave (but possibly doomed) political stand here backed up by public opinion increasingly sick of "outlier incidents" (as Wayne LaPierre's crew are fond of calling them) the end result being either A) Get the AWB done which, even if it does nothing to prevent repeats of various mass killings (as I've heard argued here) it would at least send a signal that society at large is increasingly pro gun control or more likely B) Use it as a bargaining chip to try to get other useful things done like improved mental care, removing the gun sale loophole, better tracking of said sales by LEOs, etc leaving both parties with something to take back to their bases.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.


So pass a law, that isn't based in reality as far as effectiveness is concerned, for the sole purpose of it MAYBE being a bargaining chip for passing laws that might actually do some good?
 
2013-03-16 07:03:58 PM
"our" perhaps?  And did you post in the right thread?
 
2013-03-16 07:04:00 PM

carpbrain: Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.


Why do you presume they are an industry lobby?  They are a group of citizens, millions of them.  4.5 million people.  That's over 1% of the country, and those are the ones who pay money each year to be members.  Half a million of those are new members since Sandy Hook, myself included, people who want to fight seeing their freedoms taken away.  Find other lobbying groups that have that many annual dues-paying members in the US, go ahead.  This is something a lot of people feel very passionately about.

I'm a dues-paying member.  I'm not a gun manufacturer or dealer.  I just want to be able to defend myself and my family, collect firearms I am interested in, and engage in sport shooting in a peaceful fashion.  I don't want my guns seized by leftists, or having what guns are legal restricted so that guns that are legal today are felonies tomorrow.

carpbrain: Who is a "gun grabber"? Yet another nutty sentiment that seems to pop out.


"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  February 5, 1995, regarding why the 1994 AWB didn't seize  existing weapons and magazines.

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option." Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY).  December 21, 2012, regarding the future of gun control in New York State

Yeah, leftist politicians want to seize guns.  They've tipped their hand to that fact.
 
2013-03-16 07:05:06 PM

Silly Jesus: So pass a law, that isn't based in reality as far as effectiveness is concerned, for the sole purpose of it MAYBE being a bargaining chip for passing laws that might actually do some good?


Some people just want to see the world banned.
 
2013-03-16 07:05:30 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.


Many things can be used as a weapon. We are discussing tools that are designed to be weapons.
 
2013-03-16 07:07:03 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.

I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blacks, for example, is at ...


I myself am a right-winger. Yesterday I was called a racist by a fellow Farker. He called me this because he assumed since I was on the right I automatically believed extremist views.

You, however, are wrong. It doesnt matter if you are black or white, Republican or Democrat, Martian or Reptilian, people commit crime.

The reason why minorities outnumber white people in jail has nothing to do with crime itself; black people dont commit more crimes than white people, they just get caught more often. Cities have bigger police departments. Guess what? Minorities are big city dwellers. These police departments have more resources to police. Compare that to the country side where one could get killed and they will never be able to find the body.
 
2013-03-16 07:08:40 PM

Ablejack: Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?

Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.


All guns are dangerous.  All guns (short of fully automatic ones) are relatively the same in terms of their level of dangerousness.  The Supreme Court has drawn the line for purposes of banning a gun at it being unusually dangerous and the government's ability to ban a gun would not rest on whether or not people chose them for massacres.  Machine (fully automatic) guns qualify because it is very difficult (if not impossible) to control what you are shooting at with any reasonable level of precision.  Therefore it is very likely you would harm someone you did not intend to harm.  For similar reasons other armaments of an explosive nature are excepted from the 2nd Amendment because of the indiscriminate nature in which they harm people.
 
2013-03-16 07:10:07 PM

udhq: Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.


The founding fathers were rebelling against a government that did not allow for the peaceful transfer of power through elections.  Yes, they feared tyranny.  Their solution to that was to mandate a regular demonstration of democracy through elections, not violent overthrow.



Yeah, and ships are meant to sail, not sink, yet strangely, they still carry lifeboats, because failures happen. And that is where your interpretation of the Second Amendment is flawed: It was not put in place to grant the People the ability to protect the government, rather the ability, if (God forbid) necessary, to effectively resist

udhq: The constitution is a charter of negative liberties, meaning it's more a list of what government is NOT allowed to do more than a list of rights conferred upon individuals, but at the same time, it is a 2nd draft that provides for a strong, centralized federal government after the failure of the libertarian Articles of Confederation.


Many (most) of the powers usurped by the Federal government today were never authorized under the Constitution, rather, they have been surreptitiously slid in via the convenient interpretations of various "clauses" by increasingly power-hungry and treacherous legislative and executive branches - and rubber-stamped by an equally treacherous judicial branch.

