Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   (thehill.com) divider line 500
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3830 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 01:17:43 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.
 
2013-03-29 01:18:28 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


Are you kidding? We're pushing for that sh*t too! Have you seen the polls? Rachel Maddow was on last night talking about the need for this stuff.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:29 PM  

Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns


No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:19 PM  
www.mississippiautoarms.com
These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.
 
2013-03-29 01:23:57 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.


Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.
 
2013-03-29 01:24:05 PM  
ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?
 
2013-03-29 01:24:48 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.


Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.
 
2013-03-29 01:25:23 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:08 PM  

Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.


Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.



So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:29 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.
 
2013-03-29 01:28:34 PM  

Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:42 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.


Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.


So, just because ItemA is relatively unreliable compared to ItemB, even though it doesn't pose a danger to the user, we should impose a federal ban on ItemA?

If that particular type of magazine had a tendency to explode or otherwise fail in some catastrophic way that's harmful, ok, you'd have a point. But simply because it's slightly less reliable? That doesn't make much sense.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Yeah, but he was a trained shooter.

static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-29 01:29:54 PM  

heypete: it doesn't pose a danger to the user,


But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:37 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Delusional much?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:39 PM  

Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.


I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.
 
2013-03-29 01:30:49 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


How about everything doesn't have a solution.  There are 300 million people in the U.S.  If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:40 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Who are these people?
 
2013-03-29 01:32:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:20 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I'm a little sick of the gun lecture myself.

National registry:  yes or no?  Why or why not?
Background checks: Yes or no, why or why not?

Do you agree with the President's actions?
 
2013-03-29 01:33:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.mississippiautoarms.com image 330x310]
These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.


Yeah, I wouldn't trust something like that.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.

Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.


No they do not fail. It is a rarity that a 10, 20 or 30 round magazine fails. The rate of failure is so insignificant that the odd failure can be thrown out like a low olympic score when tallying the average.

If you limit citizens to a 10 round magazine with the theory that a victim (those not shot and laying on the ground mortally wounded) will rush their spree killing attacker when the attacker changes magazines would that theory not apply to a pair of criminals who is breaking into someones home? Do you also think criminals will get rid of their 20 or 30 round magazines because the law states they can only use a 10 round magazine?

Odds are the criminal has broken into numerous houses before, where as the victim will be defending their life and home for the first time. (this has to do with stress and adrenaline and experience...courage under fire so to speak)
 
2013-03-29 01:34:14 PM  

PDid: http://www.guns.com/2013/03/16/guns-com-talks-gun-control-and-politic s -with-ucla-professor-mark-kleiman-video/

I agree with Kleiman.


"If you're Wayne LaPierre and you want to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun-owners, you make a deal that sacrifices the non-law-abiding: universal background checks, better record-keeping and data analysis, stronger gun-tracing, tough penalties for scofflaw gun dealers and straw purchasers who knowingly arm criminals. But if you're Wayne LaPierre and your job is making sure the dollars keep flowing from customers to your gun-manufacturer sponsors and from those sponsors to the NRA's bank account (and your own), then you mount a national scare campaign to stimulate gun sales. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which Wayne LaPierre is actually running the NRA. "

Indeed.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:45 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre.


Maybe. If they failed before he got off SIXTY-FIVE ROUNDS.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.


Making it more difficult for someone to kill a lot of people is asinine? Sure you can kill one person if you're really bent on it. But 20? That's a lot harder without a gun.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:37 PM  
How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?
 
2013-03-29 01:35:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.

I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.


This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:44 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.


Who is this "you?"
 
2013-03-29 01:35:50 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.



Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?
 
2013-03-29 01:36:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun


No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?
 
2013-03-29 01:37:10 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?


You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.
 
2013-03-29 01:38:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?


Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s


Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

A majority choose handguns accoridng to the list compiled by mayors against guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:35 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?

You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.


More like "Jesus stop constructing strawman arguments and learn how to debate the actual topic."

Well not Jesus. You.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:38 PM  

Giltric: Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament?


