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.

(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  
•       •       •

16463 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 1:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-04 12:09:39 PM  
If a "fact" comes from the NRA, chances are that it isn't a fact at all.
 
2013-04-04 12:16:26 PM  
National
Rampage
Association
 
2013-04-04 01:11:25 PM  
Another day, another set of lies from gun advocates.  Shocking.
 
2013-04-04 01:14:28 PM  
Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber.  I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it.  As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot.  It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans.  I do see it a lot among republicans, though.
 
2013-04-04 01:15:50 PM  
Huh, I'm surprised that they're using liberal tactics.
 
2013-04-04 01:16:16 PM  
I find the NRA more credible than anything a gun control advocate has ever said.
 
2013-04-04 01:16:39 PM  
Leave the NRA alone!!!  The big babies just get upset when anyone suggests that there might be a better, more responisble way to deal with their toys.
 
2013-04-04 01:17:14 PM  
It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!
 
2013-04-04 01:18:28 PM  

Molavian: Huh, I'm surprised that they're using liberal tactics.


Potato/10
 
2013-04-04 01:18:36 PM  
Just stepping through a tempered glass window? They should think twice before employing Mac Charlie and the crazy hijinks that follows them.
 
2013-04-04 01:18:56 PM  
FTA: "That's a less useful story for the NRA, though, whose modus operandi is to call for more guns by appealing to fear and fantasy."

fear and fantasy
fear and fantasy
FEAR AND FANTASY


Isn't that what the entire "rational discussion about firearms" consists of?
 
2013-04-04 01:19:46 PM  

factoryconnection: Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber.  I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it.  As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot.  It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans.  I do see it a lot among republicans, though.


You know who else talked about big lies being easier to spread than little lies...
 
2013-04-04 01:19:51 PM  

factoryconnection: Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber.


That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.
 
2013-04-04 01:20:00 PM  
Personally, I think the saddest thing about the whole mess is how easily one could make up a school shooting without it being instantly questioned, owing to the fact that it happens often enough that one wouldn't instinctively know it's BS. Kind of like the war in Australia...
 
2013-04-04 01:20:01 PM  

Virtue: I find the NRA more credible than anything a gun control advocate has ever said.


That's got to be an incredibly low bar you have.
 
2013-04-04 01:20:34 PM  

Amos Quito: FTA: "That's a less useful story for the NRA, though, whose modus operandi is to call for more guns by appealing to fear and fantasy."

fear and fantasy
fear and fantasy
FEAR AND FANTASY

Isn't that what the entire "rational discussion about firearms" consists of?


Take away emotion and gun sales plummet.
 
2013-04-04 01:20:42 PM  
Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...
 
2013-04-04 01:21:07 PM  
Maybe a staffer will come out and tell us what they really meant like with Evie Hudak who told a woman she would be raped anyway and Diane Degette who told an elderly person they would die anyway or that high cap mags come pre packed with bullets and once fired are no longer usable.
 
2013-04-04 01:21:58 PM  

royone: factoryconnection: Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber.

That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.


doubled99: Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...


Shoot the messenger in a gun thread... LOL
 
2013-04-04 01:22:23 PM  
I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork.  It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here.  Strange, no?
 
2013-04-04 01:22:26 PM  

Wadded Beef: Take away emotion and gun sales plummet control has nothing left to be based upon.


FTF everyone.
 
2013-04-04 01:23:01 PM  

doubled99: Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...


They have citations to back up what they're saying though. It's not like the NRA which magically pulls stories otu of their ass.
 
2013-04-04 01:23:33 PM  
"Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.
 
2013-04-04 01:24:14 PM  
Sooooooo, when does the NRA get preferred status, like ACORN got?

/ it's not wrong when we do it!
 
2013-04-04 01:24:20 PM  

Amos Quito: FTA: "That's a less useful story for the NRA, though, whose modus operandi is to call for more guns by appealing to fear and fantasy."

fear and fantasy
fear and fantasy
FEAR AND FANTASY

Isn't that what the entire "rational discussion about firearms" consists of?


pretty much. 'let's ban scary looking guns'
 
2013-04-04 01:24:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


This may be a brilliant tactic if they want to publicize the "was subdued" angle.

 If they think the media is out to get them by making a big deal about their inaccuracies, they may be pushing a story they want by intentionally reporting it inaccurately.

Are they trolling the media and getting their message out at the same time?
 
2013-04-04 01:25:07 PM  
Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.
 
2013-04-04 01:25:36 PM  

Amos Quito: FTA: "That's a less useful story for the NRA, though, whose modus operandi is to call for more guns by appealing to fear and fantasy."

fear and fantasy
fear and fantasy
FEAR AND FANTASY

Isn't that what the entire "rational discussion about firearms" consists of?



Hahahaha ZING!

Don't forget the new and improved "Common sense legislation", which takes not one gun out of any criminal's hands.   That's brilliant.
 
2013-04-04 01:25:44 PM  

GleeUnit: I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork.  It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here.  Strange, no?


No, there's just scared little man-children desperately clinging to their guns and religion.
 
2013-04-04 01:25:58 PM  

GleeUnit: I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork.  It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here.  Strange, no?


i thought it was to shout at gun owners about their alleged penis size. it seems to be the only thing gun haters know to say.
 
2013-04-04 01:26:00 PM  
Here is what actually happened in Hastings, MN:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

Why the NRA had to lie about this and say that 6 people died  when the actual truth backs up the case they were trying to make is beyond me.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

/for those not wanting to read Mother Jones
 
2013-04-04 01:26:39 PM  
For all the Mother Jones haters:

Armed teen terrorizes Hastings Middle School
 
2013-04-04 01:26:46 PM  

iheartscotch: Sooooooo, when does the NRA get preferred status, like ACORN got?

/ it's not wrong when we do it!


How retro!

What does "preferred status" mean anyway?
 
2013-04-04 01:26:50 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.


Which side has a body count?
 
2013-04-04 01:27:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Molavian: Huh, I'm surprised that they're using liberal tactics.

Potato/10


You realize he thinks you rated him "infinity"?
 
2013-04-04 01:27:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: They have citations to back up what they're saying though


Have you ever read through some of their citations?

It's like an email to Time Cube printed on a cocktail napkin.
 
2013-04-04 01:27:43 PM  
I am all for making schools more secure (windows, locks, controlling entrance...etc.)  But given that a centerpiece of their security plan is arming Staff and Volunteers, I cringe.  Having been a teacher and knowing the type of staff and others that would junp at the chance to volunteer, they would be the ones I would worry the most about!
 
2013-04-04 01:27:46 PM  
The fact that they think they can just make up a school shooting with 6 fatalities just proves that something needs to be done. It happens often enough that the NRA thinks people won't even question them if you don't rember 6 kids getting shot dead.
 
2013-04-04 01:27:49 PM  
They have citations to back up what they're saying though. It's not like the NRA which magically pulls stories otu of their ass.


"This paper contains facts, Charlie. 'Pregnant man gives birth'. That's a fact. And they have the 8th largest circulation in the world, I'll have you know."
 
2013-04-04 01:28:00 PM  

royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.


sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.


doubled99: Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...


Fair enough, but MoJo was nice enough to link to their source.  What was I saying about an echo chamber?
 
2013-04-04 01:28:05 PM  
I don't really get putting in the effort of lying and myth making. Just openly state that you own congress and there is jack shiat anyone is going to do about it. Kick over the podium and leave.
 
2013-04-04 01:28:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Here is what actually happened in Hastings, MN:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

Why the NRA had to lie about this and say that 6 people died  when the actual truth backs up the case they were trying to make is beyond me.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

/for those not wanting to read Mother Jones


Yeah, that's what gets me.  It doesn't make sense for them to lie about it.  If they really wanted to cite a real example of a school shooting where someone killed other people, it's not like it's never happened before.  I just don't get what they hoped to gain by making shiat up.
 
2013-04-04 01:28:44 PM  

doubled99: Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...


Irony: Insinuating information is invalid because the source is biased despite the fact they cold-busted another organization blatantly misrepresenting an event that is easily fact-checked.
 
2013-04-04 01:29:24 PM  

neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?


The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.
 
2013-04-04 01:29:38 PM  

Tricky Chicken: This may be a brilliant tactic if they want to publicize the "was subdued" angle.


They wanted to publicize the importance of having police officers on school campus, which in this case, there was a police officer who did subdue the shooter before anything happened.

Tricky Chicken: If they think the media is out to get them by making a big deal about their inaccuracies, they may be pushing a story they want by intentionally reporting it inaccurately.

Are they trolling the media and getting their message out at the same time?


It wouldn't surprise me if this was the NRA's actual strategy.
 
2013-04-04 01:30:39 PM  

royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.


sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.


When you can't actually refute the facts, just badmouth the source of the facts.


www.visi.com
 
2013-04-04 01:30:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: iheartscotch: Sooooooo, when does the NRA get preferred status, like ACORN got?

/ it's not wrong when we do it!

How retro!

What does "preferred status" mean anyway?


The NRA gets preferred status when it starts making it easier for the "wrong kind of people" to get involved in politics.
 
2013-04-04 01:31:19 PM  

Giltric: Have you ever read through some of their citations?


Yes, I posted two of the citations they used above. (the article from the Star-Tribune and the actual NRA report they released which shows that they lied about the shooting on page 69).

These citations that they used check out.
 
2013-04-04 01:31:28 PM  
Use one way glass, that way you don't know who's looking at you kid.
 
2013-04-04 01:32:26 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 01:32:28 PM  
 
2013-04-04 01:32:33 PM  

FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association


Normalizing
Retarded
America
 
2013-04-04 01:33:20 PM  

slat1040: I am all for making schools more secure (windows, locks, controlling entrance...etc.)  But given that a centerpiece of their security plan is arming Staff and Volunteers, I cringe.  Having been a teacher and knowing the type of staff and others that would junp at the chance to volunteer, they would be the ones I would worry the most about!


But the teacher/staffer has to pass a background check to get the job teaching children in the first place (and I imagine Suzy Homemaker doesn't want "volunteers with guns" around her kids if they haven't passed one as well), making passing that check a de facto requirement to get a "teachers' gun". The NRA would be pissed if they knew what kinds of gun-grabbing second-amendment restrictions the NRA was cooking up.
 
2013-04-04 01:33:37 PM  

Virtue: I find the NRA more credible than anything a gun control advocate has ever said.


to be fair, in this case NRA is an asian NWA coverband
 
2013-04-04 01:33:39 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 01:33:54 PM  
Heh. Lot of butthurt MJ subscibers here, I see.


i guess Fox News will no longer be bashed here since they have often reported factual information with sources.
 
2013-04-04 01:34:01 PM  
It is interesting how quick and effective the anti-gun folks are at finding errors with NRA statements while being completely incapable of recognizing that lies, cherry-picking statistics, and appeals to emotion are literally the only thing their side does.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond ridiculous.
 
2013-04-04 01:34:04 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Tricky Chicken: This may be a brilliant tactic if they want to publicize the "was subdued" angle.

They wanted to publicize the importance of having police officers on school campus, which in this case, there was a police officer who did subdue the shooter before anything happened.

Tricky Chicken: If they think the media is out to get them by making a big deal about their inaccuracies, they may be pushing a story they want by intentionally reporting it inaccurately.

Are they trolling the media and getting their message out at the same time?

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the NRA's actual strategy.


So as they point out "Hey dumbass, nobody got shot you liar"

Their response is "So you're saying that armed police in schools works?"
 
2013-04-04 01:34:22 PM  

Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.


Thank you both for proving my point so well.
 
2013-04-04 01:35:05 PM  
So....start your OWN rifle association.

What. Too busy munching on welfare cheese?
 
2013-04-04 01:36:10 PM  

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.


Freedom is risky.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-1-2013/standing-up-for-g un s
 
2013-04-04 01:36:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: iheartscotch: Sooooooo, when does the NRA get preferred status, like ACORN got?

/ it's not wrong when we do it!

How retro!

What does "preferred status" mean anyway?


Who knows what "prefered status" means.

Both sides are making some really idiotic statements. In the middle are law-abiding citizens. The "omg, highpowered assault rifle" crowd are just grossly misinformed. Meanwhile, gun sales haven't ever been higher.

If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens and have any democrat that wants append their name to the pledge.

/ he gave us a pledge? Unheard of! Absurd!
 
2013-04-04 01:36:55 PM  

doubled99: Heh. Lot of butthurt MJ subscibers here, I see.


i guess Fox News will no longer be bashed here since they have often reported factual information with sources.


They do?
 
2013-04-04 01:38:18 PM  

TheSelphie: Mrtraveler01: Here is what actually happened in Hastings, MN:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

Why the NRA had to lie about this and say that 6 people died  when the actual truth backs up the case they were trying to make is beyond me.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

/for those not wanting to read Mother Jones

Yeah, that's what gets me.  It doesn't make sense for them to lie about it.  If they really wanted to cite a real example of a school shooting where someone killed other people, it's not like it's never happened before.  I just don't get what they hoped to gain by making shiat up.