(Read here how the Federal Government tried to charge this guy with credit card fraud under the "authority" of the "Commerce Clause")

Federal laws have been created and powers usurped by Federal agencies that have no constitutional basis whatsoever. The Constitution was made to be modified - but the processes for doing so were made arduous by design in the hopes that such changes would not be made lightly, but would be given the careful and thoughtful deliberation they deserved, and that they would serve the interests of THE PEOPLE at large.

Over the past six or eight decades, Constitutional constraints have been increasingly seen as little more than irritating obstacles as those with an Authoritarian bent have sought to increasingly consolidate power in Washington, stripping the States AND the People of rights and liberties in the process.

And by far the WORST outcome of this effective nullification of the Constitution is the lethargy and complacency of We The People, as we willingly sacrifice rights and liberty for the sake of perceived safety, security, or even convenience.

And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.
 
2013-03-16 07:12:03 PM

cman: The reason why minorities outnumber white people in jail has nothing to do with crime itself; black people dont commit more crimes than white people, they just get caught more often. Cities have bigger police departments. Guess what? Minorities are big city dwellers. These police departments have more resources to police. Compare that to the country side where one could get killed and they will never be able to find the body.


I think what you said is true to some degree. But that it falls short to explain the breadth of it. Even within cities, minorities are disproportionally prosecuted. I don't think it is entirely a numbers game.
 
2013-03-16 07:15:56 PM

cman: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.

I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blac ...


notsureifseriousormildlyretarded.jpg

Take an intro Criminal Justice or Sociology class.
 
2013-03-16 07:18:00 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.

Many things can be used as a weapon. We are discussing tools that are designed to be weapons.


My point was that labeling certain gun as a "weapon of mass murder" when anything can be used to "mass murder" is asine and falls in line with using big scary words appealing to emotions instead of using facts.
 
2013-03-16 07:19:40 PM

Amos Quito: And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.
The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.


That's not true. It is only your opinion that your right to bear arms protects you from tyranny moreso than your right to speech, vote, etc.
 
2013-03-16 07:23:14 PM

carpbrain: Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.


As you mention, the gun industry itself is relatively small compared to things like business, oil, banking, etc. In many cases, it's not the industry that does the lobbying and holds political power (though they do have the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry trade group, but they don't do as much lobbying) but rather the people. Sure, the NRA gets donations and whatnot from various manufacturers, but the bulk of their funding comes from individual member dues -- they have ~4.5 million paying members and bring in more than $200 million per year from membership dues and other programs they offer (e.g. people paying for training, ranges paying for discounted insurance, etc.). The manufacturers have donated a few tens of millions over the last decades in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot of people who have elected to join the NRA and they are what gives it the political power.

If they're able to get 1% of their members to call their Congresspeople to oppose or support a particular law, that's 45,000 calls. That's nothing to sneeze at. Most members get monthly magazines that have a lot of really useful information (technical and historical stuff, in particular), as well as various editorials from people like Wayne LaPierre (who can frequently be rather nutty -- I'm a member and wish they'd replace him with someone else, but I'm clearly outnumbered), updates on state and national legislation, and political "calls to action". They can really get the message out to a lot of people.

There's quite a few other gun-rights groups like the Gun Owners of America (~300,000 paid members), the Second Amendment Foundation, state-level organizations, etc., though the NRA is the 800lb gorilla in the room and tends to be the name that keeps popping up in the news. The GOA is even more no-compromise than the NRA and they have (according to the numbers at the wikipedia) 10x the number of dues-paying members as one of the biggest anti-gun-rights groups, the Brady Campaign. Other anti-gun-rights groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns tend to lack the grassroots support of the pro-gun-rights groups: MAIG gets most of its funding from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Joyce Foundation, etc. rather than from individual members.

Gun owners tend to be a lot more passionate and active with politics regarding guns, as many consider the right to own guns an important Constitutional right and an important part of American culture. Passionate people in large numbers tend to get the attention of politicians, regardless of the topic involved.
 
2013-03-16 07:26:23 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.

Many things can be used as a weapon. We are discussing tools that are designed to be weapons.

My point was that labeling certain gun as a "weapon of mass murder" when anything can be used to "mass murder" is asine and falls in line with using big scary words appealing to emotions instead of using facts.


I see your point. But these lawmakers are not simply banning "weapons of mass murder" They are attempting to define which weapons that are most capable of committing mass murders. Both sides are trying to draw the line reasonably and that's the cause of so much splitting hairs.
 
