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.

(Denver Channel)   NRA takes a shot at making robocalls in Newtown, CT   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary School  
•       •       •

6174 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 03:54:10 PM  

mrshowrules: pedrop357: If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.

Well at least that makes sense.  Earlier someone stated that they were against gun control even if the result made society more dangerous (I paraphrase).  Also a more honest position.

People against gun control don't bother me.  It is people who pretend they are for "enforcing existing laws" or only "current gun controls" that don't work that annoy me.   People who think gun proliferation is actually reducing deaths in the US annoy me.  Say you want this personal freedom with no gun control regardless of the impact to society, and you will at least have some credibility.

Existing gun control laws are stupid.  When a person is convicted numerous times of domestic abuse/violence can buy ten AR-15s but a person convicted of copyright infringement and service 3 months in prison 30 years ago, can't buy a hunting rifle.  farking stupid and it is only getting stupider.


Some people, myself included, will talk about existing laws in order to show that very little is being done about them even within the existing framework and current capabilities.

IMO, we don't need laws that make it illegal for felons to possess firearms.  If they're too dangerous to possess firearms, they're too dangerous to be out on the streets.

A decent example of not enforcing existing laws is Snoop Doggy Dogg.  He has a felony record from the 90s, yet he's been caught multiple times with guns and managed to get nothing more than a fine and probation.

I realize that some/most of it is because he can afford a good lawyer.  But, I imagine that a non-celebrity, non-well off person may also get a slap on the wrist because they are a nobody and the prosecutor doesn't feel like putting any effort into it.

How often do we read about people with multiple violent felonies getting caught with a gun or committing another violent felony and only getting probation or 6 months in the county jail or whatever?

Even the guys in the North Hollywood shootout are a good example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Backgrounds
In October 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu were arrested in Glendale, northeast of Los Angeles, California, for speeding. A subsequent search of their vehicle-after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon-found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, more than 1,600 rounds of 7.62×39mm rifle ammunition, 1,200 rounds of 9×19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates. Initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, both served one hundred days in jail and were placed on three years' probation. After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.

So, IEDs, multiple license plates, and concealed weapons and they get 100 days + 3 years probation and most of their stuff is returned?  Why bother having laws if they won't be enforced?
 
2013-03-26 03:57:27 PM  

redmid17: but the measure was still passed with large bipartisan support because the ATF was so farking bad at their job and very belligerent in hassling licensed dealers at a rate where 3/4 investigations were unconstitutional. They earned that measure.


Agreed.  They sure as hell earned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_a nd _Explosives#History_of_controversy
 
2013-03-26 04:08:27 PM  

pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.

Well at least that makes sense.  Earlier someone stated that they were against gun control even if the result made society more dangerous (I paraphrase).  Also a more honest position.

People against gun control don't bother me.  It is people who pretend they are for "enforcing existing laws" or only "current gun controls" that don't work that annoy me.   People who think gun proliferation is actually reducing deaths in the US annoy me.  Say you want this personal freedom with no gun control regardless of the impact to society, and you will at least have some credibility.

Existing gun control laws are stupid.  When a person is convicted numerous times of domestic abuse/violence can buy ten AR-15s but a person convicted of copyright infringement and service 3 months in prison 30 years ago, can't buy a hunting rifle.  farking stupid and it is only getting stupider.

Some people, myself included, will talk about existing laws in order to show that very little is being done about them even within the existing framework and current capabilities.

IMO, we don't need laws that make it illegal for felons to possess firearms.  If they're too dangerous to possess firearms, they're too dangerous to be out on the streets.

A decent example of not enforcing existing laws is Snoop Doggy Dogg.  He has a felony record from the 90s, yet he's been caught multiple times with guns and managed to get nothing more than a fine and probation.

I realize that some/most of it is because he can afford a good lawyer.  But, I imagine that a non-celebrity, non-well off person may also get a slap on the wrist because they are a nobody and the prosecutor doesn't feel like putting any effort into it.

How often do we read about people with multiple violent felonies getting caught with a gun or committing another violent felony and only getting probation or 6 months in the county jail or whatever?

Even the guy ...


Enforce existing laws.  Great.  Give the ATF the tools/funding it needs to do so.  The reality is the NRA/GOP have no real interest in enforcing existing laws.  They really don't give a shiat.

Background checks are useless if you are a criminal and can simply buy a gun privately instead.  No point.  It would be like have metal detectors at airport but you could simple pick a lane that didn't have one.  If I was a gun owner, I would be pissed if I had to go through this while criminals were buying them in the parking lot at the local gun show.
 
2013-03-26 04:11:49 PM  

redmid17: mrshowrules: pedrop357: If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.

Well at least that makes sense.  Earlier someone stated that they were against gun control even if the result made society more dangerous (I paraphrase).  Also a more honest position.

People against gun control don't bother me.  It is people who pretend they are for "enforcing existing laws" or only "current gun controls" that don't work that annoy me.   People who think gun proliferation is actually reducing deaths in the US annoy me.  Say you want this personal freedom with no gun control regardless of the impact to society, and you will at least have some credibility.

Existing gun control laws are stupid.   When a person is convicted numerous times of domestic abuse/violence can buy ten AR-15s but a person convicted of copyright infringement and service 3 months in prison 30 years ago, can't buy a hunting rifle.  farking stupid and it is only getting stupider.

You're either crossing streams here or very confused. Anyone who's convicted of domestic violence is a prohibited person and would not pass an NICS check anymore than the copyright felon would. However if you're insisting that they can get ten AR-15s because of private sales, then the felon who wants a hunting rifle could too. Hey he could buy one from the domestic violence offender.


I didn't think domestic violence was a felony.  Is it a prohibited crime under the gun laws?  If so, I withdraw the example.  Copyright infringement is a felony.

In any case, I don't support banning felons from their 2nd amendment rights unless they actually used a gun in the crime they served time for.
 
2013-03-26 04:13:26 PM  
"Hey, that massacre would never have happened if y'all had more guns."
 
2013-03-26 04:17:07 PM  

mrshowrules: redmid17: mrshowrules: pedrop357: If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.

Well at least that makes sense.  Earlier someone stated that they were against gun control even if the result made society more dangerous (I paraphrase).  Also a more honest position.

People against gun control don't bother me.  It is people who pretend they are for "enforcing existing laws" or only "current gun controls" that don't work that annoy me.   People who think gun proliferation is actually reducing deaths in the US annoy me.  Say you want this personal freedom with no gun control regardless of the impact to society, and you will at least have some credibility.