It's almost - almost - like they lie continually or, in fact, might operate completely within a sort of enclosed figurative chamber where anything they say or do must foist an ideology that is dependent - intimately and utterly - upon prevarication.
 
2013-04-04 01:38:42 PM  

FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association


People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

HAWHAW
 
2013-04-04 01:38:57 PM  

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?


Rapists and robbers armed with firearms are a lot harder to stop than a rapist or robber armed with a knife or some other non-projectile. Just like it's a lot easier for some lunatic to kill 30 children with assorted firearms than it is for him to kill that many kids with a knife.

But making it harder for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns (or making it easier to trace the guns they do get ahold of), if it means slightly inconveniencing hobbyists? THAT'S ANTI AMERICAN YOU COMMIE.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:04 PM  
I know it's fun for everyone to get all worked up but lets take a look at this in context.  The part of the text where the Hastings example was used was discussing vulnerabilities of interior windows and discussing different options on how to make them safer.  It wasn't used to justify adding guns or arming anyone.  Second, as Mother Jones did point out, the footnote referred to two different incidents.  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.  Get over yourselves, people.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:12 PM  

factoryconnection: royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.

sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.

doubled99: Mother Jones, huh?
I guess we'll be linking to National Review next. Oh, wait...

Fair enough, but MoJo was nice enough to link to their source.  What was I saying about an echo chamber?


Using Mother Jones as a source is like using Fox & Friends as a source. They may be right about any given fact. They may link to factual support. But they're still an echo chamber. So it isn't really a good thread to support your opposition to echo chambers.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:44 PM  
i guess Fox News will no longer be bashed here since they have often reported factual information with sources.

They do?



No, I was just kidding. Every single word ever spoken on the network is a complete lie, made up by their evil corporate rulers and their paid shills.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:44 PM  
arguments about what precisely to do about gun control aside, i can not in any world see how making schools armored fortresses with armed guards is in any way, shape or form a rational response to school shootings
 
2013-04-04 01:41:07 PM  

arentol: It is interesting how quick and effective the anti-gun folks are at finding errors with NRA statements while being completely incapable of recognizing that lies, cherry-picking statistics, and appeals to emotion are literally the only thing their side does.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond ridiculous.


What "anti-gun folks"?  I haven't heard from that small group of people.  I didn't know there were any, to be honest.
 
2013-04-04 01:42:03 PM  
I'm ready to forgive the NRA, isn't it time all forgive the NRA.
 
2013-04-04 01:42:07 PM  

doubled99: i guess Fox News will no longer be bashed here since they have often reported factual information with sources.

They do?


No, I was just kidding. Every single word ever spoken on the network is a complete lie, made up by their evil corporate rulers and their paid shills.


I know you're exaggerating, because on Fox & Friends they usually give the correct time of day.
 
2013-04-04 01:42:23 PM  
p.twimg.com
 
2013-04-04 01:42:28 PM  

sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.


All you have to do is link an article from a credible news agency showing that there was, in fact, a massacre at Hastings Middle School in Minnesota in 2010.  Then you'll have ample grounds to criticize the source.
 
2013-04-04 01:42:47 PM  

doubled99: i guess Fox News will no longer be bashed here since they have often reported factual information with sources.

They do?


No, I was just kidding. Every single word ever spoken on the network is a complete lie, made up by their evil corporate rulers and their paid shills.


No need to get that dramatic but they don't have a very good track record when it comes to telling the truth...at least when it comes to political coverage.

They're weather coverage is pretty truthful with the FOX EXTREME WEATHER CENTER...because weather is EXTREME TO THE MAX!!!
 
2013-04-04 01:43:08 PM  
From - http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/nra-funded-school-shield-task-force-un v eils-safety-recommendations-put-armed-guards-in-schools-video/

"However, Hutchinson also noted that no school should be forced to hire a school resource officer (sworn police officer(s) who work in school districts) or train a member of the faculty or staff on how to use a firearm. The bulk of the<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.nraschoolshield.com/"> 225-page report expands the concepts of how to deter, detect, delay and respond to a threat like a shooter or shooting."

Wow, what a bunch of whackjobs.
 
2013-04-04 01:43:32 PM  
While the outcome of the action didn't match facts, the point still stands that the full length windows beside a door ARE a safety risk.  The kid DID break through the glass and unlock the door, even if he didn't shoot anyone that still shows a major risk to safety.  Locking to door and bunkering down would do nothing but make you easier bait for ANY attacker, gun, knife, bow and arrow, whatever.

If anything the facts make the safety risk even higher than stated in the NRA article as the kid didn't shoot through it, just used the gun to break it.  So it's not as if an attacker would even need a gun to get through.

Please continue......
 
2013-04-04 01:43:45 PM  

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.


This is the part I'd love to see all gun nuts just flat out say. There's undeniable proof that guns cause more homicides and suicides, and removing guns from the equation greatly diminishes both. I would like the gun nuts and the NRA just say that their hobby greatly affects the death toll in their country, but they're okay with it. I'd hate their opinion, but I'd respect it more than this hiding behind the Constitution BS.
 
2013-04-04 01:44:19 PM  
6 people died in that Hastings Middle School incident -- in an alternate universe!
 
2013-04-04 01:44:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


Maybe they're just too used to it.
 
2013-04-04 01:45:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Here is what actually happened in Hastings, MN:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

Why the NRA had to lie about this and say that 6 people died  when the actual truth backs up the case they were trying to make is beyond me.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

/for those not wanting to read Mother Jones


NRA doesn't have a dog in that fight.  FTA, it was god who prevented it, not the officer who tackled the kid, or maybe the fact that the kid didn't really want to shoot anyone.  remember, god is in control, or something like that.
 
2013-04-04 01:45:56 PM  

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?


Bravo wants bad people to stop being bad, but Bravo, likely a liberal, has no problem solving skills and lacks the vocabulary to express Bravo's desires. So, Bravo cites things that Bravo has been told bad people use when they do bad things: guns, knives, posturing, and sluts. Bravo wants those gone. When they're gone, bad people have no alternative; they must now be good people.
 
2013-04-04 01:47:33 PM  
So sounds like they simply conflated two separate incidents in Minnesota; the indian reservation shooting and that Hastings incident.

Hardly seems like that big of a deal.
 
2013-04-04 01:47:59 PM  

Giblet: Bravo wants bad people to stop being bad, but Bravo, likely a liberal, has no problem solving skills and lacks the vocabulary to express Bravo's desires. So, Bravo cites things that Bravo has been told bad people use when they do bad things: guns, knives, posturing, and sluts. Bravo wants those gone. When they're gone, bad people have no alternative; they must now be good people.



Please, continue to dazzle us with your vast critical thinking skills.
 
2013-04-04 01:48:39 PM  

sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.


Neither is the NRA, apparently.
 
2013-04-04 01:48:49 PM  

keenerb: So sounds like they simply conflated two separate incidents in Minnesota; the indian reservation shooting and that Hastings incident.

Hardly seems like that big of a deal.


Magazine/clip.
 
2013-04-04 01:50:23 PM  

iheartscotch: If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens


Yeah that will do it.

The AGENDA 21 crowd just needs assurances from the government.
 
2013-04-04 01:50:40 PM  
FTFA:  For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door. Horrifying-except it never happened.

And later in TFA: It's possible that the episode in question may have been a mix-up; its footnote cites a news story covering both the incident at Hastings Middle School and the massacre at Red Lake Senior High School five years prior, in which a teen assailant killed seven and injured five before committing suicide. But whatever the case, the bad info shows that the NRA is unreliable when it comes to assessing mass gun violence.

It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured.  By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.
 
2013-04-04 01:51:58 PM  
You know, I was hoping we'd get some real mental health reforms out of this whole national conversation... but we're talking about guns again. Blaming inanimate objects like superstitious natives. Using terms like "armor-piercing rounds" and "high-capacity clips" without any idea or quantifiable measure of what those things are.

So basically, we're back to where we were in 1999, when we had assault weapons bans in several places (well, the whole nation), which ultimately did nothing to stop the guys at Columbine.
 
2013-04-04 01:52:23 PM  
Thought experiment:

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)
- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults
- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers
- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat
- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)
- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment
- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)


Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.
 
2013-04-04 01:52:39 PM  
Why do conservatives constantly lie and fabricate data to push their agenda?

/because they have to in order to make a compelling argument?
//because their supporters are too ignorant to know the difference?
 
2013-04-04 01:53:08 PM  

lostcat: Thought experiment:

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)
- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults
- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers
- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat
- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)
- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment
- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)


Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.


A symptom of what, exactly?
 
2013-04-04 01:53:10 PM  
For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!
 
2013-04-04 01:53:10 PM  

maxx2112: FTFA:  For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door. Horrifying-except it never happened.

And later in TFA: It's possible that the episode in question may have been a mix-up; its footnote cites a news story covering both the incident at Hastings Middle School and the massacre at Red Lake Senior High School five years prior, in which a teen assailant killed seven and injured five before committing suicide. But whatever the case, the bad info shows that the NRA is unreliable when it comes to assessing mass gun violence.

It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured.  By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.


I guess it would be nice if the NRA did its own homework before they made this report.

But I guess that's just me.
 
2013-04-04 01:53:56 PM  

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.


Funny, that's usually the same response the gun rights activists give when they lose something politically
 
2013-04-04 01:54:23 PM  
A well regulated security officer being necessary to the security of a free state school, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


/The only security in a UK school is there to prevent the kiddies wandering out onto the street.
 
2013-04-04 01:54:34 PM  

GameSprocket: Giblet: <stupidity deleted>


Please, continue to dazzle us with your vast critical thinking skills.


If he had critical thinking skills, he wouldn't be a Republican.
 
2013-04-04 01:54:54 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.

Thank you both for proving my point so well.


Logic and rational discussion have no place here. Did you wander onto the wrong website? Perhaps I can direct you somewhere else on the internet....
Hmmm. Not finding anywhere with logical or rational discussion online.

Wanna go fishing with me? Pretty sure we don't belong on the internet. :\
 
2013-04-04 01:55:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


This.  Could be a mistake.  But here's the official link to the document.  Page 48.  Or search for 'Hastings'

http://www.nraschoolshield.com/NSS_Final_FULL.pdf
 
2013-04-04 01:56:18 PM  

tlchwi02: arguments about what precisely to do about gun control aside, i can not in any world see how making schools armored fortresses with armed guards is in any way, shape or form a rational response to school shootings


If we do something about the guns themselves, or try anything that has to do with the guns themselves, it's destroying the Constitution and all of the hobbyists, doomsday preppers, and rednecks explode about Obama personally coming to take their guns and toss them into a portable smelter while ordering criminals and Muslims to ransack their homes and rape their children. So turning elementary schools into armed gulags is the most reasonable plan that doesn't impose on anyone's gun rights.

I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.
 
2013-04-04 01:57:28 PM  
iheartscotch: If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens and have any democrat that wants append their name to the pledge.

/ he gave us a pledge? Unheard of! Absurd!


Yeah, that would work, totally.  Like his pledge in 2008 to not accept additional funds for his Presidential campaign...which he wisely reneged on?  Republicans and the NRA would NEVER bring that up....

It is a bit much the hand wringing over the error, but if ANYONE wants to be taken seriously, fact check and put together a good document.  Otherwise, why are you there at all - to bamboozle the ignorant and present a false image?  And the 20 armed guards for the presenter who wasn't frightened at all?

Quite simply, the NRA is a front group for folks that are frightened ALL THE TIME; I think a lot of folks who buy guns are simply frightened (wow - shocker) and for some it's a legitimate concern but for most others, it's a sign of stress and emotional fragility.
 
2013-04-04 01:59:43 PM  

royone: Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!


factoryconnection: Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot


What was I saying earlier?  So no matter how wrong, mis-cited, or even fabricated their evidence is, they can use it to bolster the point that you already agreed with.  To you, there is nothing that could shake their credibility.

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about.
 
2013-04-04 01:59:44 PM  

trappedspirit: Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!

This.  Could be a mistake.  But here's the official link to the document.  Page 48.  Or search for 'Hastings'

http://www.nraschoolshield.com/NSS_Final_FULL.pdf


I don't see how it could be anything but a mistake. Unless the NRA is really the National Secure Window Association who will say anything to sell those overpriced windows that don't really make anyone safer and actually kill our kids.
 
2013-04-04 01:59:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: tlchwi02: arguments about what precisely to do about gun control aside, i can not in any world see how making schools armored fortresses with armed guards is in any way, shape or form a rational response to school shootings

If we do something about the guns themselves, or try anything that has to do with the guns themselves, it's destroying the Constitution and all of the hobbyists, doomsday preppers, and rednecks explode about Obama personally coming to take their guns and toss them into a portable smelter while ordering criminals and Muslims to ransack their homes and rape their children. So turning elementary schools into armed gulags is the most reasonable plan that doesn't impose on anyone's gun rights.

I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.


