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.

(Guardian)   You may want to sit down for this but it turns out that 42 of the 45 senators who voted against keeping criminals from getting guns are being paid by the gun lobby   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 171
    More: Obvious, gun rights, Mark Begich, Gun Owners of America, guns, crimes  
•       •       •

2065 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-18 04:44:26 PM
barefacedtruth.com

www.deviantart.com

summerlandbaptist.ca

www.fearfuladventurer.com

www.inboundmarketingagents.com


Shocking.
 
2013-04-18 07:04:48 PM
And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?
 
2013-04-18 07:51:36 PM
Wasn't there ever some kind of law the prohibited the buying of politicians and legislation?
Or was it just a really good idea that was beaten and strangled to death?
 
2013-04-18 07:59:08 PM

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.
 
2013-04-18 08:02:01 PM
Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose
 
2013-04-18 08:37:04 PM
There is an easier explanation for why this happened:

We are living in the age of megahyperpartisanship. Anything that Obama likes the GOP fights tooth and nail to stop it.

/Gun Lobby is probably funding those who voted yes as well
 
2013-04-18 08:39:38 PM
subby, you may want to sit down for this, but all of those Senators are getting paid only by taxpayer money.

getting a campaign donation is not the same as "getting paid" by someone.
 
2013-04-18 08:39:57 PM

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


Not many and very little:

farm9.staticflickr.comfarm9.staticflickr.com


Source
 
2013-04-18 08:40:45 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.
 
2013-04-18 08:42:08 PM
How many of the people who received donations voted for the bill?
 
2013-04-18 08:42:31 PM

TheManofPA: I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.


Opensecrets.org is your friend. But I agree that it's a very chicken-and-egg problem with campaing donations. Do you vote a certain way because you received donations? Or do people donate to you because they know you will vote a certain way, and therefore want you to win? Don't know how you could possibly tease those two apart.
 
2013-04-18 08:43:25 PM
Do you mean to tell me that those Senators are not terribly concerned with my ability to stave off oppressive, tyrannical government with my awesome, manly firearms??

:|
 
2013-04-18 08:44:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: subby, you may want to sit down for this, but all of those Senators are getting paid only by taxpayer money.

getting a campaign donation is not the same as "getting paid" by someone.


Oh, you are adorable.
 
2013-04-18 08:45:21 PM

nmrsnr: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

Not many and very little:

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x495][farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x499]


Source


that is incomplete data.
TFA claims that if you receive money from a group that lists gun rights as one of their priorities, that that counts too.

"Some of the more relevant donations do not come explicitly from gun campaigners. Senator Jeff Flake, a crucial swing voter from Arizona who turned against gun control at the last minute, received $5,000 in 2012 from The Madison Project, a right-wing campaign group that lists gun rights as one of its top priorities "

So how many Senators received money from any group that cares about gun control (vs. a gun control PAC)?
How much money did they receive from those groups?
 
2013-04-18 08:50:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: subby, you may want to sit down for this, but all of those Senators are getting paid only by taxpayer money.

getting a campaign donation is not the same as "getting paid" by someone.

Oh, you are adorable.


you too!
I do remember you saying how 0bama was being paid by the Oil and Gas Industry and Wall Street.
 
2013-04-18 08:56:09 PM
Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?
 
2013-04-18 08:56:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: subby, you may want to sit down for this, but all of those Senators are getting paid only by taxpayer money.

getting a campaign donation is not the same as "getting paid" by someone.

Oh, you are adorable.

you too!
I do remember you saying how 0bama was being paid by the Oil and Gas Industry and Wall Street.


Sure you do, sweetie, sure you do.
 
2013-04-18 08:57:37 PM

thisdaydreamer: Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?


Three sane senators out if 100 sounds about right.
 
2013-04-18 08:59:36 PM

thisdaydreamer: Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?


Maybe they just haven't cashed the check yet?
 
2013-04-18 09:04:30 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose



Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.
 