Existing gun control laws are stupid.   When a person is convicted numerous times of domestic abuse/violence can buy ten AR-15s but a person convicted of copyright infringement and service 3 months in prison 30 years ago, can't buy a hunting rifle.  farking stupid and it is only getting stupider.

You're either crossing streams here or very confused. Anyone who's convicted of domestic violence is a prohibited person and would not pass an NICS check anymore than the copyright felon would. However if you're insisting that they can get ten AR-15s because of private sales, then the felon who wants a hunting rifle could too. Hey he could buy one from the domestic violence offender.

I didn't think domestic violence was a felony.  Is it a prohibited crime under the gun laws?  If so, I withdraw the example.  Copyright infringement is a felony.

In any case, I don't support banning felons from their 2nd amendment rights unless they actually used a gun in the crime they served time for.


Yeah they were added to the list 15 or twenty years ago

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violencehttp://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdfCheck section 11-i if you want the nitty gritty.I'm not really a fan of barring non-violent felons either. I think it's pretty counterproductive to keep them in jail as well. Similar to what some other poster in the thread posited, if they are too much of a threat to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be out of jail. However I realize that society needs to maintain a delicate balance between restoring rights to those who've repaid their debt and maintaining good order. That the ATF hasn't streamlined the process to help restore those rights is of some minor concern to me.
 
2013-03-26 04:17:35 PM  

pedrop357: redmid17: but the measure was still passed with large bipartisan support because the ATF was so farking bad at their job and very belligerent in hassling licensed dealers at a rate where 3/4 investigations were unconstitutional. They earned that measure.

Agreed.  They sure as hell earned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_a nd _Explosives#History_of_controversy


The committee chaired by Strom Thurmond sure had some choice words about the ATF.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:43 PM  

mrshowrules: pedrop357: redmid17: but the measure was still passed with large bipartisan support because the ATF was so farking bad at their job and very belligerent in hassling licensed dealers at a rate where 3/4 investigations were unconstitutional. They earned that measure.

Agreed.  They sure as hell earned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_a nd _Explosives#History_of_controversy

The committee chaired by Strom Thurmond sure had some choice words about the ATF.


For good reason. Read their report. It's pretty enlightening.
 
2013-03-26 04:20:31 PM  

redmid17: Yeah they were added to the list 15 or twenty years ago

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violencehttp://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdfCheck section 11-i if you want the nitty gritty.I'm not really a fan of barring non-violent felons either. I think it's pretty counterproductive to keep them in jail as well. Similar to what some other poster in the thread posited, if they are too much of a threat to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be out of jail. However I realize that society needs to maintain a delicate balance between restoring rights to those who've repaid their debt and maintaining good order. That the ATF hasn't streamlined the process to help restore those rights is of some minor concern to me.


That's good.  They should take some felonies off the list also.  The nature of the crime (how violent it is) concerns me more than whether it is an actually felony or not.  I would like to see the same standard required for even getting a concealed carry permit applied to the purchase of a hand gun or semi-automatic.  Not trying to start another heated internet exchange though.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:01 PM  

redmid17: mrshowrules: pedrop357: redmid17: but the measure was still passed with large bipartisan support because the ATF was so farking bad at their job and very belligerent in hassling licensed dealers at a rate where 3/4 investigations were unconstitutional. They earned that measure.

Agreed.  They sure as hell earned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_a nd _Explosives#History_of_controversy

The committee chaired by Strom Thurmond sure had some choice words about the ATF.

For good reason. Read their report. It's pretty enlightening.


I will.

My point, is that the GOP is always in the role of fighting the ATF with the support of the NRA so claims of "please enforce existing laws" appear disingenuous at best.   The GOP hates the ATF but it doesn't seem to have any interest in fixing it.
 
2013-03-26 04:29:14 PM  

mrshowrules: Enforce existing laws. Great. Give the ATF the tools/funding it needs to do so. The reality is the NRA/GOP have no real interest in enforcing existing laws. They really don't give a shiat.

Background checks are useless if you are a criminal and can simply buy a gun privately instead. No point. It would be like have metal detectors at airport but you could simple pick a lane that didn't have one. If I was a gun owner, I would be pissed if I had to go through this while criminals were buying them in the parking lot at the local gun show.


Actually the equivalent might be more along the lines of no screening needed for a privately chartered flight.

If I want to fly a few friends around in my (I wish) private jet, none of us have to be screened.  If I operate a charter service, none of us have to be screened.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 04:31:30 PM  

mrshowrules: SRD: pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?

Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.

If all citizens are technical militia/soldiers, then by definition anything they would use would be military/soldiers weapons.  That's a bit of a circular argument when you think about it.   They must have been doing some really good drugs when the raised the idea of militias in an amendment about everyone  being able to buy guns.


Listen the content and meaning of the 2nd is very clear. The founds spoke tons about what it meant. We know it means military soldier arms and cannons and the reason why. You pussy footing around this fact is annoying. Just admit you dont like the meaning of the 2nd amendment and dont agree with it. But dont pretend you dont know what it was there for whether you agree or not. Its crystal clear. at least just say i dont agree with the 2nd. It has nothing to do with hunting it has nothing about self defense or sport. It is about keeping equal foot soldier arms in civilian hands in the remote chance a govt gets out of control.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:07 PM  

mrshowrules: redmid17: Yeah they were added to the list 15 or twenty years ago

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violencehttp://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdfCheck section 11-i if you want the nitty gritty.I'm not really a fan of barring non-violent felons either. I think it's pretty counterproductive to keep them in jail as well. Similar to what some other poster in the thread posited, if they are too much of a threat to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be out of jail. However I realize that society needs to maintain a delicate balance between restoring rights to those who've repaid their debt and maintaining good order. That the ATF hasn't streamlined the process to help restore those rights is of some minor concern to me.

That's good.  They should take some felonies off the list also.  The nature of the crime (how violent it is) concerns me more than whether it is an actually felony or not.  I would like to see the same standard required for even getting a concealed carry permit applied to the purchase of a hand gun or semi-automatic.  Not trying to start another heated internet exchange though.


You'd be surprised at how little a CCW license requires. Many states it's just the standard NICS background check when you get your weapon, a bit of cash, and a set of fingerprints. My home state, Indiana, will let you get a lifetime CCW license for $150, the set of fingerprints, and that background check. It's a shall issue state. Sometimes I regret not getting one because that price is only going to go up, but I no longer live there and have never even bought a handgun. Not really a good use of $150 when you're a broke college student.