Honest question: why are we talking about the guns?

Seriously. Last time I heard there was going to be a look into mental health policy in this country so we could de-stigmatize and provide treatment and get people sane before they ever went off the deep end.

Now, it's back to assault weapons bans... again. We've had these laws before, and Columbine happened smack-dab in the middle of the Federal ban that was law from 1994-2004. We're sitting here like superstitious natives blaming inanimate objects.
 
2013-04-04 01:59:47 PM  

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
 
2013-04-04 02:00:32 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.


I'm not sure if I'm in the same group as you but I think bans are the wrong answer. We just need to beef up regulation on how these purchases are being made and be better able to track where these guns are going.

But of course suggesting that is the equivalent of repealing the 2nd Amendment even though I don't want to take guns away from any law-abiding citizen.
 
2013-04-04 02:01:43 PM  
Somebody should really do something about all the problems
 
2013-04-04 02:01:54 PM  

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


They also make defending yourself against those things easier. Meaning it's a wash and we should move on to looking at human psychology as a way to solve these problems.
 
2013-04-04 02:02:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: maxx2112: FTFA:  For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door. Horrifying-except it never happened.

And later in TFA: It's possible that the episode in question may have been a mix-up; its footnote cites a news story covering both the incident at Hastings Middle School and the massacre at Red Lake Senior High School five years prior, in which a teen assailant killed seven and injured five before committing suicide. But whatever the case, the bad info shows that the NRA is unreliable when it comes to assessing mass gun violence.

It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured.  By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.

I guess it would be nice if the NRA did its own homework before they made this report.

But I guess that's just me.


You're absolutely right.  This is the kind of error that should have been caught in proof reading and fact checking.  However, it's not the overt act of lying and fabrication of facts that some in this thread are making it out to be.

Wrong, yes.  Deceitful, probably not.

blog.torgodevil.com

/ one supposes, then, that technically incorrect is the worst kind of incorrect
 
2013-04-04 02:03:10 PM  
Think of the fictional children. Won't someone please the of the fictional children?
 
2013-04-04 02:03:16 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: iheartscotch: If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens

Yeah that will do it.

The AGENDA 21 crowd just needs assurances from the government.


Those guys? Yeahhhh.

I'm saying an actual, plainly written pledge. If the president signs it; along with a majority of democrats; it would go a long way toward allaying the fears of law-abiding citizens. It wouldn't cost the president anything to do.
 
2013-04-04 02:03:37 PM  
I am surprised that with faking it this much, they didn't go into the other direction of "A brown kid with a gun shot at students in the classroom, the white students took out their guns that they're parents bought for their protection and returned fire killing the rampaging student with no loss of life or serious injuries to the innocent gun owners. More guns for the classroom!"
 
2013-04-04 02:03:38 PM  

royone: For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!


So, as long as I can bisect an angle, it's OK if one of the Givens of my geometry is that "the shortest distance between two points is *not* a straight line"?

How you get to your conclusion is an important part of an argument.
 
2013-04-04 02:04:16 PM  

Marine1: lostcat: Thought experiment:

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)
- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults
- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers
- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat
- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)
- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment
- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)


Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.

A symptom of what, exactly?



Good question. I think there are a number of things causing problems:

- Innadequate access to preventative health care, especially for mental health disorders
- Public agencies that refuse to listen to greivances from citizens (ever try arguing with a Parking Enforcement officer?)
- Deteriorating public education system
- Minimum wages not matching minimal living wages
- Shrinking public services
- Increased access to paranoid theories thanks to the Interwebs

I don't really have it in me to make a complete list, and I'm not particularly good at this sort of thing anyway, but the fact remains that we see increases and decreases in volient crime and should be able to correlate those with policy and social norms that are in effect during those times. (e.g. the drop in violent crime ~16 years following Roe v. Wade)

I don't think it helps that guns are seen as a way to empower their owner. As much as I love a good third-person shooter and slick, Hollywood, action flick, I do think that we've glamorized guns, and told generation after generation of people that holding a gun gives you power and righteousness.

Combine that with a society in which individuals feel less and less empowered and you have people going on killing sprees, and people carrying guns to demand respect, etc.
 
2013-04-04 02:04:24 PM  

royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.


sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.


So here's the actual NRA report:  http://www.nraschoolshield.com/NSS_Final_FULL.pdf
The relevant quote is on page 69 of the pdf., (page 48 of the appendix.)

And here's what actually happened:  http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y">http://w ww.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

So Mother Jones got it dead on and the NRA very clearly lied. And all that only takes an intelligent adult maybe 2-3 minutes to confirm independently. But hey, if everyone were an intelligent adult, I guess there'd be no room left for bleating conservative shills, would there?
 
2013-04-04 02:05:33 PM  

maxx2112: It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured. By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.


Well, that's pretty stupid. As long as some vaguely similar event happened somewhere at some time, you can use it to prove your argument? Just wait til the MPAA finds out that they can claim that illegal copying of "Wreck It Ralph" led the the murder of millions of Jews.
 
2013-04-04 02:06:22 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 02:09:11 PM  
The story if continued may read something like this; Then the hero of the day went home and his girlfriend saw his tiny penis and gasped but he pulled out his huge gun and she had an orgasm.
 
2013-04-04 02:09:17 PM  

GAT_00: Another day, another set of lies from gun advocates.  Shocking.


Oh, sorry. I thought you said "gun control" advocates and were referring to the shrill cries of blood in the streets from these deadly assault weapons when the FBI tells use their illegal use is at an all time low.
 
2013-04-04 02:10:49 PM  
Is it a good idea to entrust the National Rifle Association with a role in shaping safety policies for schools?

No. That's almost as stupid as letting politicians do it.
 
2013-04-04 02:11:02 PM  

Deucednuisance: royone: For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!

So, as long as I can bisect an angle, it's OK if one of the Givens of my geometry is that "the shortest distance between two points is *not* a straight line"?

How you get to your conclusion is an important part of an argument.


I think we can concede that a locking door is not particularly effective if a window is installed right next to it. People are really fixating on a minor point that is really not that controversial. The NRA should still feel stupid for not checking their facts, though.
 
2013-04-04 02:11:03 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.

Neither is the NRA, apparently.


but they have their own "news" magazine!
 
2013-04-04 02:12:34 PM  
the NRA "news" magazine.
 
2013-04-04 02:13:19 PM  

factoryconnection: Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber.  I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it.  As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot.  It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans.  I do see it a lot among republicans, though.


There're none who need convincing in the echo chamber, consider the possibility that you may be the the target.
 
2013-04-04 02:13:59 PM  
ok, for the third time:

i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-04 02:14:01 PM  
For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door.


It's called a "sidelite," you barbarians.
 
2013-04-04 02:14:11 PM  

Marine1: lostcat: Thought experiment:

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)
- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults
- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers
- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat
- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)
- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment
- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)


Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.

A symptom of what, exactly?


Having guns, I guess. That part didn't really make sense and the first sentence of that paragraph read as "I'm not racist and I'm all for minorities, BUT..."
 
2013-04-04 02:14:14 PM  
www.explosm.net
 
2013-04-04 02:14:25 PM  

Bill the unknowing: iheartscotch: If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens and have any democrat that wants append their name to the pledge.

/ he gave us a pledge? Unheard of! Absurd!

Yeah, that would work, totally.  Like his pledge in 2008 to not accept additional funds for his Presidential campaign...which he wisely reneged on?  Republicans and the NRA would NEVER bring that up....

It is a bit much the hand wringing over the error, but if ANYONE wants to be taken seriously, fact check and put together a good document.  Otherwise, why are you there at all - to bamboozle the ignorant and present a false image?  And the 20 armed guards for the presenter who wasn't frightened at all?

Quite simply, the NRA is a front group for folks that are frightened ALL THE TIME; I think a lot of folks who buy guns are simply frightened (wow - shocker) and for some it's a legitimate concern but for most others, it's a sign of stress and emotional fragility.


You've got an aweful big brush there; it'd be a shame if you painted something you didn't mean to paint.

The NRA probably would be satisfied with a constitutional amendment stating that the right for a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm shall not be infringed, nor their right to 30 round mags and semi-automatic rifles. This amendment can never be altered, changed, voided, nullified or made moot in any manner.

/ that will never happen; I'd settle for a plainly worded pledge, signed by the president and as many democrats that wish to sign
 
2013-04-04 02:16:09 PM  

LordJiro: But making it harder for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns (or making it easier to trace the guns they do get ahold of), if it means slightly inconveniencing hobbyists? THAT'S ANTI AMERICAN YOU COMMIE.




Problem being at not all shooters are hobbyists. Its estimated that up to sixty percent of those who own guns do so because they felt a need for the extra protection.
Crooks have got the means to get guns either from theft or straw purchase or import. They are armed and they will continue to be armed. Making these laws more one sided than a UN treaty.

What you do is limit everyone based on the promise of security, and what they see on television is a dozen instances per day where that promise fell through.

Its no mystery why the population goes on a buying binge every time the left starts talking about "reasonable restrictions". What you think isn't a very big deal is an extremely big deal.
 
2013-04-04 02:17:13 PM  
Meanwhile, the President claims the Newtown shooting was done with a "fully automatic weapon" (ctrl+f it), actually correcting himself from the term semi automatic.

/but that's just an honest slip up, unlike this, where the NRA is out to prove that full length windows kill people, for some reason.
 
2013-04-04 02:18:20 PM  

Marine1: Meaning it's a wash and we should move on to looking at human psychology as a way to solve these problems.


Damn right.

// but in the meantime, drying up the supply may not be the most horrible evil ever perpetrated upon the Milky Way and its inhabitants
 
2013-04-04 02:18:51 PM  
likely they used one of the "breaking news stories" where 20 killed meant 8 scared.
 
2013-04-04 02:19:04 PM  

Marine1: Honest question: why are we talking about the guns?

Seriously. Last time I heard there was going to be a look into mental health policy in this country so we could de-stigmatize and provide treatment and get people sane before they ever went off the deep end.

Now, it's back to assault weapons bans... again. We've had these laws before, and Columbine happened smack-dab in the middle of the Federal ban that was law from 1994-2004. We're sitting here like superstitious natives blaming inanimate objects.


Good point. This is why I am actually against the AWB. I really think it would probably be a good idea to tightly control those types of weapons, but I am afraid that the politician would pass a ban and call it a day. Why?  Because that is the easiest way to look like they are doing something about gun violence. Trying to address the cause of gun violence is a much more difficult plan. It doesn't help that there are a lot of people who fight against even studying the problem.
 
2013-04-04 02:21:17 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.

I'm not sure if I'm in the same group as you but I think bans are the wrong answer. We just need to beef up regulation on how these purchases are being made and be better able to track where these guns are going.

But of course suggesting that is the equivalent of repealing the 2nd Amendment even though I don't want to take guns away from any law-abiding citizen.


I'll put up the list I thought up, let's see if I can remember all of them.

* 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.
 
2013-04-04 02:25:50 PM  

lostcat: Good question. I think there are a number of things causing problems:

- Innadequate access to preventative health care, especially for mental health disorders
- Public agencies that refuse to listen to greivances from citizens (ever try arguing with a Parking Enforcement officer?)
- Deteriorating public education system
- Minimum wages not matching minimal living wages
- Shrinking public services
- Increased access to paranoid theories thanks to the Interwebs



You've identified many problems that can cause violence amongst Americans.  Great!  So you either want to raise taxes or take funding from some other program(s) to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Education, and a federal increase in minimum wage.  You sir must be a democrat!  Me too, and it sounds like a good plan. I am certainly willing to try that approach instead of restricting guns.  After all, in order to solve this problem, we're going to all have to chip in somewhere.  Hey republican party members out there?  Which ones of you are with us?
 
2013-04-04 02:27:25 PM  

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? Adding a $10-15 cost to the hundreds of dollars it already takes to purchase one (less than sales tax in most states) - in exchange for a service (the BG check) - curtails the civil liberties of...who, exactly?

It's odd that the 2nd is somehow the only Amendment that doesn't get anything stacked on top of it, yet I can't publicly protest the jackals at DC Parking Enforcement without pulling a permit.

// assbrain
 
2013-04-04 02:28:02 PM  

Fano: Marine1: lostcat: Thought experiment:

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)
- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults
- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers
- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat
- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)
- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment
- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)


Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.

A symptom of what, exactly?

Having guns, I guess. That part didn't really make sense and the first sentence of that paragraph read as "I'm not racist and I'm all for minorities, BUT..."



Let me break it down for you:

Over decades, erode the power of individuals in a society. What used to be the "American Dream" that each of us could become successful if we work hard enough, has been debunked in a time where 47% of the population lives near or below the poverty line.

Train public servants to ignore and show disdain for the people they supposedly serve by creating a system of "not my problem."

Neglect public schools. Neglect those with mental health issues. Pay only lip service to the idea of "preventative healthcare"

Basically allow people to feel unsupported, incosequential and unempowered.