2013-03-16 07:29:00 PM

Ablejack: They are attempting to define which weapons that are most capable of committing mass murders.


The answer is automatic weapons, which are already banned.

You can stop trying to move the goal posts now. Everybody go home.
 
2013-03-16 07:33:03 PM
The term "zombie apocalypse" should be banned from the English language for the next 6 months.

/way past old and busted
 
2013-03-16 07:35:54 PM

Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.


If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy.  But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.
 
2013-03-16 07:36:31 PM

doglover: You can stop trying to move the goal posts now.


This is the biggest reason why I'm adamantly against the AWB. Even more than the statistics saying it won't help. If you submit, the next ban starts getting fought for.
 
2013-03-16 07:39:54 PM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy.  But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.


That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?
 
2013-03-16 07:42:55 PM

doglover: Ablejack: They are attempting to define which weapons that are most capable of committing mass murders.

The answer is automatic weapons, which are already banned.

You can stop trying to move the goal posts now. Everybody go home.


Others find semi-automatic weapons unreasonably dangerous. Most of the arguments fall within those parameters.
 
2013-03-16 07:46:02 PM

Fart_Machine: the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.


No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.
 
2013-03-16 07:46:33 PM

Ablejack: Amos Quito: And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.
The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.


That's not true. It is only your opinion that your right to bear arms protects you from tyranny moreso than your right to speech, vote, etc.

Right now I am able to TRY to defend my right to keep and bear arms by discussing the issue with you (speech), and by voting for those that I HOPE will work to defend that right.

Should I lose the RKBA, I will be able to continue to protest (speech) and to vote for someone who MIGHT work to get that right restored (unlikely) - at least as long as I am ALLOWED to do so by those in power.

AFTER I lose the RKBA, those in power might just find that much of the "speech" is irritating or threatening - that it tends to stir up trouble and sedition. They might also find, in their great wisdom, that The People really don't know what's best for them, and that voting no longer serves the interests of the regime.

Should some group of elitist oligarchs try to limit speech, or eliminate voting, The People have recourse - PROVIDED that the have retained the ability to resist. But once you've surrendered the ability to resist, you can toss the very CONCEPT of "rights" out the window.


/Authoritarians like their subjects like rapists like their women: Gullible, trusting, unarmed and defenseless
 
2013-03-16 07:47:58 PM

Ablejack: Others find semi-automatic weapons unreasonably dangerous


Others find snakes slimy. Reptiles produce no slime. QED Others are wrong.
 
2013-03-16 07:48:02 PM

Silly Jesus: So pass a law, that isn't based in reality as far as effectiveness is concerned, for the sole purpose of it MAYBE being a bargaining chip for passing laws that might actually do some good?


The idea there was that the Dems could use the threat of a AWB (that they might not even really want as an actual AWB = minimum effectiveness + maximum resistance) in order to get political leverage to get movement on other related legislation that they do want that might be more effective in curbing gun deaths.

Yes, it's called politics.

In truth a lot of gun violence is linked to organized crime which is linked to a ridiculously self defeating, self corrupting, doomed-to-fail war on drugs. Toss in increased poverty, an inadequate social safety net and hard to access mental health care and you have a real problem that won't be solved any time soon. In the meantime pardon me for rolling my eyes at those ITT crying copious tears that banning one particular type of gun from the vast array available is somehow taking the 2nd amendment out behind the barn and shooting it Ole Yeller style.

The slippery slopers who cry out that soon they will have nothing left but a pea shooter and a home made sling shot to take on the Legion of Doom are laughable at best.
 
2013-03-16 07:50:49 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy.  But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?


I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.
 
2013-03-16 07:52:03 PM

quatchi: The slippery slopers who cry out that soon they will have nothing left but a pea shooter and a home made sling shot to take on the Legion of Doom are laughable at best.


First they came...
 
2013-03-16 07:54:30 PM

Ablejack: Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?


Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.
 
2013-03-16 07:54:32 PM

doglover: D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-16 07:54:50 PM

doglover: Fart_Machine: the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.



d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-03-16 07:56:26 PM

Ablejack: I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.


Why would you give up either? Why not press the issue with the 9th and 10th amendments and ask for more explicit rights? The explicit right to purchase food products of ridiculous and unhealthy sizes if you should so desire, for example. The right for children to have Trick or Treating on Halloween. The right to board airplanes without some GED dropout pawing at your junk and stealing your carry on booze.
 
2013-03-16 08:00:13 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.


