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.

(Mother Jones)   Remember the school shooting in 2010 at Hastings Middle School in Minnesota that left six students dead? Me either. But if you do, the National Rifle Association would REALLY like you to corroborate the story they apparently pulled out of their ass   (motherjones.com) divider line 390
    More: Asinine, Hastings Middle School, NRA, Minnesota, school shootings, Columbine High School, Dennis Van Roekel  
•       •       •

16439 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 03:22:26 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: jaytkay: Wook: FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association

Simple, self-righteous and ignorant.  You win.

[reconstitution.us image 423x327]

Citation in regards to his membership?

Warrants served on his home showed a certificate for a pistol safety course and his mother also had a certificate. CT state law states you must take a safety course before purchasing a pistol. No NRA membership documentation was found.

To date there has been no evidence that he was a member of the NRA....can you provide any?

Whatever, I don't spend my days playing Internet sleuth to split hairs.

Adam Lanza was a typical "responsible gun owner", until the day he murdered a bunch of children.


So you got nothing.

Didn't think you did. You have a history of that.
 
2013-04-04 03:22:35 PM  

bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!


So remember kids. Tranquilize your guns and tag them before you set them loose.
 
2013-04-04 03:23:11 PM  

Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.


Whoa, watch out, we got a badass over here.

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-04-04 03:24:03 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Whoa, watch out, we got a badass over here.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 350x350]


Ridiculing him doesn't disprove the concept ;-)
 
2013-04-04 03:24:26 PM  
I will never understand why some Americans cannot grasp the extremely simple concept that the National Pancake Association is a group run by people who make and sell pancakes, who's entire obligation is to increase the sales of pancakes. This is a huge business. This is the largest lobby group in the United States.

These are the same Americans who are perfectly capable of seeing the vested interest in all other lobby groups, but cannot grasp the problem with the NPA.

(s/Pancake/Rifle)
 
2013-04-04 03:25:02 PM  

Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.


That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".
 
2013-04-04 03:25:10 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: jaytkay: Wook: FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association

Simple, self-righteous and ignorant.  You win.

[reconstitution.us image 423x327]

Citation in regards to his membership?

Warrants served on his home showed a certificate for a pistol safety course and his mother also had a certificate. CT state law states you must take a safety course before purchasing a pistol. No NRA membership documentation was found.

To date there has been no evidence that he was a member of the NRA....can you provide any?

Whatever, I don't spend my days playing Internet sleuth to split hairs.

Adam Lanza was a typical "responsible gun owner", until the day he murdered a bunch of children.


You may want to be more careful, then, to post stuff that you can actually back up.  It makes your argument stronger!
 
2013-04-04 03:25:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".


I bet there aren't any in North Korea ;-)
 
2013-04-04 03:27:15 PM  

bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!


Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.
 
2013-04-04 03:27:31 PM  

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Generic Republican: Giltric: Generic Republican: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

So we should just settle for these shootings?

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and  make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

Deal.  One caveat   Your gun goes missing and you don't report it within a 24 hour period, you are barred from owning firearms for life.


Does that 24 hour period start when I get back to PA after spending a month in Florida or Wyoming? Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

Excellent point.  However as a responsible gun owner you would obviously store your firearms in an alarmed locked gun safe and have a neighbor or friend check on the weapons daily while you are away.  Perhaps a business venture where vacationing gun owners could check their weapons into a gun hotel?


Okay...make the alarmed, 3 inch thick battleship steel safes free too like transfers and background checks. I wouldn't want poor people to be excluded from having rights.

Why would I want a neighbor or friend or family to keep an eye on them......aren't most crimes committed by someone that is known to you?

All I gathered from this is that gun owners do not want to be responsible for their own guns.

Is this correct?

Subsidize it if you want more of it.......Tax it if you want less of it.

You want more safety? Pay me.


Allow me to be frank.  Perhaps I am missing something here, but your argument is that you want free access to weapons, bought, sold, traded under your own direction with no traceable features or form to any government agency.  You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft.  In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon?
 
2013-04-04 03:27:34 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Whoa, watch out, we got a badass over here.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 350x350]


U so mad.

Your tears nourish me and keeps the dust off my front sight you are my personal Sgt. York.
 
2013-04-04 03:27:47 PM  

BgJonson79: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

I bet there aren't any in North Korea ;-)


Touche.

In all seriousness though, I think both sides are wharped in this debate. That crazy lady in Colorado isn't doing anyone any favors.