At the same time, let those people consume massive quantities of media in which the empowered, independent, strong and admirable hero gets results at the end of his trusty firearm.

It's a recipe for exactly the situation we are in now.

Not saying it's a conspiracy on anyone's part, or that things are this way intentionally. But it's a guess as to why we keep reading about peope shooting people in arguements, muggings, and occassionally in multiple-homicides where the killers do not know their victims,
 
2013-04-04 02:29:01 PM  

jfivealive: lostcat: Good question. I think there are a number of things causing problems:

- Innadequate access to preventative health care, especially for mental health disorders
- Public agencies that refuse to listen to greivances from citizens (ever try arguing with a Parking Enforcement officer?)
- Deteriorating public education system
- Minimum wages not matching minimal living wages
- Shrinking public services
- Increased access to paranoid theories thanks to the Interwebs


You've identified many problems that can cause violence amongst Americans.  Great!  So you either want to raise taxes or take funding from some other program(s) to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Education, and a federal increase in minimum wage.  You sir must be a democrat!  Me too, and it sounds like a good plan. I am certainly willing to try that approach instead of restricting guns.  After all, in order to solve this problem, we're going to all have to chip in somewhere.  Hey republican party members out there?  Which ones of you are with us?


You also have to remember that such efforts are not going to produce measurable results within one election cycle. Politicians act along the same lines as corporate officers. They only want to spend money on things that will return an investment before the next time they are evaluated. We have become such a short-sighted society that I am starting to doubt our ability to do anything big anymore.
 
2013-04-04 02:29:43 PM  

Giltric: Maybe a staffer will come out and tell us what they really meant like with Evie Hudak who told a woman she would be raped anyway and Diane Degette who told an elderly person they would die anyway or that high cap mags come pre packed with bullets and once fired are no longer usable.


Both sides are bad so vote for more killing
 
2013-04-04 02:30:34 PM  

Molavian: Huh, I'm surprised that they're using liberal tactics.


0/10. Liberal tactics is not understanding how things they oppose work, not outright lying to your base.
 
2013-04-04 02:31:15 PM  

Marine1: You know, I was hoping we'd get some real mental health reforms out of this whole national conversation... but we're talking about guns again. Blaming inanimate objects like superstitious natives. Using terms like "armor-piercing rounds" and "high-capacity clips" without any idea or quantifiable measure of what those things are.

So basically, we're back to where we were in 1999, when we had assault weapons bans in several places (well, the whole nation), which ultimately did nothing to stop the guys at Columbine.


I agree with this completely. If you want to stop these "mass shootings" the common denominator is that they people doing the shooting had mental health issues. The gun was just the tool they chose to carry out their attack. Sure, if they didn't have guns it would have been harder to kills as many people so quickly, but the problem is their mental state, not the gun.
 
2013-04-04 02:31:28 PM  
The idea that the US Military would enslave us in some socialist dystopia were it not for a bunch of hillbillies with semi automatic rifles is the biggest fantasy you will ever tell yourself.  Your Red Dawn wet dreams aside, there is already a massive training and equipment gap between a genuine military unit and the good ole' boys 363rd that meets as Scullie's bar to talk about the good old days when they played jr. varsity football.  If that was really the goal of the government, you've already lost.
 
2013-04-04 02:31:44 PM  
Damn, now we don't have the right to bear arms any more.  Maybe one day one of the asshole groups that fights against the 2nd amendment will slip up and say something that is factually incorrect so that we can have our 2nd amendment rights again..
 
2013-04-04 02:33:07 PM  

GameSprocket: jfivealive: lostcat: Good question. I think there are a number of things causing problems:

- Innadequate access to preventative health care, especially for mental health disorders
- Public agencies that refuse to listen to greivances from citizens (ever try arguing with a Parking Enforcement officer?)
- Deteriorating public education system
- Minimum wages not matching minimal living wages
- Shrinking public services
- Increased access to paranoid theories thanks to the Interwebs


You've identified many problems that can cause violence amongst Americans.  Great!  So you either want to raise taxes or take funding from some other program(s) to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Education, and a federal increase in minimum wage.  You sir must be a democrat!  Me too, and it sounds like a good plan. I am certainly willing to try that approach instead of restricting guns.  After all, in order to solve this problem, we're going to all have to chip in somewhere.  Hey republican party members out there?  Which ones of you are with us?

You also have to remember that such efforts are not going to produce measurable results within one election cycle. Politicians act along the same lines as corporate officers. They only want to spend money on things that will return an investment before the next time they are evaluated. We have become such a short-sighted society that I am starting to doubt our ability to do anything big anymore.


It's almost as if we need to work together instead of against each other.  Who'd of thunk?
 
2013-04-04 02:35:40 PM  

jfivealive: GameSprocket: jfivealive: lostcat: Good question. I think there are a number of things causing problems:

- Innadequate access to preventative health care, especially for mental health disorders
- Public agencies that refuse to listen to greivances from citizens (ever try arguing with a Parking Enforcement officer?)
- Deteriorating public education system
- Minimum wages not matching minimal living wages
- Shrinking public services
- Increased access to paranoid theories thanks to the Interwebs


You've identified many problems that can cause violence amongst Americans.  Great!  So you either want to raise taxes or take funding from some other program(s) to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Education, and a federal increase in minimum wage.  You sir must be a democrat!  Me too, and it sounds like a good plan. I am certainly willing to try that approach instead of restricting guns.  After all, in order to solve this problem, we're going to all have to chip in somewhere.  Hey republican party members out there?  Which ones of you are with us?

You also have to remember that such efforts are not going to produce measurable results within one election cycle. Politicians act along the same lines as corporate officers. They only want to spend money on things that will return an investment before the next time they are evaluated. We have become such a short-sighted society that I am starting to doubt our ability to do anything big anymore.

It's almost as if we need to work together instead of against each other.  Who'd of thunk?


Commie!
 
2013-04-04 02:40:28 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.

Thank you both for proving my point so well.


I know, it's wierd....after months of providing facts and sources related to firearms ownership, rights and violence and the gun control crowd sticking their fingers in their ears going LA LA LA LA LA the whole time people only start taking it seriously when I have some fun.

It's like people have a predetermined viewpoint and will only accept things that doesn't upset that viewpoint.

Have you posted any pictures of slain children yet today?
 
2013-04-04 02:40:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


The report recommends removing vulnerable windows from classrooms, then as an example of what vulnerable means, cites a window being shot thru, so in other words pretty much all the windows in any school. Now I know school admins, and local school boards can be dumb, but I doubt even they would do something as dumb as brick up all the windows of a school and replace all the doors with solid steel monstrosities that look like they belong in a prison.

So what does that leave if a school wants to comply with NRA recommendations? Ballistic glass, gee I wonder if any of the people who make ballistic give money to the NRA and provide input on NRA "safety" reports.
 
2013-04-04 02:42:34 PM  

Deucednuisance: royone: For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!

So, as long as I can bisect an angle, it's OK if one of the Givens of my geometry is that "the shortest distance between two points is *not* a straight line"?

How you get to your conclusion is an important part of an argument.


It seems their point was that someone gained access by using a window.  I don't think that what appears to be sloppy fact reporting equates to operating on false assumptions.  An armed individual did gain access to an otherwise secured area via a broken window.
 
2013-04-04 02:42:45 PM  

Fat Bobcat: Meanwhile, the President claims the Newtown shooting was done with a "fully automatic weapon" (ctrl+f it), actually correcting himself from the term semi automatic.

/but that's just an honest slip up, unlike this, where the NRA is out to prove that full length windows kill people, for some reason.


Worth repeating, imo.
 
2013-04-04 02:43:03 PM  

blindio: The idea that the US Military would enslave us in some socialist dystopia were it not for a bunch of hillbillies with semi automatic rifles is the biggest fantasy you will ever tell yourself.  Your Red Dawn wet dreams aside, there is already a massive training and equipment gap between a genuine military unit and the good ole' boys 363rd that meets as Scullie's bar to talk about the good old days when they played jr. varsity football.  If that was really the goal of the government, you've already lost.


I know, it's such a stupid argument.  It's not guns that protect you from an overarching government, its YOU.  It's the people.  It's elections.  It's the news, the internet, the spread of information.  The ability for citizens to band together, to protest, to speak their minds.  Your guns don't protect you from a tyrannical government.  Certainly not from the nation with the most powerful military in the world.  You could completely take away the second amendment from the constitution and it would have no effect on the formation of the United States into a socialist, enslaving, and tyrannical regime.  That may have not been true half a century ago, but i certainly believe its true now.
 
2013-04-04 02:43:07 PM  

maxx2112: You're absolutely right. This is the kind of error that should have been caught in proof reading and fact checking. However, it's not the overt act of lying and fabrication of facts that some in this thread are making it out to be.


Just let the gun control crowd have this one. By my count it seems to be the only thing they have had going for them since Newtown. Let them celebrate. Don't try to deny them their victory.
 
2013-04-04 02:43:39 PM  
Haven't read whole thread, so not sure if someone else already posted this, but here's recent evidence that the problem exists on both sides - the President of the United States, the leader of the push for more stringent gun control laws, does not know or is mixed up about elementary distinctions between firearms. As someone did point out early, the cherry-picking and fact-distortion occurs on both sides. I'm also willing to give both sides a good-faith chance to correct honest mistakes - people get mixed up and sometimes aren't as careful as they should be. Tolerance for an honest attempt at correcting misinformation is vital if we are to really work together on these issues. Will the NRA retract its statement in the face of evidence otherwise? Will Obama admit that maybe he needs to read a few basic dictionary entries before he pushes sweeping legislation of items that he is apparently startlingly ignorant about?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/obama-newtown-children-killed-with -f ully-automatic-weapon/

Or maybe we're just finding out something new about Newtown.

/I believe Obama knows the difference between a semi and fully-automatic weapon, just for the record. But, an intentional attempt to mislead is deplorable. An honest mistake is another thing - as long as he corrects it.
 
2013-04-04 02:44:21 PM  

Rabbitgod: Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!

The report recommends removing vulnerable windows from classrooms, then as an example of what vulnerable means, cites a window being shot thru, so in other words pretty much all the windows in any school. Now I know school admins, and local school boards can be dumb, but I doubt even they would do something as dumb as brick up all the windows of a school and replace all the doors with solid steel monstrosities that look like they belong in a prison.

So what does that leave if a school wants to comply with NRA recommendations? Ballistic glass, gee I wonder if any of the people who make ballistic give money to the NRA and provide input on NRA "safety" reports.


Reminds me of this:

SALESMAN
Looks like you called me just in time. (He pockets several things from the living room.) This home isn't secure at all.
HOMER
What did I tell ya, Marge?
SALESMAN
Intruders could come down the chimney, through the mail slot, even hidden in your groceries. Did you change the locks when you moved in? I thought not. All the previous owners of this house could still be in here somewhere.
MARGE
What do you recommend?
SALESMAN
Well, a lot of companies would put in a pretty system that looks good, but doesn't provide any real protection.
HOMER
Oh, let's get that.
SALESMAN
...But if you want to sleep easy at night, I recommend sealing off every door and window with bullet-proof Lucite.
MARGE
Wouldn't we all suffocate?
SALESMAN
(laughing) Well, I should hope not.
HOMER
Let's get that - the suffocation thing.
 
2013-04-04 02:45:46 PM  

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


Want some? They are very plentiful and easy to find, so it really isn't a problem. I particularly enjoy the local ones with all the little kids who were killed by stray bullets while in their own homes. Too bad they weren't armed so they could shoot back. The neighborhood could have gotten together to negotiate a bulk deal on child coffins.
 
2013-04-04 02:47:45 PM  

quiotu: 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.

This is the part I'd love to see all gun nuts just flat out say. There's undeniable proof that guns cause more homicides and suicides, and removing guns from the equation greatly diminishes both. I would like the gun nuts and the NRA just say that their hobby greatly affects the death toll in their country, but they're okay with it. I'd hate their opinion, but I'd respect it more than this hiding behind the Constitution BS.


I've been saying it since Newtown and have been called cold hearted because of it.

Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.
 
2013-04-04 02:47:52 PM  

Giltric: Wadded Beef: Take away emotion and gun sales plummet control has nothing left to be based upon.

FTF everyone.


Well, except for the whole shot-up-school thingies and dead kids.
 
2013-04-04 02:49:10 PM  

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


Freedom from what, overcrowding?
 
2013-04-04 02:50:07 PM  

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!
 
2013-04-04 02:50:21 PM  

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

Want some? They are very plentiful and easy to find, so it really isn't a problem. I particularly enjoy the local ones with all the little kids who were killed by stray bullets while in their own homes. Too bad they weren't armed so they could shoot back. The neighborhood could have gotten together to negotiate a bulk deal on child coffins.


Were they shot with their drug dealer father (lol like he is in the picture) or uncles gat?

I have a thing for those.

Are they white?
 
2013-04-04 02:52:01 PM  

Wadded Beef: Giltric: Wadded Beef: Take away emotion and gun sales plummet control has nothing left to be based upon.