Other states require some type of training -- from NRA-range and classroom to hunters education -- along with the background check, fingerprints, and processing fees. Some states (counties really) effectively do not issue CCW licenses unless you're very well connected, rich, or a public figure. NYC and California are pretty notorious for that in gun circles.
 
2013-03-26 04:58:10 PM  

SRD: mrshowrules: SRD: pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?

Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.

If all citizens are technical militia/soldiers, then by definition anything they would use would be military/soldiers weapons.  That's a bit of a circular argument when you think about it.   They must have been doing some really good drugs when the raised the idea of militias in an amendment about everyone  being able to buy guns.

Listen the content and meaning of the 2nd is very clear. The founds spoke tons about what it meant. We know it means military soldier arms and cannons and the reason why. You pussy footing around this fact is annoying. Just admit you dont like the meaning of the 2nd amendment and dont agree with it. But dont pretend you dont know what it was there for whether you agree or not. Its crystal clear. at least just say i dont agree with the 2nd. It has nothing to do with hunting it has nothing about self defense or sport. It is about keeping equal foot soldier arms in civilian hands in the remote chance a govt gets out of control.


Is it Constitutional for a private citizen to own rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, fully automitic weapons, and mustard gas?

If those can be considered "arms" then why does our government refuse to let us arm ourselves? By outlawing the above, has our government not already violated the Constitution?

If it has, what are you going to do about it?

If it hasn't, then where is the line between "arms the 2nd Amenment protects" and "arms the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect".

Help me out here, where is the line and who makes that decision?
 
2013-03-26 05:31:50 PM  

DeArmondVI: Is it Constitutional for a private citizen to own rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, fully automitic weapons, and mustard gas?

If those can be considered "arms" then why does our government refuse to let us arm ourselves? By outlawing the above, has our government not already violated the Constitution?

If it has, what are you going to do about it?

If it hasn't, then where is the line between "arms the 2nd Amenment protects" and "arms the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect".

Help me out here, where is the line and who makes that decision?


The Supreme Court makes that decision, and they haven't been asked to do so yet so there is no ruling.  For god's sake learn something before you whine about the current law.

"WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."
 
2013-03-26 05:52:53 PM  

Farkage: DeArmondVI: Is it Constitutional for a private citizen to own rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, fully automitic weapons, and mustard gas?

If those can be considered "arms" then why does our government refuse to let us arm ourselves? By outlawing the above, has our government not already violated the Constitution?

If it has, what are you going to do about it?

If it hasn't, then where is the line between "arms the 2nd Amenment protects" and "arms the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect".

Help me out here, where is the line and who makes that decision?

The Supreme Court makes that decision, and they haven't been asked to do so yet so there is no ruling.  For god's sake learn something before you whine about the current law.

"WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."


So what you're saying is that since the Supreme Court has not defined what is an "arm supported by the Constitution" and an "arm not protected by the Constitution" that it would therefore be an unconstitutional state of affairs to outlaw mustard gas, anthrax, or grenade attachments?

Why must our rights only be limited to firearms and not all arms?

Why hasn't the NRA lobbied to protect my grenade rights?
 
2013-03-26 06:02:04 PM  

DeArmondVI: Farkage: DeArmondVI: Is it Constitutional for a private citizen to own rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, fully automitic weapons, and mustard gas?

If those can be considered "arms" then why does our government refuse to let us arm ourselves? By outlawing the above, has our government not already violated the Constitution?

If it has, what are you going to do about it?

If it hasn't, then where is the line between "arms the 2nd Amenment protects" and "arms the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect".

Help me out here, where is the line and who makes that decision?

The Supreme Court makes that decision, and they haven't been asked to do so yet so there is no ruling.  For god's sake learn something before you whine about the current law.

"WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."

So what you're saying is that since the Supreme Court has not defined what is an "arm supported by the Constitution" and an "arm not protected by the Constitution" that it would therefore be an unconstitutional state of affairs to outlaw mustard gas, anthrax, or grenade attachments?

Why must our rights only be limited to firearms and not all arms?

Why hasn't the NRA lobbied to protect my grenade rights?


I'm not saying anything and I didn't mention the NRA.  You did.  You expressed confusion about how the law works in this country and I provided the answer.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2013-03-26 06:17:20 PM  
Farkage:  You expressed confusion about how the law works in this country and I provided the answer.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 So, in other words, the law is "we don't know where lies the line between sanctioned and unsactioned arms, but one day we might look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. Until then, total free for all."


Does that mean, legally, that any arms restriction of any sort is actually constitutionally dubious?

I guess I learn something new every day.
 
2013-03-26 06:31:49 PM  

dababler: People_are_Idiots: LordJiro: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?

Which amendments are often twisted and skewed to where they mean nothing?

1st & 4th.


Forgot one.
 
2013-03-26 06:46:01 PM  
DeArmondVI: Farkage:  You expressed confusion about how the law works in this country and I provided the answer.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 So, in other words, the law is "we don't know where lies the line between sanctioned and unsactioned arms, but one day we might look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. Until then, total free for all."


Does that mean, legally, that any arms restriction of any sort is actually constitutionally dubious?


In some instances, yes, that is the case.

I guess I learn something new every day.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?
From the Heller decision, "Like most rights, the Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54-56.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Seriously, go learn something.  Either read or listen to the Heller case and read the decision.  The entire 1 hour+ audio is available online and in all honesty, it is very fascinating.  (Most SCOTUS cases don't have the trial audio available, and it's worth listening to for no other reason than to hear the process.)  After Heller, go read the decision in McDonald V. Chicago
Summary link: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm
 
2013-03-26 08:55:39 PM  

Giltric: You have not posted any proposals in regards to keeping little girls who hang thmselves safe from the dangers of the first amendment via online harassment and bullying. Why are you avoiding the question?


Because it's some bullshiat red herring you're throwing in to distract from the actual topic.  No big surprise there.

No. Shiat happens has pretty much been my stance since Newtown.

At least I am honest about it. I've called the situation an outlier, freedom being messy, etc.... You will never be able to make all the evils of the world disappear by criminalizing firearms ownership.


Then you're projecting, just as I've pointed out.  You have no place calling me "heartless" in any way.

And we very much do have the right to improve our society, and yes, that includes deciding how dangerous weapons should be regulated in this country.    You seem to think that gun ownership is sacred and limitless.

Well you're wrong.
 
2013-03-26 08:56:50 PM  

SRD: whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.

Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.


Oh farking bullshiat.
 
2013-03-26 09:21:03 PM  

whidbey: SRD: whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.

Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.

Oh farking bullshiat.