I understand the need to have guns but to say that we can't accept anything that isn't the status quo seems silly to me.
 
2013-04-04 03:28:04 PM  

WippitGuud: bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.


No possibility of abuse there!
 
2013-04-04 03:28:17 PM  
Lying to support your cause never works.... oh wait..

img12.imageshack.us

Hmm, do Corvettes have back seats?
 
2013-04-04 03:28:22 PM  

BgJonson79: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

I bet there aren't any in North Korea ;-)


Might be a school nuking in the foreseeable future, though...
 
2013-04-04 03:28:44 PM  

Giltric: No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.


Last time I fought for freedom, I was on a carrier. However, do you want to get into a discussion about whether more change for good has happened though violence or though ideas?

Do you really think that you have inalienable rights that cannot be abridged? I challenge you to find me one enumerated right that has not been abridged in some manner. Quit crying because someone wants to make you be responsible with your toys.
 
2013-04-04 03:28:56 PM  
Subby, dude, it's "me neither".

That farking n is there for a reason, it makes the whole phrase easier to say, so use it.
 
2013-04-04 03:29:26 PM  

BgJonson79: WippitGuud: bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.

No possibility of abuse there!


What abuse to you foresee?
 
2013-04-04 03:30:02 PM  

Giltric: Generic Republican: Giltric: Generic Republican: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

So we should just settle for these shootings?

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and  make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

Deal.  One caveat   Your gun goes missing and you don't report it within a 24 hour period, you are barred from owning firearms for life.


Does that 24 hour period start when I get back to PA after spending a month in Florida or Wyoming? Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

Excellent point.  However as a responsible gun owner you would obviously store your firearms in an alarmed locked gun safe and have a neighbor or friend check on the weapons daily while you are away.  Perhaps a business venture where vacationing gun owners could check their weapons into a gun hotel?


Okay...make the alarmed, 3 inch thick battleship steel safes free too like transfers and background checks. I wouldn't want poor people to be excluded from having rights.

Why would I want a neighbor or friend or family to keep an eye on them......aren't most crimes committed by someone that is known to you?


So, find someone that nobody knows.  A loner type that doesn't know anyone.  Set up a streaming server at his house so that there is a live web cam feed of your gun laying on the shelf.  You must log in daily and hit "I accept ownership and responsibility for this gun" or your gun will be confiscated.  It will be video recorded as it is slowly melted down and a DVD of this whole process will be mailed to you along with a bill for safety services rendered.
 
2013-04-04 03:30:26 PM  
Since the shooting was supposed to have happened in Minnesota, did Michele Bachmann provided the fact-check?
 
2013-04-04 03:31:02 PM  

Giltric: quiotu: Freedom is a little messy at times....


Remember that the next someone brings up abortion.  Or removing religious fetishes from public properties, Or flag burning.  Or voter registration.  Or "filth" in popular culture.  Or gay marriage.

Need more?
 
2013-04-04 03:33:28 PM  

Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon


A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.
 
2013-04-04 03:34:50 PM  

hdhale: * A drastic reshaping of our prison system so it actually rehabilitates and helps criminals return to society instead of being a for-profit system that works by imprisoning as many people as possible.
* A drastic reshaping of the War on Drugs policy, or just ending it altogether.
* Fix everything Reagan broke with the mental health care system.
* Tackle the root factors of crime like poverty.
* Do a better job of keeping an eye on known offenders who are free.
* Do a better job curtailing gangs and other groups, along with more and better youth programs to keep them out of gangs.
* Better tracking of all firearms' sales and ownership.
* Develop technology that prevents a gun from being used by anyone but its registered owner, like a fingerprint scanner.

* Not sure how that helps people who are on the YOLO plan--some people don't want to "reform"

If they don't want to reform, then they can stay in there until they pass on.

* How about I get my civil liberties back first? States where I can smoke weed but if I want to use a 5.56 mm semiauto as a varmit rifle I'm a total gun nut and dangerous makes me sad.
I'm addressing deeper causes, not putting band-aids on broken legs. The War on Drugs causes more crime and death than it prevents.

* Absolutely! Also everything broken by every President, Congress, and state legislature since.
That could be a long and personal list, but the most important for now is mental health care and institutions.

* By...? We tried throwing money at the problem, didn't work. It just made people better at maximizing what they could get out of the system.
By actually DOING things besides "throw money at it". Like clean up slums, tear down and rebuild dilapidated buildings, provide better police and fire and emergency care, etc.