Ha-HA! Now THAT is a good point!  Also kind of our own fault to some degree. I think that education is the best way to address that issue. At homes as well as in schools. Which is of course an entirely different can of worms.
 
2013-03-16 08:01:08 PM

quatchi: The slippery slopers who cry out that soon they will have nothing left but a pea shooter and a home made sling shot to take on the Legion of Doom are laughable at best.


What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?
 
2013-03-16 08:01:59 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?


You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution.  And explosives have caused us more headaches than small arms fire yet there isn't a lobby for them here.

doglover: Fart_Machine: the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.


Wow that's one hell of a strawman you built.  But nice editing of the first part of my post there.
 
2013-03-16 08:04:59 PM

Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.


After seeing the Slingshot Channel slingshots, they'll ban rubber, too.
 
2013-03-16 08:07:12 PM

doglover: Ablejack: I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.

Why would you give up either? Why not press the issue with the 9th and 10th amendments and ask for more explicit rights? The explicit right to purchase food products of ridiculous and unhealthy sizes if you should so desire, for example. The right for children to have Trick or Treating on Halloween. The right to board airplanes without some GED dropout pawing at your junk and stealing your carry on booze.


No. I do believe it is reasonable and constitutional to have limits (as we now do) on all of our rights. But I am not arguing that one is preferable to or more 'vital' than the other. That was your initial position (the primacy of the 2nd) that I disagreed with. For me they are all vital to what I consider the USA.
 
2013-03-16 08:09:12 PM

doglover: Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

After seeing the Slingshot Channel slingshots, they'll ban rubber, too.


High capacity straws and shot pouches must go.
 
2013-03-16 08:10:36 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
2013-03-16 08:11:36 PM

Farker Soze: Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?


Lawls.

I betcha if I had a thermo-tactical nuke them neighbour kids would stay the hell outta my apple trees too.
 
2013-03-16 08:13:36 PM

Farker Soze: High capacity straws and shot pouches must go.


There are some rather deadly straws available out there. By the way, they are locally regulated to varying degrees as are slingshots.
 
2013-03-16 08:13:36 PM

Amos Quito: If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.


You think Republicans would ever allow that?
 
2013-03-16 08:14:07 PM
Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?
 
2013-03-16 08:15:46 PM

ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?


I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?
 
2013-03-16 08:16:04 PM

beta_plus: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.
 
2013-03-16 08:16:26 PM

quatchi: Farker Soze: Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?

Lawls.

I betcha if I had a thermo-tactical nuke them neighbour kids would stay the hell outta my apple trees too.


Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?  Or are you not that bright?
 
2013-03-16 08:16:42 PM

Ablejack: ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?

I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?


Yours. Seriously.
 
2013-03-16 08:17:12 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.


Yes - they were amazingly effective in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
2013-03-16 08:17:44 PM

Farker Soze: quatchi: Farker Soze: Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?

Lawls.

I betcha if I had a thermo-tactical nuke them neighbour kids would stay the hell outta my apple trees too.

Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?  Or are you not that bright?


If you wouldn't fight back with a thermonuclear device of your own, you're a loser and unAmerican and an appeaser.
 
2013-03-16 08:20:06 PM

Farker Soze: doglover: Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

After seeing the Slingshot Channel slingshots, they'll ban rubber, too.

High capacity straws and shot pouches must go.


theawesomer.com

Full auto slingshot is a no go, then?
 
2013-03-16 08:20:53 PM

ghare: beta_plus: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.


You need to throw a small dick comment and post a picture of a big fat guy with a gun to be complete.  No one is going to take you seriously if you don't.
 
2013-03-16 08:21:38 PM

Fart_Machine: You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution.


not at all, i think the idea is crazy to be frank. but you you said what you said and i thought it kinda weak.
 
2013-03-16 08:21:40 PM

Ablejack: ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?

I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?


The hoplophobes (the real "gun nuts")
 
2013-03-16 08:21:44 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.

Ha-HA! Now THAT is a good point!  Also kind of our own fault to some degree.


Wow, what was that? Did a light come on?

Must have been a short circuit.
 
2013-03-16 08:21:45 PM

ghare: beta_plus: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.


I don't think that is a fair assessment. My guess is that there is a decent representative number of veterans among the gun enthusiast ranks. Not to say that your characterization has no individual examples. You could easily demonize both sides by their extreme members positions.
 
2013-03-16 08:22:40 PM
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."  - Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
 
2013-03-16 08:23:34 PM

ghare: Ablejack: ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?

I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?