It concerns me that someone can think that Dodd literally went and looked up Hitler's laws and translated them into English.
 
2013-03-26 09:27:56 PM  

vygramul: It concerns me that someone can think that Dodd literally went and looked up Hitler's laws and translated them into English.


Well as you know, Jonah Goldberg proved recently that Hitler was not only a liberal, but liberals are actually fascists.   So I can see the etymology in action here.

*coughs*
 
2013-03-26 11:54:16 PM  

SRD: whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.

Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.


Except for the inconvenient truth that Hitler generally radically liberalised gun laws in Germany--unless one was one of the categories slated for the camps.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles was that Germany was to suffer major disarmament akin to the effective disarmament of Japan after World War II--technically Germany was no longer allowed to have any weapons capable of use in war, and the Weimar government went on a massive disarmament campaign that effectively made private firearms possession and use a felony offense in Germany even before the military was largely disbanded and disarmed.  Firearms were not legalised again in Germany until 1928 under an extremely strict regime requiring separate licenses for possession, sale, use (yes, you could legally own firearms but not be allowed to use them), manufacture, and to act as a firearms dealer.  (All of these were very hard to get, roughly akin to trying to get a Class III permit in the US.)

Hitler (under the Third Reich) passed a major change in the gun laws of Germany in 1938 which functionally removed almost all licensing requirements for citizens only (before this point, pretty much all "undesirables"--including Jewish people and persons of Jewish descent, Roma and people of Roma descent, and people belonging to Communist and "Red Anarchist" parties--had been systematically denationalised and stripped of citizenship; the sole category not stripped of citizenship were those people who were subject to genocide under the T4 "euthanasia" program and were considered legally incompetent under German law even before the Nazis).  Firearms and ammo were still technically considered to require licensing, but the actual licensing was far easier to obtain (and was for a longer period)--and broad categories, including anyone possessing a hunting license, government workers, members of the Nazi Party (and Party membership became essentially mandatory for any decent positions in Germany), railroad workers, state and federal government officials, and law enforcement.  (Under the 1928 law, only railroad workers and state and federal government officials were exempt from requiring licensing of guns and ammo.)  The ONLY significant tightening of any gun restrictions in Nazi Germany were the prohibition on allowing Jewish people firearms licenses (and frankly, this was applied to anyone who wasn't a "Good German"--Polish and other Slavic nationalities in German-occupied lands were likewise denationalised) and a requirement for recording of gun serial numbers for guns sold by licensed firearms dealers.

German gun law actually regressed after the defeat of Nazi Germany, with West Germany essentially reverting to the 1928 gun law until 1972; laws passed in 1972, 2002, and 2008 actually made the laws a bit stricter, including mandatory psychological evaluation for persons seeking a firearms license who are under the age of 25 and mandatory inspection of gun safes by the German equivalent of the ATF.
 
2013-03-27 02:23:19 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Except for the inconvenient truth that Hitler generally radically liberalised gun laws in Germany


Golly, you mean once again, right-wing farktards don't know what they're talking about? Color me shocked.

Great Porn Dragon: mandatory psychological evaluation for persons seeking a firearms license


I like this. Forget the age requirement; I think anyone who wants to buy guns should be intensely scrutinized.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 08:45:23 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: SRD: whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.

Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.

Except for the inconvenient truth that Hitler generally radically liberalised gun laws in Germany--unless one was one of the categories slated for the camps.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles was that Germany was to suffer major disarmament akin to the effective disarmament of Japan after World War II--technically Germany was no longer allowed to have any weapons capable of use in war, and the Weimar government went on a massive disarmament campaign that effectively made private firearms possession and use a felony offense in Germany even before the military was largely disbanded and disarmed.  Firearms were not legalised again in Germany until 1928 under an extremely strict regime requiring separate licenses for possession, sale, use (yes, you could legally own firearms but not be allowed to use them), manufacture, and to act as a firearms dealer.  (All of these were very hard to get, roughly akin to trying to get a Class III permit in the US.
Hitler (under the Third Reich) passed a major change in the gun laws of Germany in 1938 which functionally removed almost all licensing requirements for citizens only (before this point, pretty much all "undesirables"--including Jewish people and persons of Jewish descent, Roma and people of Roma ...


You statement is partly true. But in 1938 hitler made revisions make it illegal for jews to own guns and for other people to get them easier.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 09:01:57 AM  

vygramul: whidbey: SRD: whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.

Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.

Oh farking bullshiat.

It concerns me that someone can think that Dodd literally went and looked up Hitler's laws and translated them into English.


It was not exact. But dodd did review the german laws for guns. also two of the german laws were inacted into the 1968 gun control act.  also his father was there during the  Nuremberg Trials  and he reviewed the german laws as well. So while not exact translation. Some of the laws set in place were taken from them. I can find the exact provision if you would like.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 09:06:12 AM  

DeArmondVI: SRD: mrshowrules: SRD: pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?

Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.

If all citizens are technical militia/soldiers, then by definition anything they would use would be military/soldiers weapons.  That's a bit of a circular argument when you think about it.   They must have been doing some really good drugs when the raised the idea of militias in an amendment about everyone  being able to buy guns.

Listen the content and meaning of the 2nd is very clear. The founds spoke tons about what it meant. We know it means military soldier arms and cannons and the reason why. You pussy footing around this fact is annoying. Just admit you dont like the meaning of the 2nd amendment and dont agree with it. But dont pretend you dont know what it was there for whether you agree or not. Its crystal clear. at least just say i dont agree with the 2nd. It has nothing to do with hunting it has nothing about self defense or sport. It is about keeping equal foot soldier arms in civilian hands in the remote chance a govt gets out of control.

Is it Constitutional for a private citizen to own rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, fully automitic weapons, and mustard gas?

If those can be considered "arms" then w ...


RPG is legal under regulations so are automatic but again its hard to get. Remember its supposed to be what the average soldier has. Misseles dont fall into that. also the govt cant use mustard gas either. I know people with grenades and 50 caliber machine guns. I also know a guy with a tank and makes his own artillary with certain restrictions.
 
2013-03-27 09:10:09 AM  
James F. Campbell:

Great Porn Dragon: mandatory psychological evaluation for persons seeking a firearms license

I like this. Forget the age requirement; I think anyone who wants to buy guns should be intensely scrutinized.


Again, we have to ask: Who is paying for all this? Who designs the test? Administers it? Is there a process to appeal it?