* How about we start by not letting people out who are career criminals with no intention of reforming? Probation should be harder to get, not easier.
Definitely. And less plea bargaining, and make the prisoners do something constructive besides sit around in their cells or wander the yard. You gonna stay, you gonna work.

* Agreed.


* Fine for the legal weapons, but what happens to all the ones that are not in the system or are in the system but get stolen? You are creating a whole lot of paperwork, but to what end?

Find them and  enter them into the database, along with whatever else should be done in the case of stolen weapons.

* Nope and here's why. Not every place is always 59+ degrees year round. If I'm wearing gloves because it's cold, what good is my Glock that I have tucked in my pocket using your technology? "Pardon me sir, I know you claim to have a gun in your pocket and you want my wallet but would have mind terribly if I take my glove off so I can activate my handgun?" T ...
The gun would work unless someone else grabbed it, which would lock up the gun since they have the wrong fingerprint. Perhaps voice-recognition-activation would work, when you're not using it or someone else gets a hold of it say "Gun, lock" and it would become useless until you unlock it again. Either would greatly cut down on the amount of accidental shootings and shootings caused by the owner losing or having his gun taken.
 
2013-04-04 03:34:58 PM  

Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.


Good thing "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy or anything. You seem pretty dedicated to it.
 
2013-04-04 03:35:10 PM  
s3.amazonaws.com

The best way to defund the NRA.
 
2013-04-04 03:35:37 PM  

WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.

No possibility of abuse there!

What abuse to you foresee?


Wouldn't that allow guns (and by proxy their owners) in real time?  Also, it could be avoided with a simple anti-static bag.
 
2013-04-04 03:35:41 PM  

GameSprocket: Last time I fought for freedom, I was on a carrier


LOL! good one. We didn't have carriers during the revolution.

You have fought for nobodies freedoms except that of the defense contractors to freely loot the public trough.
 
2013-04-04 03:36:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: hdhale: Dr Dreidel: Bravo Two: Antimatter: Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights folks won.  The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.

Guns cause rape and violent robbery? Wat?

They don't "cause" rape and robbery, but as Samuel Colt implied, they make them a hell of a lot easier. Also true of assault, terrorism, accidental homicide, suicide and intentional murder.

Do you disagree?

// and no, screwdrivers, crossbows and trebuchets do not have "the same" problems - non-projectile, and not as accurate/prevalent/concealable

Except that any plan to ban them would be as successful as Prohibition, cause even more deaths, and further destroy civil liberties in a vain attempt to enforce it.

Do you disagree?

I'm not sure you honest you fit in here...meaning this country.  Clearly you know nothing of its people.

Wow, thanks for that, assbrain.

As successful as Prohibition? Eh, maybe, but the human desire to get farked up outweighs the desire to shoot people. People can and would still fight - with fists, sticks, hair dryers, XBoxes, and whatever else is handy - but I don't think that drying up the supply (of illegally-obtained/illegally-sourced weapons, you see, not "all weapons") will cause widespread flouting of the law. Or maybe we will - plenty of derpers ignore laws we currently have on the books, so I'd say that it is CURRENTLY working as well as Prohibition (in that sense).

"Cause even more deaths"? Proceed, Ms Bachmann. As I've said here before, we did away with "an eye for an eye" because it left everyone blind, yet you think a gun for a gun won't leave everyone shot (or shot at)?

"Further destroy civil liberties"? If you assume that it is an inviolable civil right that everyone - the mentally ill, felons, everyone - may own a gun, then yes. Making sure that every gun sold is sold to someone legally allowed to own it is curtailing the civil liberties of...who, exactly? ...


No problem, assclown.

You are totally and completely discounting over 200 years of American history is no big deal.  Gun ownership, and most particularly the gun as a tool of self-defense, is completely ingrained into the culture, more so than even booze.  Do you honestly expect people will cheerfully surrender their guns?  No.  You will have just sent up the 'GO!' flag for every black helicopter type who will work to subvert the government that put it into place.  You'll have hundreds of Wacos and Ruby Ridges across the country and as the body count of innocent civilians goes ever higher, the government will naturally be forced to crack down (there went your civil liberties...) and that will create even more rebellion.  Only now, instead of semiautos, people will be arming up with selective fire REAL assault weapons...why not?  If you are going to face off against Federal commandos, might as well be armed like them, and make no mistake there are any number of arms dealers that will cheerfully flood the black market with cheaply priced or free M-16s, AK-47s, military grade sniper rifles (don't think that Iran or North Korea or even Russia would hesitate to subsidize it? think again), or whatever the rebels want.  A significant percentage of the US public will cheer them on and provide them quiet aid and comfort.