2013-04-18 09:08:06 PM

UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.


The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.
 
2013-04-18 09:09:07 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: How many of the people who received donations voted for the bill?


People like you, get the Government they deserve.  Everyone else is getting screwed.
 
2013-04-18 09:13:15 PM

jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.


The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.
 
2013-04-18 09:14:33 PM

doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.


wat
 
2013-04-18 09:17:24 PM

doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want gays to have sex or teaching science. The Ds don't want you to stub your big toe without going to the hospital or letting criminals be punished for their crimes.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.


FTFY sarcastically
 
2013-04-18 09:21:44 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.

wat


The Democrats are against danger. They pass all the "for the children" nanny laws and spearhead things like partcipation trophies. If they had their way they'd wall up everything with a sharp edge and take away anything medicine that could even give you a buzz.
 
2013-04-18 09:31:35 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: subby, you may want to sit down for this, but all of those Senators are getting paid only by taxpayer money.

getting a campaign donation is not the same as "getting paid" by someone.

Oh, you are adorable.

you too!
I do remember you saying how 0bama was being paid by the Oil and Gas Industry and Wall Street.

Sure you do, sweetie, sure you do.

Does subby realize that lobbying is a verb?
 
2013-04-18 09:31:48 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.

wat

The Democrats are against danger. They pass all the "for the children" nanny laws and spearhead things like partcipation trophies. If they had their way they'd wall up everything with a sharp edge and take away anything medicine that could even give you a buzz.


again: wat

Who they hell told you this and why the hell did you believe it?

I think a significant number of Republicans have proposed to change the Constitution to stop homogays from marrying...you know, for kids.  And they want prayer in school...for the kids.

The sharp edges thing is just retarded.  I could just as easily say that Republicans want big busineass to hide razors in their breakfast cereals if they thought it might turn a profit.

And am I to understand that you think Dems are lamer that Repubs on drug policy?  Well, that's new.  Next you're going to tell me that liberals are trying to close abortion clinics.

Again, who told you this, and what sort of traumatic brain injury led you to believe this?
 
2013-04-18 09:32:38 PM
In breaking news, politicians are bought and paid for by their largest donors and various PACs.
 
2013-04-18 09:39:02 PM
If you combine two homogays you a homohomo+2homogay+gaygay. That's four people.
 
2013-04-18 09:49:30 PM
What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.
 
2013-04-18 09:53:41 PM
And that's only the third strongest lobby in Washington, far behind the Oil Lobby and the AARP
 
2013-04-18 10:11:46 PM
U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy
 
2013-04-18 10:13:31 PM

Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy


To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress
 
2013-04-18 10:22:28 PM

Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress


Nuh uh, The Empire was very well controlled by the Sith, who are not money whores.
 
2013-04-18 10:32:18 PM

Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress


Not that it doesn't happen but the sorts of stories that come out of the US don't come even remotely close to the sorts of things we see here. The US system does come across as particularly corrupt.
 
2013-04-18 10:46:00 PM

snuff3r: Not that it doesn't happen but the sorts of stories that come out of the US don't come even remotely close to the sorts of things we see here. The US system does come across as particularly corrupt.


That's because you follow US news and you do not read on domestic news of most countries. America is the Saint Patron of Integrity next to Mexico, for example
 
2013-04-18 10:58:45 PM

snuff3r: Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress

Not that it doesn't happen but the sorts of stories that come out of the US don't come even remotely close to the sorts of things we see here. The US system does come across as particularly corrupt.


Take their ranking for what you will, but according to the Corruption Perceptions Index places the US at #19 out of 176. We're middle of the pack when compared to First World European countries, but compared to the rest of the world in general the US is squeaky clean.
 
2013-04-18 11:02:51 PM

snuff3r: Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress

Not that it doesn't happen but the sorts of stories that come out of the US don't come even remotely close to the sorts of things we see here. The US system does come across as particularly corrupt.