FTF everyone.

Well, except for the whole shot-up-school thingies and dead kids.


That's just playing to emotion. It's not like those kids were contributing to society. In fact, the Newport school district now has a better teacher/student ratio. You'll be glad for our freedom when King George invades and the only thing between you and eel pie as a dietary staple is a group of rugged patriots with assault rifles.
 
2013-04-04 02:52:06 PM  
Before this started I considered myself staunchly pro-gun.  The gun doesn't kill anyone.  It's a tool, surely no more dangerous than any other.  I should say that I work with guns.  I'm around firearms every single day.  I've fired assault rifles on fully automatic.  I've fired boxes of fifty cal and walked away shouting "that was farking awesome!"

I don't understand the endgame.  To arm teachers or resource officers or whatever you want to call them is pure folly.  Adding guns to a situation doesn't help, definitely not in a school.  Teachers for one are demonized on a regular basis as lazy, union slugs, except now the NRA wants them armed?  The resource officer, hopefully a retired cop or military, but otherwise a volunteer?  What kind of qualifications do we expect these people to maintain?  How much range time must they put in.  Their bullets HAVE to count.  Can we count on them to pull the trigger when it matters?  What happens if they get shot and another working firearm and ammunition is introduced into the situation?  Who's liable if a child gets shot by an NRA defender engaged in a crossfire?

All of these questions have to be answered.  I agree with imposing as little hardship on people as possible, but we need to think about some difficult questions.  Criminals don't typically use hunting rifles.  They want small, cheap, disposable guns.  Handguns, sawed off shotguns and the like.  How can we limit guns from ending up in the wrong hands, or if we can't, what are we going to do about it?
 
2013-04-04 02:53:30 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 02:53:54 PM  

FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association


Simple, self-righteous and ignorant.  You win.
 
2013-04-04 02:54:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.

I'm not sure if I'm in the same group as you but I think bans are the wrong answer. We just need to beef up regulation on how these purchases are being made and be better able to track where these guns are going.

But of course suggesting that is the equivalent of repealing the 2nd Amendment even though I don't want to take guns away from any law-abiding citizen.

I'll put up the list I thought up, let's see if I can remember all of them.

* 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"
* 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.
* Absolutely!  Also everything broken by every President, Congress, and state legislature since.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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?
* 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?"  There's other very common scenarios where the whole finger print scanner thing goes horribly wrong, but you get the idea.
 
2013-04-04 02:55:25 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 02:55:26 PM  

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?


If we can't trust a farker who is in to dead kiddie porn to not forge documentation, who can we trust?
 
2013-04-04 02:56:09 PM  

Wook: FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association

Simple, self-righteous and ignorant.  You win.


reconstitution.us
 
2013-04-04 02:56:28 PM  

keenerb: Fat Bobcat: Meanwhile, the President claims the Newtown shooting was done with a "fully automatic weapon" (ctrl+f it), actually correcting himself from the term semi automatic.

/but that's just an honest slip up, unlike this, where the NRA is out to prove that full length windows kill people, for some reason.

Worth repeating, imo.


Ah, I see I was beaten to the point. At least twice. Good.
 
2013-04-04 02:56:44 PM  
Guns should be like printers.  Cheap and available.

Bullets should be like printer refills, making the price of platinum look cheap by comparison.
 
2013-04-04 02:58:13 PM  

BitwiseShift: Guns should be like printers.  Cheap and available.

Bullets should be like printer refills, making the price of platinum look cheap by comparison.


Same thing will happen to bullets that happened to printers.  People will just refill rounds themselves.
 
2013-04-04 02:58:19 PM  

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.


I like this idea.
 
2013-04-04 02:59:10 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?


Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

media.katu.com

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

i.usatoday.net


I wouldn't. But thats me.
 
2013-04-04 02:59:26 PM  

bigfatfattyfatfat: From - http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/nra-funded-school-shield-task-force-un v eils-safety-recommendations-put-armed-guards-in-schools-video/

"However, Hutchinson also noted that no school should be forced to hire a school resource officer (sworn police officer(s) who work in school districts) or train a member of the faculty or staff on how to use a firearm. The bulk of the<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.nraschoolshield.com/"> 225-page report expands the concepts of how to deter, detect, delay and respond to a threat like a shooter or shooting."

Wow, what a bunch of whackjobs.


They don't want sworn police officers because armed rent-a-cops in almost 100,000 public schools is basically a full employment program for NRA members (most of whom couldn't pass the tests to be proper police officers.)

Meanwhile, 100,000 more cops means 100,000 more EVUL ARMED GUBMINT MEN COMING TO TAKE ARE GUNZ AWAY!!!
 
2013-04-04 03:01:14 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 03:01:34 PM  

GAT_00: Another day, another set of lies from gun advocates.  Shocking.


Isn't that stereotyping?  I thought that was bad...
 
2013-04-04 03:02:15 PM  

jaytkay: Wook: FlashHarry: National
Rampage
Association

Simple, self-righteous and ignorant.  You win.

[reconstitution.us image 423x327]


True, they really should stop training the police.
 
2013-04-04 03:04:29 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 03:06:14 PM  

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?


It was right there on the Brady Campaign front page! ;-)
 
2013-04-04 03:06:34 PM  
By not supporting the Universal Background check and ensuring mentally ill don't get their hands on weapons, some out there sully the purity of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, destroying the innocence of our children with violence by being Soft on Crime, and recklessly providing unchecked gun sales at gun shows to terrorists and gang-bangers.
 
2013-04-04 03:07:08 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 03:08:26 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.


Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.
 
2013-04-04 03:09:08 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: By not supporting the Universal Background check and ensuring mentally ill don't get their hands on weapons, some out there sully the purity of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, destroying the innocence of our children with violence by being Soft on Crime, and recklessly providing unchecked gun sales at gun shows to terrorists and gang-bangers.


Sources?  And not ones that Uncle Sam let through on purpose ;-)
 
2013-04-04 03:09:31 PM  

dv-ous: They don't want sworn police officers because armed rent-a-cops in almost 100,000 public schools is basically a full employment program for NRA members (most of whom couldn't pass the tests to be proper police officers.)

Meanwhile, 100,000 more cops means 100,000 more EVUL ARMED GUBMINT MEN COMING TO TAKE ARE GUNZ AWAY!!!



Almost half of the schools in the US already have armed and unarmed security guards. Some places like Detroit, NYC, Philly, Baltimore etc...all have their own school police force that patrol the schools and provide security including shake downs....I mean searches. All have to be acredited police officers as if they were working for the city PD.
 
2013-04-04 03:10:07 PM  
Giltric:

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?

Nah.  You're supposed to have a security system that stabs you in the right eyeball the instant your home shotgun is stolen while you're sound asleep and scratching yourself in California.  This will result in you reflexively dialing the police in your home city and screaming obscenities in their ears while blood drips out from under the sharp spike.
 
2013-04-04 03:11:19 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.


Actually he makes a good point.  Rights are rights.  If the Aurora victims could be brought back at the cost of your right to vote, would you bring them back?  You have a right, enshrined in the Constitution to own firearms, just like you have a right to vote and a right to free speech.
 
2013-04-04 03:11:58 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 03:12:21 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.


The Constitution gives and grants nothing to citizens.  It grants power to the government, but guarantees the rights of citizens.  It's pretty dangerous to think otherwise.
 
2013-04-04 03:12:40 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Here is what actually happened in Hastings, MN:

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/89924847.html?refer=y

Why the NRA had to lie about this and say that 6 people died  when the actual truth backs up the case they were trying to make is beyond me.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

/for those not wanting to read Mother Jones


Yes But Diana DeGette has clearly never fired a gun therefore this didn't happen also consider the concept of the multiverse where this did happen.
 
2013-04-04 03:15:34 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?


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

Is this correct?
 
2013-04-04 03:16:28 PM  
I think rights and freedoms are all well and good until bad things happen.
Then we should reconsider them because no one wants bad things.
 
2013-04-04 03:17:52 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?


Price of freedom.  I can get criminally charged if I lose my rifle or even a single round.  I'm not going to descend into pedantry.  You have a right to own a firearm, but you also have the obligation to care for and secure that weapon.
 
2013-04-04 03:18:17 PM  

GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.


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.
 
2013-04-04 03:19:02 PM  

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?


How about as responsible as the police?
 
2013-04-04 03:20:02 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 03:20:18 PM  

Generic Republican: Actually he makes a good point. Rights are rights. If the Aurora victims could be brought back at the cost of your right to vote, would you bring them back? You have a right, enshrined in the Constitution to own firearms, just like you have a right to vote and a right to free speech.


I would have had the right to own slaves at one time as well. Are we a less-free country now that we can't own slaves? Also, why is it the gun nuts try to equate removing the first amendment with any kind of restriction on the second amendment. I have news for everyone, you have no rights that are not abridged in some form.
 
2013-04-04 03:20:39 PM  

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!
 
2013-04-04 03:20:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 03:21:13 PM  

Generic Republican: You have a right, enshrined in the Constitution to own firearms, just like you have a right to vote and a right to free speech.


All "things" are identical to all other "things."
Especially Republicans.
 
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.
 
2013-04-04 03:52:02 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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.


Or in your bed:

blog.the-backup.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsV50T5uEyw
 
2013-04-04 03:52:16 PM  

najay1: 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.


Ding ding ding ding! Congratulations!  You've just won today's Biggest Idiot Prize! Stand in the middle of a highway in a chicken suit to claim your reward.

What do we have for him Jim?

Well, he's gets to referee the KY wrestling match of Sarah "Momma-Bear" Palin and Michelle "The Straightener" Bachmann!
 
2013-04-04 03:53:48 PM  

greenboy: 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.


No sign of forced entry.
 
2013-04-04 03:54:03 PM  
theawesomer.com

Crap, I thought it was here...there it is...

BINGO!
 
2013-04-04 03:54:09 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?


Limiting risk is not a "slippery slope", it is just limiting risk. The slippery slope argument would be "If we allow AR-15s then we will wind up allowing civilians to own nuclear weapons!!!!". There is no inherent logical fallacy in trying to limit risk. I would say the current discussion is more of a "red herring" than a logical fallacy. I don't think that an assault weapon ban will have much impact on the isolated incidents of mass shootings by the mentally ill. I just don't think it is a bad idea to regulate some weapons a bit more completely apart from the mass shootings.
 
2013-04-04 03:55:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


*Cranks up the Charlie Daniels to 11*
 
2013-04-04 03:56:17 PM  
As an illegal gun owner, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
Since my weapons were purchased on the black market,
without any sort of background check or documented bill of sale,
how will the government ever know I have them?

You're right, they won't.  Feel safer, now?

/This scenario was totally fabricated to make my point
 
2013-04-04 03:59:30 PM  

TechnicolorYawn: As an illegal gun owner, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
Since my weapons were purchased on the black market,
without any sort of background check or documented bill of sale,
how will the government ever know I have them?

You're right, they won't.  Feel safer, now?

/This scenario was totally fabricated to make my point


You're right. We shouldn't even bother to try.

Freedom is messy right?
 
2013-04-04 03:59:53 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.


You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.
 
2013-04-04 04:00:34 PM  
brakes.  Misspelled
 
2013-04-04 04:01:55 PM  

greenboy: 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.


Therein lies the problem though, and fuels the fever dreams of conspiracy nuts. Verifying the presence of such a safe, and the proper use of said safe, would require some sort of inspection regimen. About the only use such requirements would have would be to assess blame of access to weapons after an event involving said weapons. In the case of stolen weapons used in crimes, it would just mean that the presence of said security would absolve the gun owner in the case that proof of a compromise of security was present. If the guns are never involved in a crime or criminal event, and you didn't have a visitor to your home decide to tattle on you, then no one would ever know whether or not you owned a safe.
 
2013-04-04 04:01:57 PM  

cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.


So common sense safety measures become the norm over time? color me shocked!
 
2013-04-04 04:01:58 PM  

BgJonson79: 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 ;-)


Again, and?

Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?
 
2013-04-04 04:02:00 PM  

cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.


Wait...are you trying to equate the two and say that both are terrible things?
 
2013-04-04 04:02:05 PM  
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed"

Are you with God or with Satan (and his guns)?
 
2013-04-04 04:02:19 PM  

cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.


thumbnails.hulu.com
 
2013-04-04 04:03:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.

Wait...are you trying to equate the two and say that both are terrible things?


Nope.  Just saying "Who needs more amateur theorists?"
 
2013-04-04 04:04:38 PM  

greenboy: cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.

So common sense safety measures become the norm over time? color me shocked!


Plus the fact that side and knee level airbags are something the auto makers are doing VOLUNTARILY and not due to any government action.

Which means this is different from the slippery slope example that was posted earlier in which it was the government that added on to additional regulations.

Once again, quite a fail being displayed here today.
 
2013-04-04 04:04:40 PM  
GameSprocket:

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 384x288]

I miss that actor being on SNL don't you?
 