Psychologists, and especially good ones, cost a bunch of money - if the person pays for it, well I guess only the rich deserve a 2nd Amendment right. If the state pays...well thats a joke, have you looked at state budgets lately? Who designs this test, national, state-level? How do they account for different cultures, races, ages, and genders in it - and avoid the inevitable lawsuit challenging its validity? What is the cost? If it isn't psychologist administered, what if the bureaucrat in charge is a dumbass or racism and uses it as a pretext to deny Jews, the poor, people of color, women, etc from owning a gun? What will the (likely expensive) process to appeal the decision be like?

At the end of the day you're going to be spending a crapload of money to prevent all but the white and wealthy from owning a gun, because the lower class (which trends to minorities) won't have the money for your test or be able to take a full weekday off from the two jobs they have to work in order to drive down(assuming they own a car) to the nearest big city for a full day psych. evaluation. They certainly won't have the money for a lawyer to appeal the decision, either, but fark them, they're poor and if it saves one life!

Oh but wait, it'll do jack shiat. When Jerry bought his duck hunting shotgun, there is no way his psych eval. could predict that five years later his wife would cheat with an entire hockey team just prior to a bitter divorce, sending him over the deep end so that he shoots her. Charlie's psych eval said he was steady as a rock when he bought his rifle, but it could have never predicted the nickel sized tumor that formed in his brain, spurring him to climb a clocktower and kill a dozen men with it. Dylan never got a psych eval for the gun he used to murder his business partner, because he got it the same place he got his products - the black market. Gary school-shooter never got a psych eval either, because he killed his neighbor with an axe and busted into their gun safe with an angle grinder.

So yeah, lets try doing something that'll actually accomplish something.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:36 AM  

BayouOtter: James F. Campbell:

Great Porn Dragon: mandatory psychological evaluation for persons seeking a firearms license

I like this. Forget the age requirement; I think anyone who wants to buy guns should be intensely scrutinized.

Again, we have to ask: Who is paying for all this? Who designs the test? Administers it? Is there a process to appeal it?

Psychologists, and especially good ones, cost a bunch of money - if the person pays for it, well I guess only the rich deserve a 2nd Amendment right. If the state pays...well thats a joke, have you looked at state budgets lately? Who designs this test, national, state-level? How do they account for different cultures, races, ages, and genders in it - and avoid the inevitable lawsuit challenging its validity? What is the cost? If it isn't psychologist administered, what if the bureaucrat in charge is a dumbass or racism and uses it as a pretext to deny Jews, the poor, people of color, women, etc from owning a gun? What will the (likely expensive) process to appeal the decision be like?

At the end of the day you're going to be spending a crapload of money to prevent all but the white and wealthy from owning a gun, because the lower class (which trends to minorities) won't have the money for your test or be able to take a full weekday off from the two jobs they have to work in order to drive down(assuming they own a car) to the nearest big city for a full day psych. evaluation. They certainly won't have the money for a lawyer to appeal the decision, either, but fark them, they're poor and if it saves one life!

Oh but wait, it'll do jack shiat. When Jerry bought his duck hunting shotgun, there is no way his psych eval. could predict that five years later his wife would cheat with an entire hockey team just prior to a bitter divorce, sending him over the deep end so that he shoots her. Charlie's psych eval said he was steady as a rock when he bought his rifle, but it could have never predicted the nickel sized tumor that forme ...


Consider yourself favorited...
 
2013-03-27 10:20:11 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Hitler (under the Third Reich) passed a major change in the gun laws of Germany in 1938 which functionally removed almost all licensing requirements for citizens only (before this point, pretty much all "undesirables"--including Jewish people and persons of Jewish descent, Roma and people of Roma descent, and people belonging to Communist and "Red Anarchist" parties--had been systematically denationalised and stripped of citizenship; the sole category not stripped of citizenship were those people who were subject to genocide under the T4 "euthanasia" program and were considered legally incompetent under German law even before the Nazis). Firearms and ammo were still technically considered to require licensing, but the actual licensing was far easier to obtain (and was for a longer period)--and broad categories, including anyone possessing a hunting license, government workers, members of the Nazi Party (and Party membership became essentially mandatory for any decent positions in Germany), railroad workers, state and federal government officials, and law enforcement. (Under the 1928 law, only railroad workers and state and federal government officials were exempt from requiring licensing of guns and ammo.) The ONLY significant tightening of any gun restrictions in Nazi Germany were the prohibition on allowing Jewish people firearms licenses (and frankly, this was applied to anyone who wasn't a "Good German"--Polish and other Slavic nationalities in German-occupied lands were likewise denationalised) and a requirement for recording of gun serial numbers for guns sold by licensed firearms dealers.


In other words, Hitler expanded firearm rights for a narrow group of people-primarily government employees and Nazi party members,  and hunters but NOT those people he was planning to slaughter by the trainload.

It's almost like disarming and/or keeping a people disarmed is a prerequisite to murdering them by the gross AND might also be useful in discerning how that person/party/government views you and your people as humans.  The person who seeks to disarm me either plans to kill me and/or views me as subhuman-best not to allow that then, huh?
 
2013-03-27 10:20:55 AM  

BayouOtter: At the end of the day you're going to be spending a crapload of money to prevent all but the white and wealthy from owning a gun


Ah, yes, I had forgotten about the rash of wealthy, white shooters recently.
 
2013-03-27 11:36:36 AM  

James F. Campbell: BayouOtter: At the end of the day you're going to be spending a crapload of money to prevent all but the white and wealthy from owning a gun

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about the rash of wealthy, white shooters recently.


As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance). I know of very few exceptions: Seung-Hui Cho was Asian but still wealthy, and Jeffrey Weiss (Red Lake, WA Indian reservation shooting) was Native American and on a poor reservation. I know of zero mass school shootings committed by blacks or inner-city youth, nor any that happened in da 'Hood.

That said, well over 95% of shootings in general have been gang-related, happening among poor, mostly minority inner-city youth in a handful of crime-ridden inner cities (South Side Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., etc.)

These are two entirely different problems, and no one solution will stop both. Even completely eliminating guns and the means and knowledge and even raw materials to make them would only shift the killings to happening with other weapons (as I've noted before, the top eight mass killings initiated by deliberate human action by body count [including the top two school massacres, #2 of which had a body count equaling Columbine + Virginia Tech, and #1 exceeding the combined body count of the Texas University Tower Sniper, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, and several others as well ― and, like Sandy Hook, both killed mainly elementary school children!] on U.S. soil in U.S. history had a grand total of zero bullets fired at any people ― all combined!).
 
2013-03-27 08:42:47 PM  

COMALite J: would only shift the killings to happening with other weapons


home.comcast.net

I have few problem with this.
 