So didn't Rupert Murdoch destroy your press as well?
 
2013-04-18 11:26:28 PM

edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.


There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.
 
2013-04-18 11:26:29 PM
"I can't believe it's not bribery!"
 
2013-04-18 11:29:01 PM
No, get out of here... and next you're going to tell me that the Democrats support unions out of the goodness of their hearts and not because of the money in their pockets.
 
2013-04-18 11:29:26 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


thingist.com
 
2013-04-18 11:29:30 PM
The N.R.A. is like the Borg. Once it gets inside you, you become part of the hive mind, no matter how reasonable you were before. R.I.F.
 
2013-04-18 11:31:06 PM

GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay,



www.rawstory.com
"FARK YOU! MY LIBERTIES TO OWN A GUN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE PUSSY CRYBABY FAMILIES IN NEWTOWN!"
 
2013-04-18 11:31:37 PM

doglover: thisdaydreamer: Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?

Three sane senators out if 100 sounds about right.


You have to remember Sen Reid is probably one of those three.
 
2013-04-18 11:34:31 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose

A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.


I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary". Because that's totally not a threat. I like to tell them "Two words: Branch Davidians". Also, shooting a cop "invading your home" is fantastic way to get 20 to life.

How is it that a kid warning Obama to be careful on a vulnerable day gets a visit from the Secret Service, yet a direct threat to on the President's life doesn't get so much as a condemnation from the media? People have gone to Gitmo for less than what he said.
 
2013-04-18 11:36:46 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-18 11:39:09 PM

GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.


You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.
 
2013-04-18 11:41:42 PM
I opposed this legislation because it's raw interventionist bias.
 
2013-04-18 11:41:45 PM

remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.


So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.
 
2013-04-18 11:43:03 PM
So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.
 
2013-04-18 11:46:04 PM

GAT_00: remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.

So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.


State your case.  Provide your facts.  FACTS.  Not conjecture.  Explain your analysis.  I'm an engineer by trade, I'll likely challenge your assertions.  If you back up your case with solid arguments, I'll be happy to agree with you.

Not much cult here.

All I'm saying, if if you try to bait me with emotional pleas, I'm likely to turn you off and toss you out.  Just be calm, rational, and stay to the facts and avoid the good 'ole debate class tricks to win me over.  It won't work.
 
2013-04-18 11:46:15 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?


I'm sorry about your brain injury.
 
2013-04-18 11:54:15 PM
My shocked face. Let me show you it.
/assholes
 
2013-04-18 11:57:32 PM

remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.


You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.
 
2013-04-18 11:58:22 PM
Well hell, I'm a liberal but support gun rights.  I liked what some Farker (sorry I forgot who) suggested about about having background check kiosks at gun shows.  Pass it, get a wristband, you can buy a gun.

Odds are were I in or running for office, the gun lobby would contribute to me.  And I'd take it.
 
2013-04-19 12:01:36 AM

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.


And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.
 
2013-04-19 12:03:16 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.


Yes, donations are so very hard to understand.
 
2013-04-19 12:03:48 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.


The "flawed logic" of... a factual statement. I wouldn't talk about logic, you clearly have no comprehension of what it even is.
 
2013-04-19 12:04:38 AM

TheManofPA: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.


Just make the farkers wear patches like NASCAR drivers.
 
2013-04-19 12:07:07 AM
Ah, here we go. Should have known someone would have mocked this up already.

www.buzzpatrol.com
 
2013-04-19 12:07:57 AM
Senator Dan Coats, $1,000
Senator Ted Cruz, $14,000
Senator Richard Burr, $1,000
Senator Jeff Flake, $5,000

You mean I can buy 4 Senators for a little more than a Honda Civic?
 
2013-04-19 12:11:48 AM

GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.


Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what you have apparently attributed to me.  Your response is another debate tactic to switch the subject to what you want to discuss and the point you want to make rather than actually respond to my point.  Again, that's a tactic of a weak minded, poorly prepared, and bad debater.  Your rampant use of emotional appeals rather than discussion of the point again renders your arguments invalid.
 