2013-04-04 04:05:06 PM  
Mrtraveler01,
Try what?  Finding guns that have NO record of their ownership or even their existence?  Haha...okay.

Find all the registered guns, though, because derp, derp, derp, derp.
 
2013-04-04 04:05:29 PM  

WippitGuud: BgJonson79: 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 ;-)

Again, and?

Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?


Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?
 
2013-04-04 04:05:37 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: greenboy: 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.

Therein lies the problem though, and fuels the fever dreams of conspiracy nuts. Verifying the presence of such a safe, and the proper use of said safe, would require some sort of inspection regimen. About the only use such requirements would have would be to assess blame of access to weapons after an event involving said weapons. In the case of stolen weapons used in crimes, it would just mean that the presence of said security would absolve the gun owner in the case that proof of a compromise of security was present. If the guns are never involved in a crime or criminal event, and you didn't have a visitor to your home decide to tattle on you, then no one would ever know whether or not you owned a safe.


which is why it can't and never will be a law, BUT it should be one of those things that every responsible gun owner does.

//grew up in a household with guns behind a glass case.  The key was on the top of the case.
 
2013-04-04 04:05:53 PM  

Mrtraveler01: greenboy: cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.

So common sense safety measures become the norm over time? color me shocked!

Plus the fact that side and knee ...


Shh. My benadryl is tapdancing with my apple juice
 
2013-04-04 04:06:00 PM  

Virtue: I find the NRA more credible than anything a gun control advocate has ever said.


Well you have shown how untrustworthy you are, thanks for the tip.
 
2013-04-04 04:06:32 PM  

cwolf20: GameSprocket:

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 384x288]

I miss that actor being on SNL don't you?


Since his career since then (with the possible exception of the first Wayne's World) has been a load of crap... yes, I miss him very much.
 
2013-04-04 04:06:42 PM  

TechnicolorYawn: Mrtraveler01,
Try what?  Finding guns that have NO record of their ownership or even their existence?  Haha...okay.

Find all the registered guns, though, because derp, derp, derp, derp.


So what do you propose we do instead?
 
2013-04-04 04:07:37 PM  

cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.


Are you suggesting that seat belts, anti-lock breaks and airbags have impinged on your personal freedoms while offering no benefit to the human race?
 
2013-04-04 04:09:14 PM  

BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?


"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.
 
2013-04-04 04:09:39 PM  

cwolf20: GameSprocket:

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 384x288]

I miss that actor being on SNL don't you?


Yeah. I never really got into anything he did after that. The first "Wayne's World" movie was good, but Myers has a tendency to make one great earnest movie and then follow it up with a sequel that is way too self-aware and self-referential. He seems to make one movie because he has a story to tell and then sells out for the followups.
 
2013-04-04 04:11:53 PM  

lostcat: cwolf20: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.

You know. My parents remember when a seatbelt was their arm.  For whoever was in the passenger seat. If it was me, one of them was in the backseat to slam their arm against me.

Then came seatbelts.

Automatic breaks came along at some point.

Somebody wanted an inflatable pillow to protect their heads, so an airbag was put in the steering wheel.

Eventually one was put in the passenger side.

Some cars now have them in the back seat.

Then there were the front airbags a Toyota has.  1 for each side of the windshield.  As I was finishing the paperwork for the 2009 corolla I bought new, they said that in 3 months the same model would have knee level airbags too.

For several years a lot of cars have had pull handles inside the trunk in case someone gets thrown in one.

A tire company is releasing some expensive tires for private use that can take a hell of a lot of damage, retain air after being punctured for quite a bit longer than the ones out there now. Etc etc etc.

Who needs to have conspiracy theories.  Panicked Parental Politicians Nitpicking ensure we don't need the theories for them to become fact.

Are you suggesting that seat belts, anti-lock breaks and airbags have impinged on your personal freedoms while offering n ...


Nope.  I think it's more of a case I don't give a crap today.  I don't own a gun, I don't see myself owning one because it'll probably be taken out of my hands if i need to use it and used on me instead. Simply because I don't see myself killing anyone.

So, since I'm probably safer at home without one if someone breaks in, it's looney times in the looney internet
 
2013-04-04 04:14:44 PM  

WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.


Wasn't that done at the time of purchase?
 
2013-04-04 04:16:01 PM  
Mrtraveler01,

The government has already figured it out...monopolize all the ammo.
Unfortunately, it's temporary, and they're only feeding the beast with these kinds of actions.

No matter what they do, people will figure out how to build their own weapons.
 
2013-04-04 04:16:28 PM  

cwolf20: Nope. I think it's more of a case I don't give a crap today. I don't own a gun, I don't see myself owning one because it'll probably be taken out of my hands if i need to use it and used on me instead. Simply because I don't see myself killing anyone.

So, since I'm probably safer at home without one if someone breaks in, it's looney times in the looney internet


I have a couple of guns, but I also have two boys who take after me in their ability to get into things. I am WAY more concerned with making sure my kids don't get their mitts on those guns that I am about protecting myself from home invasion.
 
2013-04-04 04:18:18 PM  

GameSprocket: cwolf20: Nope. I think it's more of a case I don't give a crap today. I don't own a gun, I don't see myself owning one because it'll probably be taken out of my hands if i need to use it and used on me instead. Simply because I don't see myself killing anyone.

So, since I'm probably safer at home without one if someone breaks in, it's looney times in the looney internet

I have a couple of guns, but I also have two boys who take after me in their ability to get into things. I am WAY more concerned with making sure my kids don't get their mitts on those guns that I am about protecting myself from home invasion.


No kids here, or marriage for that matter.  Haven't tied the knot with anyone.
 
2013-04-04 04:20:09 PM  

BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.

Wasn't that done at the time of purchase?


I don't get your arguement, especially why all the stuff about seatbelts/airbags. Sorry.
 
2013-04-04 04:21:21 PM  
Wow, it's like Dan Rather is consulting for the NRA.

//lude
 
2013-04-04 04:22:09 PM  
Good Lord the fear mongering and appeals to emotion are thick in these threads.
 
2013-04-04 04:23:02 PM  

lostcat: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.

Wasn't that done at the time of purchase?

I don't get your arguement, especially why all the stuff about seatbelts/airbags. Sorry.


Sorry...My response was meant for the post above yours, BgJonson79.
 
2013-04-04 04:23:05 PM  

BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.

Wasn't that done at the time of purchase?


You tell me, I don't own a gun.
But I was under the assumption that gun owners were against additional registration. I know here in Canada they got rid of the "Long Gun Registration" that was put in a while ago.
 
2013-04-04 04:23:59 PM  

BigNumber12: Good Lord the fear mongering and appeals to emotion are thick in these threads.


Use the insanity.

Let it guide your drinking.

The insanity will be with you, always
 
2013-04-04 04:24:29 PM  

BigNumber12: Good Lord the fear mongering and appeals to emotion are thick in these threads.


People getting murdered tends to bring out fear and emotion. Stupid human nature.
 
2013-04-04 04:25:26 PM  

cwolf20: BigNumber12: Good Lord the fear mongering and appeals to emotion are thick in these threads.

Use the insanity.

Let it guide your drinking.

The insanity will be with you, always



My drinking doesn't need any outside help, believe me.
 
2013-04-04 04:27:51 PM  

lostcat: lostcat: BgJonson79: WippitGuud: BgJonson79: WippitGuud:
Where in the rights to own a gun does it say it has to be untraceable?

Where in the rights to free speech does it say it cannot be anonymous?

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

In order to be responsible, you have to know who it is.

Wasn't that done at the time of purchase?

I don't get your arguement, especially why all the stuff about seatbelts/airbags. Sorry.

Sorry...My response was meant for the post above yours, BgJonson79.


NP!
 
2013-04-04 04:28:23 PM  

lostcat: BigNumber12: Good Lord the fear mongering and appeals to emotion are thick in these threads.

People getting murdered tends to bring out fear and emotion. Stupid human nature.



I noticed that on 9/11. Good thing we let our collective emotion drive widespread calls for exciting new legislation that the Government is oh-so-fond of protecting and expanding!
 
2013-04-04 04:35:00 PM  
Gun nuts have already lost the war...

www.bartcop.com

The only way their guns can protect them now is if they put it in their mouth and pull the trigger.
 
2013-04-04 04:35:28 PM  
Mrtraveler01: ...was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

 How is this possible?  Everyone knows that if you have a gun, the other guy is just going to take it from you and use it on you.
 
2013-04-04 04:36:25 PM  

GameSprocket: Giblet: Bravo wants bad people to stop being bad, but Bravo, likely a liberal, has no problem solving skills and lacks the vocabulary to express Bravo's desires. So, Bravo cites things that Bravo has been told bad people use when they do bad things: guns, knives, posturing, and sluts. Bravo wants those gone. When they're gone, bad people have no alternative; they must now be good people.

Please, continue to dazzle us with your vast critical thinking skills.


Is that an example of your critical thinking?

Maybe you're just lazy.
 
2013-04-04 04:40:58 PM  

factoryconnection: royone: Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!

factoryconnection: Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot

What was I saying earlier?  So no matter how wrong, mis-cited, or even fabricated their evidence is, they can use it to bolster the point that you already agreed with.  To you, there is nothing that could shake their credibility.

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about.


I didn't say anything about their credibility. Nothing can shake your belief that everybody's in your echo chamber or they're the filthy enemy.
 
2013-04-04 04:42:38 PM  

neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?


The pro-abortion side.
 
2013-04-04 04:44:17 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The pro-abortion side.


A blob of cells is not a body.
 
2013-04-04 04:48:18 PM  

BgJonson79: 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 ;-)


But the penis mightier, does it work?
 
2013-04-04 04:51:13 PM  

Generic Republican: What happens if they get shot and another working firearm and ammunition is introduced into the situation?  Who's liable if a child gets shot by an NRA defender engaged in a crossfire?


Beats me.  What happens when a cop gets shot and now a criminal has yet another gun?  What happens if a child is shot by a copy by accident?

I would rather be shot by accident than by someone aiming directly at me.  Odds are, the bad guy is not going to be aiming at my pinky.
 
2013-04-04 04:51:16 PM  

neversubmit: Nutsac_Jim:
Which side has a body count?

The pro-abortion side.

A blob of cells is not a body.


A Mounds bar is not a body A Twizzler is not a body. A Jolly Rancher is not a body, sir. Perhaps in Shangra-la they are, but not here.
 
2013-04-04 04:57:05 PM  

neversubmit: Gun nuts have already lost the war...

[www.bartcop.com image 720x464]

The only way their guns can protect them now is if they put it in their mouth and pull the trigger.


timeglobalspin.files.wordpress.com

Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?
 
2013-04-04 05:01:02 PM  

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


Adam Lanza owned some guns?
 
2013-04-04 05:02:34 PM  

WippitGuud: neversubmit: Nutsac_Jim:
Which side has a body count?

The pro-abortion side.

A blob of cells is not a body.

A Mounds bar is not a body A Twizzler is not a body. A Jolly Rancher is not a body, sir. Perhaps in Shangra-la they are, but not here.


You need some more blobs of cells inside of your melon.
 
2013-04-04 05:04:39 PM  
To "gun control nuts":
We're allowed to own guns because any/every government ever created wants the governed to be slaves. That's what governments do.

When the governed own weapons, government can't do that. That is why the US government is only a corrupt snakepit v an all-out dictatorship.

Democrats and their neocon/christian-conservatice toadies, historically, are violently in favor of that, and they always favor the slavery thing: NAFTA, my ancestors, etc. That's why I'm a Republican (the Ike/Goldwater/Lincoln kind).

Your "one little law that makes so much sense" is a small move in a wrong direction.

I know you won't see it that way, because years of experience have shown me that you never think any problem through beyond the "Yeearrgh!" phase of planning. So, my message to you is necessarily simple: if you try to take my rights, I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?
 
2013-04-04 05:06:38 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: * 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.


zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2013-04-04 05:06:45 PM  
Consider the following: people have brought forth ideas and suggestions for dealing with the problem that don't involve taking away guns. However, all of those are tossed aside by people who don't want to take the time, pay the money, accept the responsibility, or still declare they're unconstitutional and will allow guns to be taken away anyway. What's left is the two extreme sides of take all guns and do absolutely nothing that are constantly paraded around and screaming at each other.

The sensible ones have given ideas. Maybe we should start listening to them instead of ignoring and drowning them out.
 
2013-04-04 05:08:36 PM  

Giblet: I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?


Keep up the good work.
 
2013-04-04 05:09:33 PM  

Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?


Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

narwhaler.comnarwhaler.comnarwhaler.com
 
2013-04-04 05:20:09 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.

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.


Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.  The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812
 
2013-04-04 05:21:33 PM  
DIAF subby.
 
2013-04-04 05:24:44 PM  
Guns are tools.  When the only tool you can effectivly wield is a gun, everything looks like a target.  Learn some more tools!
 
2013-04-04 05:25:53 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


The point they were trying to make was that school shootings can be eliminated with more guns and fewer classroom windows.