2013-03-27 08:44:24 PM  

COMALite J: As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance).


I was being sarcastic. Middle class or upper class or not, they still aren't the sort of "wealthy" that BayouOtter, in his poutrage, was rambling about. Besides, I oppose firearms -- especially handguns -- altogether.
 
2013-03-27 11:24:15 PM  

James F. Campbell: COMALite J: would only shift the killings to happening with other weapons

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

I have few problem with this.


Then you're a moron.

If the people killing with firearms stop killing with firearms and start killing with other weapons, lives aren't saved.

I thought saving lives was point of all this bullshiat.
 
2013-03-28 01:33:34 AM  

pedrop357: James F. Campbell: COMALite J: would only shift the killings to happening with other weapons

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

I have few problem with this.

Then you're a moron.

If the people killing with firearms stop killing with firearms and start killing with other weapons, lives aren't saved.

I thought saving lives was point of all this bullshiat.


James F. Campbell: COMALite J: As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance).

I was being sarcastic. Middle class or upper class or not, they still aren't the sort of "wealthy" that BayouOtter, in his poutrage, was rambling about. Besides, I oppose firearms -- especially handguns -- altogether.


An important statistic here that is rarely looked at is: how many victims per perpetrator, by weapon type? Firearms do enable killers to kill more people in a given amount of time, per perpetrator, than blunt and edged weapons, but they are not the most efficient weapons in this regard.

As I've pointed out repeatedly: the top eight mass killings (initiated by deliberate human action, whether intended to kill or not) on U.S. soil in U.S. history, which includes the top two worst ever school massacres (the least of which had a body count equaling Columbine and Virginia Tech combined, and the worst of which single-handedly surpassed the combined grand total of not only those two but also the Texas University Tower Sniper and Sandy Hook, all four combined! And, like Sandy Hook but unlike the others, the victims in both of these were mostly elementary school children!), all combined, involve a grand total of zero bullets (or shotgun shells or any other firearm-launched ammo) fired and aimed at any living beings.

This also holds true if you count up all the mass killings and divide the number of victims by the number of perpetrators to get the ones where the fewest perps killed the most people. Again, you have to go down past eight in the list to get to one in which a firearm was used to kill anyone.

In most of those, the deaths were caused by fire and/or explosives. Those are readily easy to come by and much more difficult to restrict than firearms. What are we gonna do, ban gasoline (e.g. Happy Land Night Club fire of 1990, #5 on the overall list, body count also greater than the top four school shootings in U.S. history combined)?

If we make firearms harder to acquire, but do not address the underlying problems, then those who would use guns will move to other weapons. You say you have no problem with that, but it still means people dead, and if they move to fire, explosives, large multi-passenger vehicles (e.g. 9/11, #1 on the list), etc., then that will mean more people dying.

Imagine if Adam Lanza had done what Andrew Kehoe (Bath School massacre, the least of the two no-bullets school massacres I referred to above, and the worst that we know for a fact was done with intent to kill lots of kids) had done, instead of using a Bushmaster, especially if he avoided Kehoe's mistake in not shielding his bombs from each others' blasts (the elementary wing bombs blew apart the wiring to the secondary school wing bombs ― had those gone off as well, Kehoe's body count would've been in the three digits easily). 20 kids dead? There would've been much more than that. Much, much more.

Guns are the symptom. We need to address the underlying cause, and as I said before, there are two entirely separate problems here, and no one solution will cover both of them.

The mass shootings are much more newsworthy and dramatic, committed largely with long guns (including "assault rifles"), and generally are committed by wealthier white people.

But the bulk of shootings in this nation, the ones that put us so very far above all of our peer nations, are the inner city youth gang shootings. Solve those, and suddenly, even if we don't do a thing about the mass shootings, we're back down roughly in the middle of the pack of our peers in the firearm homicides per capita statistics.

Address both and we could have some of the lower stats among our peers, all without repealing nor even amending the Second Amendment.

Try this bit of math: divide the total number of gun deaths (even justifiable homicides, police action, etc.) by the total number of privately owned guns in this nation, and multiply × 100 to get a percentage. This makes the ridiculous, ludicrous assumption that each gun that is used to kill is only used to kill once, that everyone in America who is killed by firearms is killed by a different firearm, and makes the stats the best that they can possibly be for your side.

You still wind up with a very, very small percentage, a miniscule fraction of 1%.

Now try the same thing with medical malpractice deaths (not even all iatragenic deaths, just outright malpractice deaths) and divide by the total number of physicians.

Any given physician in this nation is thousands of times more likely to kill someone than any given firearm is, even using that ludicrous one-death-per-firearm assumption to maximize the odds of each firearm killing someone!
 
2013-03-28 08:20:34 AM  

COMALite J: I thought saving lives was point of all this bullshiat.


This is why the slippery slope is a fallacy in logic but doesn't prevent it from being implemented in reality. Plenty of people who want to ban the AR-15 are happy to do so, even if it has no effect (or especially no effect) if it a) creates precedent and b) enables stronger bans in the future.

That's operationalizing the slippery slope.

(Although, really, it's because people cannot distinguish between a slippery slope fallacy and expected outcomes.)
 
2013-03-28 09:14:21 AM  

James F. Campbell: COMALite J: As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance).

I was being sarcastic. Middle class or upper class or not, they still aren't the sort of "wealthy" that BayouOtter, in his poutrage, was rambling about.


No, those are the kind of wealthy people I was talking about, able to afford psych. evals and take days off work, afford laywers, etc.I like the 'poutrage' angle, its a good mischaracterization of my argument, which basically said that 'thorough' psych evals will discriminate against the poor and minorities. Also, they aren't a magic solution, because no test can predict a future brain tumor or sudden change of attitude, criminals will access guns via the black market to avoid them, etc.

Besides, I oppose firearms -- especially handguns -- altogether.

So are you a Luddite, or do you just want to go back to the days when women were chattel?

Equality isn't everyone's thing.
 
2013-03-28 10:15:59 AM  

vygramul: COMALite J: I thought saving lives was point of all this bullshiat.

This is why the slippery slope is a fallacy in logic but doesn't prevent it from being implemented in reality. Plenty of people who want to ban the AR-15 are happy to do so, even if it has no effect (or especially no effect) if it a) creates precedent and b) enables stronger bans in the future.

That's operationalizing the slippery slope.

(Although, really, it's because people cannot distinguish between a slippery slope fallacy and expected outcomes.)