2013-04-19 12:12:46 AM

randomjsa: No, get out of here... and next you're going to tell me that the Democrats support unions out of the goodness of their hearts and not because of the money in their pockets.


Workers rights > right to get killed because we can't have universal background checks.

Also, 0 out of 10.  But you're long gone.
 
2013-04-19 12:14:53 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.


Background checks: because owning a firearm should be at least as difficult as getting a job.

But tell me again how getting a background check means getting treated like a criminal, because I don't hear the tens of millions of people who get jobs complaining about that little trifle of an obstacle.
 
2013-04-19 12:16:52 AM
oi47.tinypic.com

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.
 
2013-04-19 12:19:41 AM
Those corporations (Which are people, let's not forget) Those  People paid good money to ensure they can continue to sell guns in a FREE market. When's the last time you paid to have legislation passed, citizen? Look, money matters. If you can't afford to have the laws go the way you want, you are a godless heathen who deserves to die from no healthcare.
 
2013-04-19 12:20:30 AM

Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.


Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:20 AM

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.


Objection. Assumes organ not in evidence.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:33 AM
Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".


You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:47 AM

remus: GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.

Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what you have apparently attributed to me.  Your response is another debate tactic to switch the subject to what you want to discuss and the point you want to make rather than actually respond to my point.  Again, that's a tactic of a weak minded, poorly prepared, and bad debater.  Your rampant use of emotional appeals rather than discussion of the point again renders your arguments invalid.


You are hiding behind your desire for logic, setting yourself on a detached pedestal far above the rest of the rabble.

You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.

He stated his facts. You dodge with a sad attempt at debunking his facts with an unemotional appeal that makes you sound like a ghat damned robot.
 
2013-04-19 12:24:24 AM

remus: GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.

Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what yo ...


You wanted logic.  I gave you some.  Like I predicted, you weren't interested at all.
 
2013-04-19 12:25:04 AM
Fracking toasters.

/off to watch Razor.
//seems pertinent after reading that tripe
///kthxbai
 
2013-04-19 12:25:19 AM

Mrbogey: Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".

You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.


Yeah, small-minded.  Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.

Not that I think gun control is particularly helpful in solving the problem, but at least their side isn't full of cold, heartless selfish assholes who think they need half the sh*t they own.  Show me one bill put forth by the gun rights advocates that addresses the problem of mass murder via firearm.  I'll be waiting.

But until you do, cry me the "2nd Amendment can't be regulated" river again.  It's a beautiful sight to behold.
 
2013-04-19 12:25:28 AM

OneManArmy: You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.


20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?
 
2013-04-19 12:25:37 AM

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.


It must really suck to be you.
 
2013-04-19 12:26:49 AM

Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.

It must really suck to be you.


Point. Illustrated. Perfectly.
 
2013-04-19 12:27:40 AM

Peter von Nostrand: Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Yup.  Pretty much.  Funny how ever since Newtown gun owners have come from all over out of the woodwork supporting things like universal healthcare, welfare and a national, publicly-funded effort to treat mental illness.

Kinda makes you wonder where we'd be as a country if these people ever gave a shiat about these things when gun control ISN'T on the table.
 
2013-04-19 12:27:58 AM

Mrbogey: OneManArmy: You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.

20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?


Hahahaha. Wow. Yes arm those teachers hot shot. Nothing like hormone addled teenagers in close proximity to firearms in a public setting. You've got a real winner of an idea there. Gold star.
 
2013-04-19 12:30:09 AM

cman: There is an easier explanation for why this happened:

We are living in the age of megahyperpartisanship. Anything that Obama likes the GOP fights tooth and nail to stop it.

/Gun Lobby is probably funding those who voted yes as well


Megahyperpartisanship? Is that what you call it when the two parties agree 99% on 99% of the issues?
 