Yours. Seriously.


And what side, in your own assessment ghare, have I been arguing?
 
2013-03-16 08:23:49 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Fart_Machine: You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution.

not at all, i think the idea is crazy to be frank. but you you said what you said and i thought it kinda weak.


It's kind of weak to compare us to Syria.  Yes.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:17 PM

ghare: Farker Soze: quatchi: Farker Soze: Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?

Lawls.

I betcha if I had a thermo-tactical nuke them neighbour kids would stay the hell outta my apple trees too.

Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?  Or are you not that bright?

If you wouldn't fight back with a thermonuclear device of your own, you're a loser and unAmerican and an appeaser.


No, it just means you don't understand the concept of MAD.  It only works if one side (not both or neither) isn't a giant peace and flowers loving pussy.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:48 PM

LargeCanine: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

"

What we really need are laws that severely limit their manufacture and importation.
 
2013-03-16 08:31:17 PM

Farker Soze: Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?


If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.
 
2013-03-16 08:44:54 PM

quatchi: Farker Soze: Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?

If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.


Ah, there's another catch.  Both sides can't be batshiat crazy either.

Risk it all for a sour ass Granny?  My god man.  Red Delicious or GTFO.
 
2013-03-16 08:44:59 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.



Actually, yes, the first 10 amendments are sorta the definition of "civil rights" in the United States.
 
2013-03-16 08:46:12 PM

quatchi: If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.


Madness. Granny Smiths are an inferior apple and definitely not high up on the "worth a nuclear holocaust" scale. Gala though...
 
2013-03-16 08:51:56 PM

Fart_Machine: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

No. Please don't fark with any more classics.


but but 3D. and jessica simpson in the joan collins role. maybe the cowbell guy staring. or adam sandler.
 
2013-03-16 08:57:33 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: quatchi: If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.

Madness. Granny Smiths are an inferior apple and definitely not high up on the "worth a nuclear holocaust" scale. Gala though...


Granny Smiths are for baking. Pies, apple crisps, dumplings.

Honey Crisp apples are for delicious eating!
 
2013-03-16 09:03:58 PM
Silly Jesus:

i45.tinypic.com

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-16 09:04:30 PM

LargeCanine: Granny Smiths are for baking.


And eating.
 
2013-03-16 09:15:57 PM

vrax: Silly Jesus:

[i45.tinypic.com image 604x516]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

[i48.tinypic.com image 425x251]


True story:

I've armed myself only once due to the noise of someone trying to get into my house at night. My brother, whose house it was, was out of town. I was alone and my bedroom was directly over the back door. I was awoken by someone doing something at the back door, trying to get in. I grabbed my 9mm - the only gun I owned at the time, and retrieved the loaded 15-round mag I kept in a lockbox with the gun and quietly pulled back the slide and let it go as I carefully descended the stairs. I grabbed the phone handset off the hall table and peered around the wall of the living room all the way through the dining room to the back door. Sure enough, the screen door was partway open, bobbing as whoever it was softly bumped the door as he worked. I leveled the gun and waited, 9-1-1 punched into the phone. A minute passed. Then another. Then 5. "Is this the world's worst burglar?" I thought to myself, "Did he know my brother's car wasn't out front and figured he had time to practice his trade?" 10 minutes had gone by, and I crept forward. It seemed to take forever, moving silently to get to a position I could look out the door windows (it was one of those doors with glass panes from the bottom to the top) past the light window dressing that covered the door. Sure enough, a large, humped shadow was outside, and as I peaked outside, I was startled to see the culprit rustling through our discarded belongings. I rapped on the window and the masked would-be thief fled, striped tail streaming out behind him.

I went out and stood the trashcan back up and made sure the back storm door was latched closed, and returned to bed.

/CSB
 
2013-03-16 09:31:15 PM

vygramul: vrax: Silly Jesus:

[i45.tinypic.com image 604x516]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

[i48.tinypic.com image 425x251]

True story:

I've armed myself only once due to the noise of someone trying to get into my house at night. My brother, whose house it was, was out of town. I was alone and my bedroom was directly over the back door. I was awoken by someone doing something at the back door, trying to get in. I grabbed my 9mm - the only gun I owned at the time, and retrieved the loaded 15-round mag I kept in a lockbox with the gun and quietly pulled back the slide and let it go as I carefully descended the stairs. I grabbed the phone handset off the hall table and peered around the wall of the living room all the way through the dining room to the back door. Sure enough, the screen door was partway open, bobbing as whoever it was softly bumped the door as he worked. I leveled the gun and waited, 9-1-1 punched into the phone. A minute passed. Then another. Then 5. "Is this the world's worst burglar?" I thought to myself, "Did he know my brother's car wasn't out front and figured he had time to practice his trade?" 10 minutes had gone by, and I crept forward. It seemed to take forever, moving silently to get to a position I could look out the door windows (it was one of those doors with glass panes from the bottom to the top) past the light window dressing that covered the door. Sure enough, a large, humped shadow was outside, and as I peaked outside, I was startled to see the culprit rustling through our discarded belongings. I rapped on the window and the masked would-be thief fled, striped tail streaming out behind him.