Most NRA members wish for total disarmament?
 
2013-03-29 01:41:20 PM  

Car_Ramrod: It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas.


Well, what if one thinks that insofar as gun regulations are concerned, the status quo is fairly reasonable? Dealers are required to make background checks on purchasers (and such checks are enforceable, unlike requiring checks on private sales), machine guns and other things like explosives are heavily regulated, and guns that fire a single shot per pull of the trigger (regardless of what they look like) are legal. That seems pretty reasonable. Sure, there could be some improvements, like getting the states to send more comprehensive, uniform data to the background check system, but there's no real evidence that the proposals currently pending in Congress would have any effect on crime.

The people committing the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes are criminals with records that prohibit them from possessing guns. Anyone transferring guns to them is also violating the law. More laws making their already-illegal actions slightly more illegal aren't really going to help.

Even with gun laws being as they are, gun sales at or near all-time highs, and the amount of guns-per-capita being at an all-time high,, gun-related homicide is at its lowest point since 1964 and has been declining since it peaked in 1980.
 
There have been a fair number of proposals from gun owners (including myself), both on Fark and elsewhere. The overall trend is "crack down on traffickers and straw purchasers of guns, end the War on (some) Drugs, provide meaningful assistance/opportunities to people in communities plagued by poverty, drug trafficking, and gangs". Healthy, stable, prosperous people are statistically very unlikely to commit crimes.

I'm of the opinion that violent crime is a symptom of a deeper problem (like poverty, drugs, gangs, etc.) and that until society addresses those problems, the symptom will continue regardless of what band-aids are applied.
 
2013-03-29 01:42:22 PM  

Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?


You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?
 
2013-03-29 01:42:31 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
"If I could've 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."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...
 
2013-03-29 01:42:42 PM  

Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?


Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control opponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.
 
2013-03-29 01:43:27 PM  

Giltric: Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?

Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control proponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.


FTFM
 
2013-03-29 01:45:03 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?



Sorry Whidbey there are a few of us in this thread who are having a conversation. If you would like to report us for discussing something other than the specifities of the article go right ahead. I already have you pegged as someone willing to "name names" anyway.
 
2013-03-29 01:45:59 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?


See post directly below yours.
 
2013-03-29 01:46:00 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


The problem is with labeling the guns in the first place. The labels are flawed, and the shiat falls apart as a result. "Let's ban high-powered assault rifles like the AR-15!!" is a great example. First, it's not very "high powered", second, there are weapons, such as the Ruger Mini-14 that are virtually identical to the AR-15, but since they have a wood stock, suddenly they are considered "hunting rifles", and are therefore "OK". It really does all boil down to looks, everyone freaks out at the AR-15, because it "looks" scary. They might make other claims, but when presented with something like the Mini-14, suddenly they say "Sure, that gun looks fine.". This is the problem most of us have, the loudest ban voices won't listen to what they've farked up, they won't pay attention to why something like a bayonet lug is a stupid thing to base a ban on, and a huge percentage of the time, they don't even know what the parts do that they're trying to get banned, but they either sound scary, or someone told them they should be banned. A great example of this is the "barrel shroud" interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Add to this the fact that they knowingly spread misinformation, bad statistics, and pure fabrications regarding numbers, gun parts, and other shiat, and it's kind of hard to trust these people to craft a law based on reality.
 
2013-03-29 01:47:05 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?

Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.


Yeah, that's it. The AR-15 is the most popular assault weapon of choice because Ruger salesmen are terrible at their job.

Are you serious right now, Clark?
 
2013-03-29 01:48:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?


Not really. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to drop one on my foot as they're fairly heavy and awkward, but they're not really dangerous...well, they do have some coiled springs inside that might poke you with a fair bit of force.

They're basically a variant on the "box-with-a-spring" type magazine, only with more complex geometry that poses reliability issues.

It's the user who has the potential to pose a danger to others. By far, the vast majority of users of such magazines do not pose a danger to others.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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