2013-04-19 12:31:09 AM
When do you declare your democracy lost? Whats the litmus test?
 
2013-04-19 12:31:47 AM

coeyagi: Yeah, small-minded. Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.


You do not want to solve the problem. You just want more dead kids so you can win an argument.  Pretty sick IMO.

GAT_00: How about the argument that more guns stop crime? That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus. Well there was an armed guard at Columbine. Didn't stop anything. Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.


This isn't the first time this has been brought up. I guess you like eating canards....

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.
Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.
The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.


Summary: The armed guard tied up the shooter and helped to evacuate students thus saving lives.

How pissed off are you that Columbine wasn't deadlier? If only another dozen kids were dead... FINALLY maybe you'd have gotten that gun control you wanted.
 
2013-04-19 12:31:56 AM
I also love how conservatives shout "arm the teachers!" Out one side of their mouths and the. Gut government funding, preventing me from becoming a teacher and to those that already are, saddle them with 45 kids to a classroom.

There's a disconnect there. A wire frayed.
 
2013-04-19 12:31:57 AM

Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.


2/10
 
2013-04-19 12:34:08 AM
Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.
 
2013-04-19 12:34:09 AM

OneManArmy: I also love how conservatives shout "arm the teachers!" Out one side of their mouths and the. Gut government funding, preventing me from becoming a teacher and to those that already are, saddle them with 45 kids to a classroom.

There's a disconnect there. A wire frayed.


No disconnect. It's called stickin it to the libs. reactionary politics
 
2013-04-19 12:34:20 AM

OneManArmy: Hahahaha. Wow. Yes arm those teachers hot shot. Nothing like hormone addled teenagers in close proximity to firearms in a public setting. You've got a real winner of an idea there. Gold star.


Remember: Theoretical violence is equal to actual violence.

And if we liberalize CCW laws there will be RUNNING GUN BATTLES!!!

Your fear based arguments failed. Try harder.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:09 AM

OneManArmy: Yes arm those teachers hot shot.


Which means you're the Devil incarnate to conservatives unless they want you to double as a security guard.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:31 AM

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.

2/10


He's trying to turn our outrage of gun culture against us, the emotional plea of "20 dead six year olds!"

Yet his solutions would cause more incidents, not less, so it doesn't really work and makes him look rather smarmy.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:41 AM
Mrbogey:

20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?

www.rawstory.com


"YES WE NEED AS MANY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! IF NOBODY AGREES THEN LET THEIR FARKING KIDS DIE IN A HAIL OF BULLETS BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MY LIBERTIES DAMNIT!"
 
2013-04-19 12:36:29 AM
the senators' crime is treason
greed against the common good

they should all be publicly executed at Guantanamo
that crazy lawless fortress of justice
 
2013-04-19 12:37:00 AM

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.

It must really suck to be you.

Point. Illustrated. Perfectly.


Please, and your retort is suppose to be the wry, pointed sword of wit?
No, I really mean it. It must really suck to be you. I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to amuse the readers of this thread by sharply pealing away at you, exposing your very essence in a simple, singular sentence of tuned satire. I'm just stating a fact: It must really suck to be you.
 
2013-04-19 12:38:02 AM

doglover: The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.


Modern Democrats are pretty green, if you catch my drift.

/live in Seattle
 
2013-04-19 12:39:01 AM

OneManArmy: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.

2/10

He's trying to turn our outrage of gun culture against us, the emotional plea of "20 dead six year olds!"

Yet his solutions would cause more incidents, not less, so it doesn't really work and makes him look rather smarmy.


Or we need more husky boys as meat shields.  This is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-04-19 12:41:52 AM

davynelson: the senators' crime is treason
greed against the common good

they should all be publicly executed at Guantanamo
that crazy lawless fortress of justice


No, this was democracy working exactly the way it's supposed to work . . .

in the most batshiat insane country on earth.