I don't think you want that and neither do I.  This nation is in danger of blowing apart into sectionalism and eventual civil war.  Pushing the Gun Control button over and over in hopes it will stick is stupid.  Let the collectors have their semiautos.  Work toward fixing the underlying problems with this country and concentrate on issues we can agree upon, not ones that separate us.
 
2013-04-04 03:36:50 PM  
Adam Lanza was a typical "responsible gun owner", until the day he murdered a bunch of children.


No, he wasn't. His mom was. But your post is extra special in a thread mocking people for getting facts wrong.
 
2013-04-04 03:37:12 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Good thing "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy or anything. You seem pretty dedicated to it.


I haven't seen a slop that slippery since the last time I was at Schlitterbahn.
 
2013-04-04 03:38:56 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Last time I fought for freedom, I was on a carrier. However, do you want to get into a discussion about whether more change for good has happened though violence or though ideas?

Do you really think that you have inalienable rights that cannot be abridged? I challenge you to find me one enumerated right that has not been abridged in some manner. Quit crying because someone wants to make you be responsible with your toys.



The 2nd is already regulated. It is against the law to commit a crime using a firearm.  That is pretty much the shouting fire in a crowded theater thing people like to say is a reasonable regulation.

What people want to do is cut out the voice box so you have no chance to shout fire in a crowded theatre when it comes to comparing it with the regulation of firearms.

That is not acceptable.
 
2013-04-04 03:39:23 PM  
Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".


Yes. Exactly. Glad you get it.
Let's go get lunch!
 
2013-04-04 03:39:49 PM  

hdhale: You are totally and completely discounting over 200 years of American history is no big deal. Gun ownership, and most particularly the gun as a tool of self-defense, is completely ingrained into the culture, more so than even booze. Do you honestly expect people will cheerfully surrender their guns? No. You will have just sent up the 'GO!' flag for every black helicopter type who will work to subvert the government that put it into place. You'll have hundreds of Wacos and Ruby Ridges across the country and as the body count of innocent civilians goes ever higher, the government will naturally be forced to crack down (there went your civil liberties...) and that will create even more rebellion. Only now, instead of semiautos, people will be arming up with selective fire REAL assault weapons...why not? If you are going to face off against Federal commandos, might as well be armed like them, and make no mistake there are any number of arms dealers that will cheerfully flood the black market with cheaply priced or free M-16s, AK-47s, military grade sniper rifles (don't think that Iran or North Korea or even Russia would hesitate to subsidize it? think again), or whatever the rebels want. A significant percentage of the US public will cheer them on and provide them quiet aid and comfort.

I don't think you want that and neither do I. This nation is in danger of blowing apart into sectionalism and eventual civil war.


This sounds like a very reasonable and rational post.
 
2013-04-04 03:40:54 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Good thing "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy or anything. You seem pretty dedicated to it.


Banning certain firearms because someone might use one in a crime is a slippery slope.....do you have a problem with all slippery slopes or just ones you disagree with?
 
2013-04-04 03:41:00 PM  

Giltric: Have you posted any pictures of slain children yet today?


Have I ever?
 
2013-04-04 03:41:40 PM  

Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.


Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?
 
2013-04-04 03:41:46 PM  

GameSprocket: Good thing "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy or anything. You seem pretty dedicated to it.


Funny thing is, at this point, everyone's dedicated to it, and it's long lost anything resembling humor or even mild amusement.  It's all hovering right around the "infuriating" point now, and I'm sick of it.

The MD gun law thread below, for instance, went from 0-Full Retard in record time, even for a Fark gun thread.
 
2013-04-04 03:42:12 PM  

BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.

No possibility of abuse there!

What abuse to you foresee?

Wouldn't that allow guns (and by proxy their owners) in real time?  Also, it could be avoided with a simple anti-static bag.


And?
If you have a cell phone, that can happen now anyway.
 
2013-04-04 03:43:36 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: It's highly likely that the author got confused about the two instances and incorrectly mixed them up. So what does that mean? That the NRA was making up stories to push hardening of doors and windows? Does that really make any sense? It's a stupid error and one that reflects very poorly on the NRA, but it's hardly a conspiracy to sell more guns.