They should have just smeared poo on their nipples while jacking off in a pile of broken glass. It would have made more sense than what they wrote.
 
2013-04-04 05:26:10 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Keizer_Ghidorah: * 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.

zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!


Never understood that fear.
 
2013-04-04 05:29:42 PM  

Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.



No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.
 
2013-04-04 05:36:47 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]



Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.
 
2013-04-04 05:39:50 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.


You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.
 
2013-04-04 05:56:10 PM  

Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.



Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.
 
2013-04-04 05:58:17 PM  

Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yeah, but Canada has caused it's share of violence. Like that time we burned down the White House.

Good times.... good times...
 
2013-04-04 06:01:57 PM  

WippitGuud: Yeah, but Canada has caused it's share of violence. Like that time we burned down the White House.


We were done with that one anyway, it was dirty.
 
2013-04-04 06:04:15 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.


So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.
 
2013-04-04 06:08:17 PM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]


Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.



Okay whidbey, I'm back.

Any answers, yet?
 
2013-04-04 06:15:51 PM  

Greylight: So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.



You know perfectly well that 18th Century British and 21st Century American Colonialism are very different animals.
 
2013-04-04 06:23:30 PM  

Amos Quito: Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]


Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.


Okay whidbey, I'm back.

Any answers, yet?


I'm bored so I'll bite. When you have an unruly child for whatever reason a good parent makes a rule that the trunculent child can't play with guns in that state untill they calm down, even if their BB gun was purchased by the child themselves. Then they figure out what is causing the trunculent state and adjust. When the child calms down they can let them play with their BB gun again.

Why do you hate children?
 
2013-04-04 06:27:31 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.


You know perfectly well that 18th Century British and 21st Century American Colonialism are very different animals.


From your point of view yes, to other countries who find their interal politics manipulated by the US in the interests of the US, not so much. Colonialism as a means to resources.
 
2013-04-04 06:40:21 PM  

Amos Quito: 1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

My goal is that Instituting an enforceable policy where increased background checks, a national registry and a well-funded research program to study mental illness and the causes of gun violence will decrease the possibility of tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening.

This is not a numbers game where we want to reduce "x." This is about changing the paradigm altogether so that dysfunctional bouts of violence such as school shootings stop occurring altogether.

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?

If they're just planning on banning weapons without focusing on the goals I mentioned, we're not going to see much in the way of progress.

However, if they do decide to pump money into research, streamlining and making background checks more effective, and eventually making the effort to establish a National Gun Registry, then I would then conclude that they would be taking these goals very seriously.

 
2013-04-04 06:40:57 PM  
Ah shiat.

</I>.
 
2013-04-04 07:08:55 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.


I wouldn't characterize it as breaking England's colonial will so much as making the empire too expensive too maintain.  Colonialism is always about bringing wealth into the country, whether by stealing it from other countries by military force (e.g. Spain) or by coercing foreign countries to trade with your country's businesses (which in turn earns more taxes for the government).  In England's case, many colonies (most notably India; the American colonies really weren't that valuable to the British) became so expensive to maintain due to popular uprisings that the empire found itself losing money.
 
2013-04-04 07:15:10 PM  

Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.



Yes, because Canadians are dropping like flies in daily/weekly mass shootings (that are NOT related to drug dealers offing each other in Toronto).
 
2013-04-04 07:30:31 PM  

anfrind: I wouldn't characterize it as breaking England's colonial will so much as making the empire too expensive too maintain. Colonialism is always about bringing wealth into the country, whether by stealing it from other countries by military force (e.g. Spain) or by coercing foreign countries to trade with your country's businesses (which in turn earns more taxes for the government). In England's case, many colonies (most notably India; the American colonies really weren't that valuable to the British) became so expensive to maintain due to popular uprisings that the empire found itself losing money.


A little from column A, a little from B. Still the result of several colonies' picking up guns and taking a stand.
 
2013-04-04 07:37:33 PM  

Giblet: To "gun control nuts":
We're allowed to own guns because any/every government ever created wants the governed to be slaves. That's what governments do.

I know you won't see it that way, because years of experience have shown me that you never think any problem through beyond the "Yeearrgh!" phase of planning. So, my message to you is necessarily simple: if you try to take my rights, I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?


No you can't. You could get Waco'd trying, but that's about it. Your message is simple because your ideas are simple, and rely on overly simplified generalizations and faith based absolutes on the nature of government, laws and self reliance.
 
2013-04-04 07:44:37 PM  
No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.
 
2013-04-04 08:08:59 PM  

Great_Milenko: 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?


And where do you stand in regards to the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-04-04 08:11:27 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: 1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)


My goal is that Instituting an enforceable policy where increased background checks, a national registry and a well-funded research program to study mental illness and the causes of gun violence will decrease the possibility of tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening.

This is not a numbers game where we want to reduce "x." This is about changing the paradigm altogether so that dysfunctional bouts of violence such as school shootings stop occurring altogether.



Okay, so you're not really interested in reducing gun violence in general, just in preventing certain, comparatively rare types of gun violence such as school shootings. Correct?

And how exactly will "background checks" and a "national registry" advance that goal?


whidbey: 2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?

If they're just planning on banning weapons without focusing on the goals I mentioned, we're not going to see much in the way of progress.



What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?

whidbey: However, if they do decide to pump money into research, streamlining and making background checks more effective, and eventually making the effort to establish a National Gun Registry, then I would then conclude that they would be taking these goals very seriously.


 Nutcases are ever-present, and "mental health" evaluations can easily be used as diabolical political tools.

Example:

"In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.[1] Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents"), people who openly expressed their views that contradict officially declared dogmas.[2] In case the person did not agree with the specific actions of people in leading positions and criticized them by using philosophic dogmas according to the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders."

END QUOTE

No one wants psychopaths to have access to firearms - or gasoline, or matches, or car keys... etc.

I judge the purported motives of those who would pretend to address any given "problem" by the solutions that they would hope enforce on us, and in the current gun debate, I find the motives of the "gun regulators" are disingenuous - deceptive, even.

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal), but the Feinsteins and their ilk. These are nothing more than AUTHORITARIANS - would be tyrants - as defined in the other thread.

Assault weapons, for example, do NOT pose a major threat to public safety. They DO, however, pose a major obstacle to to would-be tyrants.

:-)
 
2013-04-04 08:11:53 PM  

GameSprocket: Oh, so our freedom has not been at risk since to revolution?


Only at risk from our own politicians, would you agree?
 
2013-04-04 08:25:31 PM  

greenboy: Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.


How secure does a safe have to be in order to remove negligence on the firearm owners part?

How long of actively attempting to gain entry to the safe would you set the limit to absolve its owner from negligence? Is there a certain thickness that you would require the metal?

Many safes can be accessed within 3 minutes or so. They are designed as a deterrent, not as a fool proof way to secure anything.

Thats the point that alot of people missed with an earlier post. Safe A has proven to be inadequate so move on to approved safe B, well safe B has just been proven to be inadequate now only safe C is approved...with each generation of safe the cost increases. Do you expect an elderly man or woman who lives in a not so good area on a limited income to spend 15k on safe G?

As long as there is an example of the most current safest safe being broken into no safe will ever be adequate for the gun control crowd...every law, every inconvience, every cost is just a barrier they erect on the road to what they want, and that is total disarmament.

We have no proof of anything in regards to how Lanza accessed firearms. He could have pried open or hacked through the safe with a chop saw while mom was laid out on Ambien and then shot her. We won;t know until they release the entire report...and since Obama is now going around claiming Lanza used a fully automatic weapon I'd wager it will be tainted by politics.
 
2013-04-04 08:29:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.



Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".


/stolen from somewhere else
 
2013-04-04 08:38:52 PM  

Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812


You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.
 
2013-04-04 08:53:48 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.

sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.

When you can't actually refute the facts, just badmouth the source of the facts.


[www.visi.com image 500x75]


I'll have to keep this in mind when I see people complaining about "faux news" and other conservative news agencies.
 
2013-04-04 09:02:36 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".


They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.
 
2013-04-04 09:06:20 PM  

Giltric: greenboy: Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.

How secure does a safe have to be in order to remove negligence on the firearm owners part?

How long of actively attempting to gain entry to the safe would you set the limit to absolve its owner from negligence? Is there a certain thickness that you would require the metal?

Many safes can be accessed within 3 minutes or so. They are designed as a deterrent, not as a fool proof way to secure anything.

Thats the point that alot of people missed with an earlier post. Safe A has proven to be inadequate so move on to approved safe B, well safe B has just been proven to be inadequate now only safe C is approved...with each generation of safe the cost increases. Do you expect an elderly man or woman who lives in a not so good area on a limited income to spend 15k on safe G?

As long as there is an example of the most current safest safe being broken into no safe will ever be adequate for the gun control crowd...every law, every inconvience, every cost is just a barrier they erect on the road to what they want, and that is total disarmament.

We have no proof of anything in regards to how Lanza accessed firearms. He could have pried open or hacked through the safe with a chop saw while mom was laid out on Ambien and then shot her. We won;t know until they release the entire report...and since Obama is now going around claiming Lanza used a fully automatic weapon I'd wager it will be tainted by politics.


It was linked above that the gun safe showed no sign of forced entry.
In regards to how strong the safe needs to be, as long as power tools are required to open it, then i would say it's adequate.
 
2013-04-04 09:13:01 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Oh, so our freedom has not been at risk since to revolution?

Only at risk from our own politicians, would you agree?



Always and forever, keep your eye on the bastards.

Remember who they intend to rule.
 
2013-04-04 09:18:01 PM  

Giltric: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.


Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is ...



Giltric:  /stolen from somewhere else


Who cares if it was stolen. It was only cake...

And besides, it was delicious.
 
2013-04-04 09:29:44 PM  

Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.


It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.
 
2013-04-04 09:38:02 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: 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.

No sign of forced entry.


The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.
 
2013-04-04 09:45:56 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.


If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it
 
2013-04-04 09:51:23 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.


Not as much as people who pretend that words alone will always be enough.

The pen is only mightier than the sword when both sides have had enough of killing/war and are BOTH willing to use the pen instead.  When one side has a sword and pen while the other has only pen, guess who gets their way?
 
2013-04-04 09:55:39 PM  

Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it


One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi
 
2013-04-04 10:05:04 PM  
The Nutty Raving Assholes lied?? Color me shocked.
 
2013-04-04 10:05:22 PM  

Greylight: No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.


i904.photobucket.com

Oh Canada!
 
2013-04-04 10:10:34 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.



Oh Canada!


That's one convert. Pick up you touque and poutine card at the L.C. eh.
 
2013-04-04 10:33:03 PM  

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: 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.

No sign of forced entry.

The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.


"Investigators found a gun safe open and with no indication that it had been broken into. "

I think if the safe had been broken into we would have heard by now.
 
2013-04-04 11:20:02 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it

One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi


5 parts British Empire crumbling...one part fasting.

Must have been the fasting.

It's a very romanticized story.
 
2013-04-04 11:21:46 PM  

Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.


American wars vs 1st nations: 69
Canadian wars vs 1st Nations: 0
US wars vs Canada due to Britain supplying 1st Nations with arms: 1

Canada's history of interaction with 1st nations is deplorable, but not particularly due to arms.

Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:34 PM  
Liberals want to abolish the 2nd amendment, news at 11:00.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:53 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: 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.

No sign of forced entry.

The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.

"Investigators found a gun safe open and with no indication that it had been broken into. "

I think if the safe had been brok ...



From your link...

They also found a bank check to Lanza from his mother for "the purchase of a C183 (firearm)," one of the warrants states. Although investigators identified the "C183" as a firearm, it is unclear if any such weapon with that designation is made.

there doesn't seem to be.....but there is a camera called a c183

http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasyShare-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B004 O0 9H6U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365132381&sr=8-1&keywords=KODAK+EASYSHARE +C183+Digital+Camera

I think the police are bullshiatting the public due to political pressure....about the purchase of a c183 firearm and about the safe. Probably about other things too.
 
2013-04-04 11:42:47 PM  

Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public


That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.
 
2013-04-04 11:43:59 PM  

Greylight: Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.



Why does the US have such a high murder rate though?

The answer is in your second/middle paragraph blurb thing. My firearm keeps me safe against those in the community who glorify it as a means of taking their fair share from others. You might even be able to hear songs about firearms on the radio and about people using them to shoot other people or cops. They even use them against rival singers.

Even the president has weighed in on "getting in peoples faces" people who didn't earn or build what they have, and "taking your fair share"  It certainly is cultural., but my culture glorifies life ...not pulling a gat except in self defense.
 
2013-04-04 11:46:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public

That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.


Neither one of us can prove it one way or another.....just think of it as Bushs trumped up WMD intelligence...except on a smaller scale.

Are you saying the police don't obfuscate information?

Have you turned into a bootlicker? Member of the Captain Pike fan club now?
 
2013-04-05 12:07:23 AM  

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public

That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.

Neither one of us can prove it one way or another.....just think of it as Bushs trumped up WMD intelligence...except on a smaller scale.

Are you saying the police don't obfuscate information?