Actually I said that.  http://www.fark.com/comments/7664697/83284014#c83284014

If the gun control crowd is really about saving lives and caring about children and all the other platitudes they toss out there, then they should be concerned with more than just deaths by gun, especially if the primary thing that would happen with completely successful gun control is weapon substitution.  It's not progress for deaths by firearm to be replaced with deaths by knife, fire, beating, etc.
 
2013-03-28 10:17:30 AM  

BayouOtter: James F. Campbell: COMALite J: As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance).

I was being sarcastic. Middle class or upper class or not, they still aren't the sort of "wealthy" that BayouOtter, in his poutrage, was rambling about.

No, those are the kind of wealthy people I was talking about, able to afford psych. evals and take days off work, afford laywers, etc.I like the 'poutrage' angle, its a good mischaracterization of my argument, which basically said that 'thorough' psych evals will discriminate against the poor and minorities. Also, they aren't a magic solution, because no test can predict a future brain tumor or sudden change of attitude, criminals will access guns via the black market to avoid them, etc.

Besides, I oppose firearms -- especially handguns -- altogether.

So are you a Luddite, or do you just want to go back to the days when women were chattel?

Equality isn't everyone's thing.


At least he's honest about it.
 
2013-03-28 11:36:07 PM  

BayouOtter: So are you a Luddite, or do you just want to go back to the days when women were chattel?


Weak sauce troll is weak sauce.
 
2013-03-28 11:56:05 PM  

James F. Campbell: COMALite J: As far as mass shootings (especially school shootings) go, well over 95% of the relatively recent rash (starting with the Moses Lake, WA shooting in February of 1996, and including Columbine and all others since then) have indeed been committed by upper middle class or higher white people, and most were in small, upper-middle-class or higher communities and suburbs (Littleton, not Denver, for instance).

I was being sarcastic. Middle class or upper class or not, they still aren't the sort of "wealthy" that BayouOtter, in his poutrage, was rambling about. Besides, I oppose firearms -- especially handguns -- altogether.


Why do you oppose all firearms? Are you against police being armed or hunting?
 
2013-03-29 12:37:37 AM  

James F. Campbell: BayouOtter: So are you a Luddite, or do you just want to go back to the days when women were chattel?

Weak sauce troll is weak sauce.


I'm not trolling, I am being serious. Do you believe that the days before guns were less violent? That without the influence of the firearm, there would be no murder? Do you believe that firearms are the source of some malign evil not present in the hearts of men?

What is your rationale for this hatred?
 
2013-03-29 10:37:41 PM  

SRD: You statement is partly true. But in 1938 hitler made revisions make it illegal for jews to own guns and for other people to get them easier.


...I do believe I did mention the bit about there being additions made--and not just laws against Jewish people owning firearms, but functionally prohibiting anyone who was denationalised or otherwise not a German citizen from owning firearms.  (The bits that pertained to Jewish people also pertained to Slavs, Roma, communists, and LGBT people--all of whom had previously been overtly denationalised and stripped of citizenship by Germany to explicitly justify rounding all of them up into concentration camps as essentially illegal aliens.  It's very little appreciated, but the Shoah not only resulted in the largest confirmed genocide in history but the largest crisis regarding stateless persons in history, particularly after 1934.)

And no, "letting the Jews be under the old German laws" would unfortunately not have stopped the Holocaust:

a) As noted, Germany had extremely strict firearms laws before the Nazis took over, with firearms being overtly prohibited until 1928 and only legalised under conditions that made it functionally impossible for people to own them without being part of a sportsman's club or in a capacity that we'd refer to in the US nowadays as the Homeland Security Establishment (national defense or national or state or local law enforcement and government representatives in Congress/state General Assemblies).  Getting a gun permit in pre-Nazi Germany (much less the permits for ammo, the permit to legally POSSESS the weapon, the permit to legally BUY the weapon, and so on) made the requirements for a handgun permit in Washington, DC (until its handgun restrictions were thrown out) look like trying to get a Concealed Carry permit in Kentucky in comparison (which you really only have to go to a gun safety class and take a simple test--have a few relatives going for their CC permits, pretty easy-peasy here).

b) There WERE areas where Jewish people DID have guns and ammo and put up an armed resistance, quite a lot of them in Poland (in fact, a particular armed resistance by a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw is especially notable in this regard).  Unfortunately, they didn't fare too well, and in some ways fared even worse than those areas where there wasn't active resistance due to an unavailability of guns...

c) ...because pretty much the Nazis had bigger goddamn guns than pretty much everyone else than the British and the Americans.  (The Russians didn't have bigger guns, and much of how they survived is pretty much by Zerg Rushing the Nazis.  This is also one reason that the Russians suffered comparatively horrible losses compared to the rest of the Allies and why World War II is STILL known as the Great Patriotic War, in much the same way that World War I still is seen as the "Big One" by the Commonwealth nations.)  Despite people's fantasies, a hunting rifle (which frankly was about the maximum level of weapon that would be available to civilians) is not going to be hellaciously effective against a tank, or more properly a shiatload of tanks and bombers (and remember, during WW II, the use of bomber aircraft was a new innovation).

(As to that armed resistance in Warsaw?  Pretty much ended with 95% of the city of Warsaw being destroyed quite deliberately in retribution...and this was with the active assistance of what remained of the legitimate army of Poland at the time.  Even the actual military guns that Poland had, much less what was available during the Warsaw Uprising, was no real match for a full-on industrial war machine with a literal national commandment towards the complete extermination of anyone who was Insufficiently White And Ethnically Nordic (Slavs and Lithuanians and Finnish and Latvians and Estonians and pretty much anyone not of a Germanic tribe descent need not apply).)

d) Germany never, never has let non-citizens have full rights in gun ownership.  The whole reason that the Nazis went initially with the "mass denationalisation" with the groups targeted in the Holocaust (first essentially denying those with physical, mental and intellectual disabilities anything akin to full civil rights and engaging in mass killing as a form of "euthanasia" because "cripples cost the taxpayers too damn much" (yes, this was the actual justification given for the T-4 "euthanasia" phase of the Holocaust to the German people), then mass denationalisation of Jewish people and Roma and LGBT people and "Communists" (some actual commies, some "Red Anarchists", some merely socialists who disagreed with the Nazis on social policy), then by stating anyone of Slavic descent was ineligible for German citizenship) was because the German constitution (even before the Nazis wholescale scrapped it) provided very little functional protection to anyone who was not a German citizen--and "non-citizens" could be shut out of government society altogether.