I went out and stood the trashcan back up and made sure the back storm door was latched closed, and returned to bed.

/CSB


You had a chance to shoot a co0n and get away with it, and you passed up ?


/George Dimmerman would not approve
 
2013-03-16 09:37:03 PM

Amos Quito: You had a chance to shoot a co0n and get away with it, and you passed up ?


/George Dimmerman would not approve


It is illegal to discharge a weapon within 1000 feet of a home in Fairfax County, barring sufficient justification.
 
2013-03-16 09:42:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!


Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.
 
2013-03-16 10:00:22 PM
<Loud crash at 3AM.jpg>

Well that rifle isn't going to help clean up the mess from that crash.  I'd go with the broom.
 
2013-03-16 10:02:45 PM

Gyrfalcon: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-16 10:06:17 PM

vrax: Gyrfalcon: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x360]


The operative word being "could" of course.
 
2013-03-17 12:51:53 AM
Leahy's just scared the Joker will come back and finish the job

www.savetheinternet.com

/he was also in the 3rd movie and a small role in Batman The Animated Series
 
2013-03-17 04:45:45 AM

heypete: 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."


The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).
 
2013-03-17 08:21:13 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: 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."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).


You still think it was the Hessians?
 
2013-03-17 09:10:30 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: 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."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).


So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?
 
2013-03-17 09:58:18 AM

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
 
2013-03-17 10:57:46 AM

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

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

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Control. Are you new to American politics?
 
2013-03-17 12:16:21 PM

electronicmaji: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.

If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.


You're a champion of civil liberties
 
2013-03-17 12:28:11 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: 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."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?


Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.
 
2013-03-17 12:29:35 PM

Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?


Addressed above.
 
2013-03-17 01:12:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: 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."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?

Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.


No, they didn't.  You can argue that the Constitution should be amended because the 2nd is no longer necessary (which I don't agree with) but citizens were expected to form up militias with their own "military arms."
 
2013-03-17 01:34:50 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: 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."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?

Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.


Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

/Anyone know what this "bolo" nonsense is?
 
2013-03-17 02:00:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?


Addressed above.

You're intentionally misrepresenting US history to advance your political agenda of opposing civil rights.  The right to bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.  There are two clauses in there, unconnected to each other in meaning, that's what SCOTUS said, and that is the grammar of the statement, which is in accordance with the words of the founding fathers and the overall history of the US.

There was no history of attempting to disarm the general public of arms in US law at any time before the 20th century.  The only gun control until the last few decades was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which existed only to restrict fully automatic weapons and a few weapons with no legitimate self defense or sporting purposes.

The idea that guns as a whole could be banned and that the Second Amendment didn't really enter into play before the last 40 years, around 1970 when a Presidential commission under Nixon advocated a complete handgun ban in the US with confiscation of all handguns. . .opposition to which turned the NRA from a hunters association into a gun rights lobby.  We went almost 200 years as a country before anti-freedom types thought that pistols and rifles were scary bad murder machines instead of self-defense and hunting/sporting implements.  If you're advocating gun bans, that's what you are, anti-freedom.  You are actively trying to strip me of my freedom, and I won't stand for it, and more than I'd stand for somebody trying to enshrine a specific state church of the US.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson,

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson,
 
2013-03-17 02:33:52 PM

Silverstaff: demaL-demaL-yeH: Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?

Addressed above.

You're intentionally misrepresenting US history to advance your political agenda of opposing civil rights.  The right to bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.  There are two clauses in there, unconnected to each other in meaning, that's what SCOTUS said, and that is the grammar of the statement, which is in accordance with the words of the founding fathers and the overall history of the US.

There was no history of attempting to disarm the general public of arms in US law at any time before the 20th century.  The only gun control until the last few decades was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which existed only to restrict fully automatic weapons and a few weapons with no legitimate self defense or sporting purposes.