Have you turned into a bootlicker? Member of the Captain Pike fan club now?


Beep.
 
2013-04-05 12:17:26 AM  

Giltric: Greylight: Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.


Why does the US have such a high murder rate though?

The answer is in your second/middle paragraph blurb thing. My firearm keeps me safe against those in the community who glorify it as a means of taking their fair share from others. You might even be able to hear songs about firearms on the radio and about people using them to shoot other people or cops. They even use them against rival singers.

Even the president has weighed in on "getting in peoples faces" people who didn't earn or build what they have, and "taking your fair share"  It certainly is cultural., but my culture glorifies life ...not pulling a gat except in self defense.


I'm a gun owner and I have a great fondness for my American kin and neighbours. I have more in common with folks in The Dakotas then I do with folks in many parts of Canada. I also understand that we are all individuals / cultures of one.

A good friend will tell you what may be hard to hear. Glorification of arms has been a mainstream cultural issue for so long in the US. It is changing and it isn't fair to label all Americans as glorifying arms, though as generalizations go, it is a way to point out why the differences between our nations.
 
2013-04-05 12:25:04 AM  

Amos Quito: What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?


To track the sales and ownership of what very likely is the most dangerous item in our current society. And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.

Also, paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "broader confiscations" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time.

Nutcases are ever-present, and "mental health" evaluations can easily be used as diabolical political tools.

See above. It's a 8 letter word that starts with "p." Learn to actually debate without resorting to speculation.

I judge the purported motives of those who would pretend to address any given "problem" by the solutions that they would hope enforce on us, and in the current gun debate, I find the motives of the "gun regulators" are disingenuous - deceptive, even.

See above.

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal)

Disingenuous argument is disingenuous. So far, you're flopping here. Hard.

Your entire SHTICK is built on emotion. I wouldn't be talking.

Assault weapons, for example, do NOT pose a major threat to public safety.

Yeah every few years or so we just have to breathe through another Sandy Hook type tragedy where a bunch of kids get killed by...wait for it...assault weapons.

No big deal, right?

They DO, however, pose a major obstacle to to would-be tyrants.

The"tyrants" here are the gun lobbies who keep pumping out a stream of $$$ and propaganda to make it appear that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right not subject to regulation.

The government has done a stellar job in trying to define the spirit of the law as collective. Save the SCOTUS, natch. I agree with the ACLU wholeheartedly here. Collective rights justifies regulation, insisting that the right is an individual one is allowing for a constant series of Sandy Hook type incidents.
 
2013-04-05 01:23:22 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?

To track the sales and ownership of what very likely is the most dangerous item in our current society.



Aside from old age, disease and accidents, I'd venture that GOVERNMENTS are the "most dangerous item in our current societ[ies]."

Are you a Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Pearle-Kristol fan, whidbey? Are these the saviors of society?

Because that is what power is. Once you relinquish it, you don't get it back - not without a BLOODY fight.


whidbey: And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.



Nor should there be. Because you're handing them the power of THE PEOPLE to resist in their own best interests. Do you believe that governments ALWAYS act in the best interests of the governed? Or even maybe SOMETIMES?


whidbey: Also, paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "broader confiscations" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time.



Nor do I have PROOF that spring will follow winter, or that the sun will rise in the morning. But I can certainly point to the history and the nature.

What makes you think that today is any different? Has human nature changed?


whidbey: Yeah every few years or so we just have to breathe through another Sandy Hook type tragedy where a bunch of kids get killed by...wait for it...assault weapons.

No big deal, right?



I'll see your Sandy Hook, and raise you a Holodomor.

Click it. Read it. See what WONDERS governments will happily do.


whidbey: I agree with the ACLU wholeheartedly here. Collective rights justifies regulation, insisting that the right is an individual one is allowing for a constant series of Sandy Hook type incidents.



To paraphrase YOU from above: "...paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."


Well, DO YOU?

Because if "Sandy Hooks" are inevitable, so are events like Holodomor.

Which do YOU prefer, Partisan Trooper?
 
2013-04-05 01:35:05 AM  

Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."


Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.

whidbey: And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.


Nor should there be. Because you're handing them the power of THE PEOPLE to resist in their own best interests. Do you believe that governments ALWAYS act in the best interests of the governed? Or even maybe SOMETIMES?


Maybe, sometimes. Yeah those are real tangible words that justify the kind of Wild West anarchy you're touting.

Click it. Read it. See what WONDERS governments will happily do.


Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?
 
2013-04-05 02:02:53 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."

Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.



Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

But  "No big deal. The next one won't be so bad", right, whidbey?

sonyanheaneyblog.files.wordpress.com

How many CHILDREN, BTW??? How many? More than Sandy Hook, or fewer???


whidbey: Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?



Oh HEAVENS NO!!!

GOD FORBID!!!

"Liberals" are God's anointed!

Anyone who tells you otherwise is the spawn of Satan.


/The dirty
//The Filthy
//Spawn of SATAN


you gullible twat
 
2013-04-05 03:25:45 AM  

Amos Quito: Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???


Roight, gov.  Keep selling them guns to criminals and lunatics.  Don't even dream of prosecuting straw purchasers.  Blame B. Hussein Osama when the guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

you gullible twat

Pot, meet kettle.  When tyranny comes to America, it will not be to black helicopters and UN troops rounding up decent Gawd-fearing folks to be reeducated as gay communist Muslim atheists.  It will be to flags and fireworks and Sousa marches and clean-cut guys promising to protect decent Gawd-fearing folks from the Feelthy Queers, Union Thugs, Scary Mooselimbs, Smelly Hippies and Greasy Spics.

And you citizen militia types will be waving the flags and shouting "hail victory" when the Leader tells you to.
 
2013-04-05 03:43:57 AM  

Amos Quito: arrogant possibly drunken babbling


lolwut

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal)

Like your entire posting style isn't based on an appeal to emotion.

/Sleep it off, dude.
 
2013-04-05 08:27:18 AM  
Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"
 
2013-04-05 10:57:33 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"


Throw off the shackles of your oppressors brother! Take your AR-15, grab your buddies, and overthrow this socialist regime and replace it with the utopia Ayn Rand envisioned.  Good luck, but who needs luck right?  Because the second amendment was all about insurrectionist theory, so I'm sure you have all the military might necessary to overthrow the government.  That's what you're fighting for right?
 
2013-04-05 11:19:10 AM  

blindio: Tatterdemalian: Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"

Throw off the shackles of your oppressors brother! Take your AR-15, grab your buddies, and overthrow this socialist regime and replace it with the utopia Ayn Rand envisioned.  Good luck, but who needs luck right?  Because the second amendment was all about insurrectionist theory, so I'm sure you have all the military might necessary to overthrow the government.  That's what you're fighting for right?


Nope!

/but keep talking
//I love it when you tell me how heroic I think I am
 
2013-04-05 11:40:10 AM  
 
2013-04-05 12:08:54 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it

One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi


As I alluded to earlier, Gandhi succeeded because he made it too costly for the British to keep it as a colony.  And contrary to what some Republicans would like to believe, the American colonies weren't that important to the British--the most valuable British colonies were India and the Caribbean.  Had the American colonies produced as much economic value as the Caribbean colonies (i.e. something equal to or greater than the Caribbean sugar plantations), the British might have worked much harder to keep the American colonies from breaking away.

The concentration camp analogy doesn't work because the Nazis weren't trying to boost the German economy by exterminating Jews.  Likewise for the schoolyard bully.  But since Giltric is a known dittohead, I'm sure that he doesn't care.
 
2013-04-05 12:15:43 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Amos Quito: Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

Roight, gov.  Keep selling them guns to criminals and lunatics.  Don't even dream of prosecuting straw purchasers.  Blame B. Hussein Osama when the guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

you gullible twat

Pot, meet kettle.  When tyranny comes to America, it will not be to black helicopters and UN troops rounding up decent Gawd-fearing folks to be reeducated as gay communist Muslim atheists.  It will be to flags and fireworks and Sousa marches and clean-cut guys promising to protect decent Gawd-fearing folks from the Feelthy Queers, Union Thugs, Scary Mooselimbs, Smelly Hippies and Greasy Spics.

And you citizen militia types will be waving the flags and shouting "hail victory" when the Leader tells you to.


Sounds like the left should arm itself too.

Obama promised that kind of thing can't happen because he's constrained by the system the founders put in.  Too bad that system wasn't in place during the Bush administration.
 
2013-04-05 02:04:45 PM  

pedrop357: 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".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.


Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.
 
2013-04-05 02:09:48 PM  

Thunderpipes: Liberals want to abolish the 2nd amendment, news at 11:00.


Retards are destroying humanity's collective intelligence, news at 12:00.
 
2013-04-05 02:10:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: 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".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.


Who said every adult had to have a gun?
 
2013-04-05 02:15:45 PM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."

Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.


Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

But  "No big deal. The next one won't be so bad", right, whidbey?

[sonyanheaneyblog.files.wordpress.com image 218x320]

How many CHILDREN, BTW??? How many? More than Sandy Hook, or fewer???


whidbey: Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?


Oh HEAVENS NO!!!

GOD FORBID!!!

"Liberals" are God's anointed!

Anyone who tells you otherwise is the spawn of Satan.


/The dirty
//The Filthy
//Spawn of SATAN


you gullible twat


We get it, dude, you're paranoid because you think every single governing body ever has done nothing but slaughter the citizens of the place they govern and exist solely to tyrannize and destroy.

Come back after you learn to think rationally, then maybe we can have an actual discussion instead of listening to your conspiracy theorist nuttery.
 
2013-04-05 02:18:30 PM  

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: 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".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.

Who said every adult had to have a gun?


The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.
 
2013-04-05 02:21:01 PM  

anfrind: But since Giltric is a known dittohead


Do you know who *else* kept lists of certain "known" types of people?


/not serious
 
2013-04-05 02:26:02 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.


Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.
 
2013-04-05 02:53:09 PM  

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.


Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
 
2013-04-05 03:57:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: 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".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.



Israel supposedly has done this sine the 60s or 70s without the type of incident the detractors claim will happen...like a teacher getting mad at a student and shooting them, or a student tyring  to access the teachers firearm.

Many schools have had full time armed security, almost half of all schols in the US. SOme cities even have their own hundred plus person police departments, places like Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia....and I have not heard of any shootings where an armed security guard has shot someone beciase they were mad.

Utah(?) has allowed teachers to conceal carry since 06 or 08...and I haven't heard any situations that would warrant any hand wringing.

What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.


They are afraid of what they themselves would do with a firearm so therefore nobody should have a firearm.
 
2013-04-05 05:02:15 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.


So when someone hurts a kid, don't send armed police?

If someone breaks into the house, Mom and Dad are supposed to use,what, harsh language to stop the threat?
 
2013-04-05 05:09:03 PM  

Giltric: What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.


They also despise allowing people to make the individual choice to carry guns, so they frame the issue the only way they know how, with across-the-board mandates.  Either ALL adults have to be armed or none.

So suggesting that concealed carry permit holders be allowed to carry is (to them) tantamount to requiring everyone to carry.  Combine that with their violent tendencies and exceptional projection abilities and you now have them spinning a scenario of  a school where everyone is uncontrollably violent and armed.

The projection thing goes along with my view that liberals/lefties have serious problems with boundaries.  When the ends/intentions justify the means and the only thing needed to justify something is one's own feelings, the concept of boundaries, especially as desired/applied by others, never even crosses their mind.
 
2013-04-05 06:32:51 PM  

Giltric: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: 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".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.


Israel supposedly has done this sine the 60s or 70s without the type of incident the detractors claim will happen...like a teacher getting mad at a student and shooting them, or a student tyring  to access the teachers firearm.

Many schools have had full time armed security, almost half of all schols in the US. SOme cities even have their own hundred plus person police departments, places like Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia....and I have not heard of any shootings where an armed security guard has shot someone beciase they were mad.

Utah(?) has allowed teachers to conceal carry since 06 or 08...and I haven't heard any situations that would warrant any hand wringing.

What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.

They are afraid of what they themselves would do with a firearm so therefore nobody should have a firearm.


And this is why we can't have rational discussions about anything. People like you are what keep the discussions firmly rooted on the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.
 
2013-04-05 06:35:22 PM  

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

So when someone hurts a kid, don't send armed police?

If someone breaks into the house, Mom and Dad are supposed to use,what, harsh language to stop the threat?


I'm talking about teachers and faculty with guns in schools, and you start assuming I don't want police to respond to crimes and want to take away guns in homes.

This is another reason why we can't discuss anything intelligently.
 
2013-04-05 06:36:39 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: 'm talking about teachers and faculty with guns in schools, and you start assuming I don't want police to respond to crimes and want to take away guns in homes.

This is another reason why we can't discuss anything intelligently.


This is what you said a few hours ago:

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
 
2013-04-05 08:12:56 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And this is why we can't have rational discussions about anything. People like you are what keep the discussions firmly rooted on the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.


Sure we can. Just leave your ego at the door.
 
Displayed 390 of 390 comments

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