This seems like a fairly plausible explanation.  However, if it was an honest mistake, then it is up to the NRA to issue a retraction to correct any misunderstanding.  If they don't retract and instead try to ride the statement as it is for their own gain (let's face it, many people will believe what the NRA says because it's the NRA saying it), they might as well be conspiring to dishonestly mislead the public anyway.
 
2013-04-04 03:43:42 PM  

greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?



Are you referring to Lanza?  Are there any citations for that? I have not heard one way or another if Lanza pried open or drilled into a safe, if he had a combo to the safe, or if there was a safe at all.....
 
2013-04-04 03:44:55 PM  

WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.
Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.

No possibility of abuse there!

What abuse to you foresee?

Wouldn't that allow guns (and by proxy their owners) in real time?  Also, it could be avoided with a simple anti-static bag.

And?
If you have a cell phone, that can happen now anyway.


Cell phones are used on private networks and are not enumerated rights ;-)
 
2013-04-04 03:45:03 PM  

hdhale: Do you honestly expect people will cheerfully surrender their guns?


Good thing no one's asking for that - the 1994 AWB didn't result in mass confiscations, and a 2013 AWB wouldn't either (bonus irony: Harry Reid is part of the reason why not).

I'm gonna spell it out for you one last time: 100% background checks. Every sale, every time. 80+% of your countrymen (but not mine, apparently) - including 80+% of gun owners - want this.

// also, you sound a bit paranoid
// coupled with your "git outta mah countree" schtick, it makes you sound like a moronic redneck
// don't sound like a moronic redneck
 
2013-04-04 03:46:56 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Last time I fought for freedom, I was on a carrier

LOL! good one. We didn't have carriers during the revolution.

You have fought for nobodies freedoms except that of the defense contractors to freely loot the public trough.


Oh, so our freedom has not been at risk since to revolution? Ok, then we don't need guns at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW, that would suck since I actually like guns. I just have no problem filling out some additional paperwork to own the really fun ones.
 
2013-04-04 03:47:06 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Good thing "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy or anything. You seem pretty dedicated to it.

Banning certain firearms because someone might use one in a crime is a slippery slope.....do you have a problem with all slippery slopes or just ones you disagree with?


I agree.  Right now the camps of pro-gun and gun control are widely divided with hypothetical daily mass shootings and black helicopter gun seizures.  They need to work together to form meaningful legislation that strikes the underlying issues.  Mental Health, Crime, Drugs, etc.  The problems transcend guns.  Guns are an easy target because they are force multipliers.  They allow people to wield disproportionate force and we have scores of dead children as a result.  What is needed is data.  Track where criminals are getting firearms, how they are used and who uses them?
 
2013-04-04 03:48:08 PM  

greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?


Problem is, if you're stupid enough to give the combo to your "mentally disturbed son", you might as well have just left the damn safe open. Doesn't mean we need to punish everyone for the crimes of a few.
 
2013-04-04 03:48:26 PM  

Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.


Meanwhile, right now you can just leave it lying on the sofa on your porch.
 
2013-04-04 03:48:44 PM  

Giltric: greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?


Are you referring to Lanza?  Are there any citations for that? I have not heard one way or another if Lanza pried open or drilled into a safe, if he had a combo to the safe, or if there was a safe at all.....


No citations, but we can deduct a few things from what we know as facts.  His mom was shot while in her bed (assumedly sleeping), so 1)we can deduct that she was not currently cleaning 2 pistols and the AR15 (is that the right weapon?)
2) We might be able to assume that drilling into the safe would be loud enough to wake her if not done in the middle of the night.
3) if it wasn't drilled and the weapons were not left out in the open, then he either had access to a key, or knew the combination.  Either of these should be a no-no to a responsible gun owner that had a mentally unstable child.

Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.
 
2013-04-04 03:48:56 PM  

Antimatter: Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights liberal folks won (on the topics of immigration, alcohol, or drugs).  The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.


FTFY.
 
2013-04-04 03:51:49 PM  

Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.


Wow, you really are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
 
2013-04-04 03:51:57 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?

Problem is, if you're stupid enough to give the combo to your "mentally disturbed son", you might as well have just left the damn safe open. Doesn't mean we need to punish everyone for the crimes of a few.


I can't say that it is really punishing anyone by mandating that weapons be kept in a combination safe. 
//I know that this is in no way enforceable.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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