The idea that guns as a whole could be banned and that the Second Amendment didn't really enter into play before the last 40 years, around 1970 when a Presidential commission under Nixon advocated a complete handgun ban in the US with confiscation of all handguns. . .opposition to which turned the NRA from a hunters association into a gun rights lobby.  We went almost 200 years as a country before anti-freedom types thought that pistols and rifles were scary bad murder machines instead of self-defense and hunting/sporting implements.  If you're advocating gun bans, that's what you are, anti-freedom.  You are actively trying to strip me of my freedom, and I won't stand for it, and more than I'd stand for somebody trying to enshrine a specific state church of the US.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in gov ...


He's gotten his ass kicked in threads before. My favorite, after cornering him to ask what deficiency the second amendment was addressing, is that he said the second amendment was ratified in order to prevent the Hessians from disarming local militias.

That should tell you his grasp of history. His interpretation of the law makes people with GEDs in law shudder, and are generally in direct contradiction with pretty much every court ruling - not just the recent ones.
 
2013-03-17 02:44:36 PM

vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.


What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.
 
2013-03-17 02:47:32 PM

vygramul: Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.


Ah, you're going with the most often mis-quoted one by Freud, that he supposedly called a love of guns as penile compensation.

Guess what?  He believed the opposite was true.  There is nothing in his many works that provide any support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Actually, according to Freud, he associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.  -Dreams in Folklore (1958)
He goes on to say that "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people."
 
2013-03-17 02:49:55 PM

MylesHeartVodak: vygramul: Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.

Ah, you're going with the most often mis-quoted one by Freud, that he supposedly called a love of guns as penile compensation.

Guess what?  He believed the opposite was true.  There is nothing in his many works that provide any support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Actually, according to Freud, he associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.  -Dreams in Folklore (1958)
He goes on to say that "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people."


Not sure why you addressed me here, but ok.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:45 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?
 
2013-03-17 03:50:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


You are also not taking into account English Common Law which guarantees a person to have the freedom of self defense. English Common Law has always had a major effect upon how our system is based. Hell, the Supreme Court even recognizes the writs of the King prior to the revolutionary war to apply to American law.

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.
 
2013-03-17 04:54:27 PM

cman: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.


It was written to make it easier for the self-protection of the community, by the community. That is correct. The right to individual self-defense remains a natural right that has nothing to do with the Second--at least until Heller, when Scalia updated the Constitution to bring it in line with modern thinking by gun ownership advocates.
 
2013-03-17 05:58:26 PM

cman: You are also not taking into account English Common Law which guarantees a person to have the freedom of self defense. English Common Law has always had a major effect upon how our system is based. Hell, the Supreme Court even recognizes the writs of the King prior to the revolutionary war to apply to American law.

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.


Except for the tiny niggling little fact that arms could be limited by an act of Parliament:
"Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

/Context: It's a big farking deal.
 
2013-03-17 07:23:54 PM

vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?


I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.
 
2013-03-17 07:33:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.


If only any of that was relevant to your claim.
 
2013-03-18 01:32:46 AM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.

If only any of that was relevant to your claim.


You claimed that I made up history.
Amendment II exists primarily because the Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would disband the State Militias due to the broadness of the enumerated Militia Powers of Congress, even though the Founders did not plan to have a standing army. These sentiments are explicit in the historical record that I oh-so-conveniently linked for you.
I pointed your lazy eyes to primary contemporaneous source materials.

You're the one who introduced foreign mercenaries from left field, and they have nothing to do with my claim that the Founders intended both clauses of Amendment II to be operative. The historical record is clear on this point - Congress passed legislation to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and mandated the Regulations that specified both training and discipline. They passed the legislation creating uniformity and specifying "[a] well regulated Militia" for the nation within months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

/Keep your German red herrings to yourself, squid.
 
2013-03-18 08:08:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.

If only any of that was relevant to your claim.

You claimed that I made up history.
Amendment II exists primarily because the Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would disband the State Militias due to the broadness of the enumerated Militia Powers of Congress, even though the Founders did not plan to have a standing army. These sentiments are explicit in the historical record that I oh-so-conveniently linked for you.
I pointed your lazy eyes to primary contemporaneous source materials.

You're the one who introduced foreign mercenaries from left field, and they have nothing to do with my claim that the Founders intended both clauses of Amendment II to be operative. The historical record is clear on this point - Congress passed legislation to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and mandated the Regulations that specified both training and discipline. They passed the legislation creating uniformity and specifying "[a] well regulated Militia" for the nation within months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

/Keep your German red herrings to yourself, squid.