Seriously, nearly a majority of this country is nothing but backwards rubes who think Jesus created the earth two hundred years ago and that Michelle Bachmann is a master stateswoman.  We're what happens when a nation manages to become a superpower without ever experiencing the Enlightenment.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
 
2013-04-19 12:42:47 AM

Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress


Well, certainly not Israel. They're absolutely not motivated by money. Their motivation is Palestinian genocide.
 
2013-04-19 12:43:22 AM

TsukasaK: Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.


There are shootings every day in our country. Thousands of them. The catalyst for this latest attempt may be 20 dead 6-year-olds, but it's also because of all the other dead people, too.

Uncool story, Bro:

My uncle committed suicide with a gun three weeks ago today. He would probably be alive right now if we had stricter gun control laws. It turns out, when folks don't have the means to kill themselves instantly, they choose to live.

/Uncool story, Bro
 
2013-04-19 12:44:55 AM

GAT_00: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.

Yes, donations are so very hard to understand.


FFS man, that's not even the sticking point, learn to read.  The point is that because they're defending our right to not be harassed when purchasing a constitutionally guaranteed item.  They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"

A Dark Evil Omen: The "flawed logic" of... a factual statement. I wouldn't talk about logic, you clearly have no comprehension of what it even is.


And you fail too.  See above.
 
2013-04-19 12:47:39 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: FFS man, that's not even the sticking point, learn to read. The point is that because they're defending our right to not be harassed when purchasing a constitutionally guaranteed item. They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"


Seriously? This is your logic? So. How do you feel about all the attempts by the GOP to disenfranchise poors, blacks, Hispanics, students, and the elderly?
 
2013-04-19 12:48:16 AM
It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.
 
2013-04-19 12:49:39 AM

red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.


Expect to see a bunch of ads with pictures of dead people from the next massacre.
 
2013-04-19 12:51:22 AM
Holy shiat. Gun fire, explosions at MIT.
 
2013-04-19 12:53:30 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The point is that because they're defending our right to not be harassed when purchasing a constitutionally guaranteed item.


Guns shouldn't be constitutionally guaranteed, any more than lightbulbs, cameras, markers, lawnmowers, cell phones, pliers, hammers, picture frames or any other object.  To pick out one type of technology and give it its own constitutional amendment is irrational. If states can legally pass laws regulating/banning any of the objects I named above, then they should be able to do the same with guns.
 
2013-04-19 12:53:39 AM

Mike Chewbacca: Uncool story, Bro:

My uncle committed suicide with a gun three weeks ago today. He would probably be alive right now if we had stricter gun control laws. It turns out, when folks don't have the means to kill themselves instantly, they choose to live.

/Uncool story, Bro


You know, this is going to gain me a stupid amount of asshole points and probably a few plonks, but here are all the farks I give. I'm over it.

Listen. I am sick and farking tired of you, of the politicians, of everyone who supports this shiatty knee jerk legislation using emotional manipulation to get their way. Obama up on the bully pulpit today, talking about how we've let down the families of Sandy Hook. Bullshiat. The law being debated would not have impacted the Sandy Hook shooting one iota because THE MOTHERFARKER STOLE THE GUNS.

And then there's that "95%" number that keeps getting trotted out without source and probably incorrectly to boot. Citation the fark needed.

Fark you sideways with a rusty rake for these tactics, and that goes out to anyone and everyone that tries to capitalize on a tragedy for a political aim.

Australia enacted a straight up ban. Australia does not guarantee its citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It is not a similar situation there and so I don't farking want to hear about it.

Your uncle shot himself in a different country, therefore this country should have to involve the federal government whenever a private citizen makes a transaction to another private citizen. This is the argument you just farking made.

Eat me.

/probably going to regret this in the morning
 
2013-04-19 12:55:24 AM

red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.


There won't be. In fact it would be the opposite. If a Senator in a red state voted for the bill, the teabaggers would come out and vote against them in the primary.