(By the way--this is why those of us who are anti-dominionist and anti-fascist get Very, Very Nervous when we hear certain far-right groups in the US talk about scrapping the Fourteenth Amendment and removing jus solis citizenship and even proposals to restrict citizenship to people of the "right religions".  This is pretty much exactly the tactic that Nazi Germany used to mass-denationalise entire ethnicities and set them up as Future Concentration Camp Residents.)

And for the record--I actually think that what's more needed is crazy-person control than gun control (alas, that would require OMFG SOSHULIZM to establish a universal healthcare system so that folks who need mental health care can get it and possibly some changes to mandate that mentally ill folks get treatment if they're legitimately dangerous) and would count myself as a Second Amendment Liberal (which is to say, I'm a progressive and I'm also okay with firearms).  I just don't think it's damned helpful to go "BUT TEH NAZIS!" when (to be frank and honest about the matter) Nazi Germany probably overall had the most liberal gun laws during the entire period that Germany has been in existence as a unified nation (and yes, this is counting both modern Germany AND that period when Teh Kaiser was running the show) and people can point this out.
 
2013-03-29 11:50:31 PM  

pedrop357: In other words, Hitler expanded firearm rights for a narrow group of people-primarily government employees and Nazi party members, and hunters but NOT those people he was planning to slaughter by the trainload.

It's almost like disarming and/or keeping a people disarmed is a prerequisite to murdering them by the gross AND might also be useful in discerning how that person/party/government views you and your people as humans. The person who seeks to disarm me either plans to kill me and/or views me as subhuman-best not to allow that then, huh?


Except that:

a) Even before the Holocaust, Jewish people were a minority (as a percentage of the population, not even as many as, say, African-Americans).  About the only areas where there were a majority who were targeted in the Holocaust were parts of Poland (due to Slavs being targeted as a "lesser race".)

b) There were incidents of active armed resistance in parts of Europe that did allow Jewish people full civil rights before Nazi invasion (Poland, most famously) and those fared every bit as bad, if not worse, than those within Germany itself (the IDF did not exactly exist at that point--it only existed after Israel gained independence from Great Britain in 1948, and after a major "stateless persons" crisis pretty much led to a mass exodus to not only to what was then the "Palestine Mandate" but any other country that would take them).  As I gently noted before, pretty much the Nazis had much bigger guns than pretty much everyone but the British and Americans (and even then, we had to play catch-up and QUICK) and the only reason the Soviet Union managed to keep from being completely overrun is that they pretty much ended up Zerg Rushing the German army; hunting rifles and WW I-era machine guns don't do much against WW II era tanks and bombers, sadly, and it doesn't help when your country (much less where you're living in) is overrun by a literal industralised genocidal war machine.)

c) A thing I might have neglected to note--by 1938 (when the German gun laws were considerably liberalised for people considered to be citizens, and people who'd been denationalised (pretty much everyone on the Nazi Party's shiat-list) were outright banned from firearms ownership) it was pretty much mandatory to be a member of the Nazi Party in some functional manner to obtain social services and employment.  I am not kidding on that last one--everything from almost all Depression-era employment to the national teacher's union to all trade unions to veteran's societies to the German equivalent of the DAV to the local equivalent to the Civil Air Patrol to German expatriate "colonial societies" to the German medical association to the German legal aid society and bar society to student government leagues to the equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce to the replacement for Boy Scouts and Girl Guides (the legitimate Scouting and Guiding movements were banned as "non-Aryan") to all national sports organisations to the national engineering society-cum-office of Homeland Security to vacation and exercise clubs to owning an automobile or having a driver's license to even the German Red Cross society and the German equivalent of the United Way and the equivalent to OSHA and even (for fark's sake) THE GERMAN EQUIVALENT OF "WOMAN'S DAY" (itself published as the only legal woman's magazine in Germany by the Nazi Party equivalent of the PTA) were all owned and operated by some division or another of the Nazi Party by that point.

Even churches had been steeplejacked by the Nazis (you could not legally operate a church unless one had Nazi imagery and taught that Jesus was in fact an Aryan, not Jewish; some were going even farther in pushing a Nazi-steeplejacked and very racist interpretation of Asatru) and even things as mundane as school registration and obtaining drivers' licenses and obtaining ration tickets so you could even go shopping or buy gas or fuel required one to be a member in good standing with the Nazi Party.  Needless to say, by this point pretty much everyone in Nazi Germany who wasn't trying to get the hell out was involved in the Nazi Party at some level--and would have therefore been eligible to have guns without any licensing whatsoever.  (All it required was for someone in the Nazi Party to vouch for you--and "vouching" could have been by your neighbour or by the local block warden.)

There were even special Nazi organisations that don't have modern (governmental) equivalents nowadays.  One basically served as the Nazi equivalent of the KKK (yes, seriously, as if regular Nazis weren't enough) that particularly targeted Polish people for "ethnic cleansing"; another group could literally be described as a sort of Nazi Quiverfull movement (only unlike the Quiverfull dominionists, this group was not only given full government sanction but even handed out government awards for Nazi proto-Duggars)  On that last, dominionists would probably love the Nazi attitude towards reproductive rights and contraception--abortion was a capital offense for both mother and performing doctor, and contraceptives .

And yes, this was one reason why there was...a fair amount of problems in sorting out who should be prosecuted in the Nuremburg Trials (there were those who wanted far broader prosecution) and why (pretty much up to the point that FDR kicked the bucket) one of the actual proposed plans for dealing with Germany after the war was the Morgenthau Plan--which proposed (and I shiat you not) pretty much deliberately reducing Germany to a pre-industrial agrarian state where any industrial development that didn't involve shipping coal or iron to France and Poland as war reparations would be banned.  FOREVER.

Again, I am not farking kidding on this, and it's pretty much precisely this that got Pastor Niemoller (of the famous "First they went for the Jews, and I didn't speak up..." comment) in a concentration camp--he was a pastor in a multidenominational Christian churches (the Confessing Churches) that refused to change the base theology of the church to meet Nazi standards.  It's pretty much the reason we have a pope that used to be a member of the Hitlerjugend (when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a kid, membership in the Hitlerjugend was mandatory--a kid could be sent to the camps for refusing to be a member, could be refused schooling, not being a member could be a literal death sentence).  Pretty much the ONLY thing we have remotely comparable to the complete and total control over everyday activities that the Nazi Party had over Germans would have been in the Bad Old Days of the Cold War, in Turkmenistan during the reign of Saparmuryat Niyazov, or in North Korea right now with the whole Juche god-emperor complex surrounding the Kim dynasty.
 
Displayed 47 of 647 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report