Did I, now? So you've forgotten the exchange where you made the assertion that the second amendment was added in order to prevent the Hessians from disarming the militias, eh? I wonder if I should give you the link now, or let you stew some more.

And, yes, you're making up history. You completely ignore comments by the Supreme Court justice who were alive at the time of the Founders who state, quite explicitly, that one of the militia's roles was to defend the states from the usurpation of power by the federal government. No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, no matter how much you ignore it, no matter how much you cherry-pick, that will forever stand as a bright spotlight on your lies.

And make no mistake: you are lying. You know you're lying. It's been demonstrated you're lying.

Or profoundly stupid. After all, you brought up the Hessians.
 
2013-03-18 11:40:58 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


vygramul: And, yes, you're making up history. You completely ignore comments by the Supreme Court justice who were alive at the time of the Founders who state, quite explicitly, that one of the militia's roles was to defend the states from the usurpation of power by the federal government. No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, no matter how much you ignore it, no matter how much you cherry-pick, that will forever stand as a bright spotlight on your lies.

And make no mistake: you are lying. You know you're lying. It's been demonstrated you're lying.

Or profoundly stupid. After all, you brought up the Hessians.


Even taking into account that you're a monolingual bolo, your laziness and lack of reading comprehension skills are both appalling and profoundly disappointing.
I linked to primary source materials, including Franklin's masterful propaganda on mercenaries and the letter to George III from the Continental Congress protesting the disarmament of the militia in Boston and the theft of their arms.
Hessian mercenaries constituted a quarter of Great Britain's forces during the Revolutionary War and instrumental in disarming the New Jersey militia in late 1776.

/Please, proceed.
 
2013-03-18 11:50:15 AM
A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.
 
2013-03-18 12:40:28 PM

vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.


[implied_facepalm.jpg]
 
2013-03-18 01:00:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.

[implied_facepalm.jpg]


Let's try this: is the second amendment a limitation on federal authority?
 
2013-03-18 03:09:24 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.

[implied_facepalm.jpg]

Let's try this: is the second amendment a limitation on federal authority?


The enumerated Militia Powers of Congress? No, not really: "A well regulated Militia" is still subject to federal regulation.
 
2013-03-18 03:46:07 PM

Gosling: Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.


IF what you say is true, then why do every one of these laws have exemptions for law enforcement?  If High Capacity and Assault Weapons are really only legitimate tools for mass murder, then we don't need to exempt cops from them.  Any argument you can make that a cop may need one would also be a good reason a citizen might want one.
 
2013-03-18 05:10:15 PM

manimal2878: IF what you say is true, then why do every one of these laws have exemptions for law enforcement?  If High Capacity and Assault Weapons are really only legitimate tools for mass murder, then we don't need to exempt cops from them.  Any argument you can make that a cop may need one would also be a good reason a citizen mass murderer might want one.

 
2013-03-18 05:31:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.

[implied_facepalm.jpg]

Let's try this: is the second amendment a limitation on federal authority?

The enumerated Militia Powers of Congress? No, not really: "A well regulated Militia" is still subject to federal regulation.


So if the second amendment is not a limitation on federal authority, how does it affect your Hessians?
 
2013-03-18 07:36:42 PM

Ablejack: manimal2878: IF what you say is true, then why do every one of these laws have exemptions for law enforcement?  If High Capacity and Assault Weapons are really only legitimate tools for mass murder, then we don't need to exempt cops from them.  Any argument you can make that a cop may need one would also be a good reason a citizen mass murderer might want one.


hurr durr, so cops are mass murderers?
 
2013-03-18 11:29:38 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.

[implied_facepalm.jpg]

Let's try this: is the second amendment a limitation on federal authority?

The enumerated Militia Powers of Congress? No, not really: "A well regulated Militia" is still subject to federal regulation.

So if the second amendment is not a limitation on federal authority, how does it affect your Hessians?


My Hessians? I am not George III.
Nor do I intend to disarm the State militias.
 
2013-03-19 08:00:04 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.

[implied_facepalm.jpg]

Let's try this: is the second amendment a limitation on federal authority?

The enumerated Militia Powers of Congress? No, not really: "A well regulated Militia" is still subject to federal regulation.

So if the second amendment is not a limitation on federal authority, how does it affect your Hessians?

My Hessians? I am not George III.
Nor do I intend to disarm the State militias.


You're not answering the question you know was asked. If the second amendment does not limit federal power, then how can it affect your Hessian scenario?
 
2013-03-19 09:54:10 AM
You see where this is going, of course.
 
Displayed 460 of 460 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report