Let's face it, most people don't vote in the primaries unless motivated against someone. The teabagger candidate would possibly be destroyed in the general election.

The Republican Party knew this, and for once, were thinking ahead.
 
2013-04-19 12:56:21 AM

TsukasaK: THE MOTHERFARKER STOLE THE GUNS


That's the point, though.  The Sandy Hook shooter didn't steal the guns.  They were guns that he had used and that he had access to because his mom didn't see any problem with him being able to take and use them.  If we had stronger laws about locking up guns, which gun owners oppose every step of the way, then maybe his mom would have obeyed them and maybe twenty-six people would still be alive today.
 
2013-04-19 12:58:10 AM

coeyagi: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.

Background checks: because owning a firearm should be at least as difficult as getting a job.

But tell me again how getting a background check means getting treated like a criminal, because I don't hear the tens of millions of people who get jobs complaining about that little trifle of an obstacle.


Ok, here are my honest questions:

1)  What, exactly, is the definition of mental illness wherein a person's gun rights would be blocked?  Sure, the guy chewing his pillow and quacking like a duck probably shouldn't own firearms.  But what about the guy that was just upset after he lost his job and had an anti-depression prescription for 2 weeks?  Where is the line?  I didn't see this last law actually defining precisely what conditions would qualify.  If it's not set, then I can see where people were worried it might be a set of moving goal posts that could move whenever somebody wanted to.  I note that many people who are advocating gun restrictions refer to their opponents as "gun nuts".  This implies they believe the people who want to own a gun are, therefore, "nuts", which implies a mental condition.  Can you see where they might not trust this provision?  You call them nuts and then say you want to restrict crazy people from owning a gun.  Probably not the best tactic to use when trying to convince somebody of your point.

2) If it's a "background check", why do they ask to list each firearm being purchased including make, model, and serial number?  That has nothing to do with the purchasers "background" at all.  If they are prohibited, then it's a complete prohibition.  They don't say, "oh, you can't buy guns, but it says here you are buying a smith and wesson model 10 in the serial number range xxx-yyy, so hey!  you can buy that!".  Can you see where gun owners are concerned?  Why ask for a detailed list of the guns and serial numbers if you don't intend on keeping the information and creating a de-facto registration?  Why not just ask name, DOB, SSN, and DL number?  If the name is flagged, then perhaps some follow up to be sure.  No need for any other info.

3)  I was told during the voting ID debates that it's not right to require voters show an ID to vote because some people live too far from offices where they could get an ID issued and it's not fair for them to have to drive 100 miles, so it's unconstitutional.  You do realize that gun shops with FFL licenses are not on every street corner to do these background checks?  There are plenty of people that live 100 miles from the closest dealer.  So, you expect them to drive 100 miles and PAY a fee to run the check to exercise their constitutional right, but you refuse to make citizens drive 100 miles for a FREE ID to exercise their constitutional right.?  I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

So, if you want this to pass:  Define the conditions that disqualify a person from gun ownership exactly so that there is no room for interpretation or changing definitions by whoever is in charge.  Define how they might be able to get back their right to own a gun if they eventually are "ok" again (some things are temporary).  Change the background check to just be a background check and not gather any info on the gun(s) being purchased.  Make the background check free and easily available.

I think my points are pretty reasonable.  I'm trying to get you the background check you want and respect that we all agree mentally disturbed people should not have guns and that criminals shouldn't be able to buy one either.  But, I'm noting the fact that mental issues are not all the same and plenty of people see doctors and psychiatrists who are not a threat to humanity.  And, I'm noting that some conditions are transitory; when the person is "ok" again, they should not be further restricted and have a clear path to regaining their rights.  I'm noting that a background check doesn't need to know what gun(s) a person is buying so that a registry can't be created.  That allows a genuine background check without worrying people about a registry.  If you claim you won't take away guns, then you don't need a registry, and therefore don't need to know the serial numbers of the gun(s) being purchased.  Don't ask questions that aren't needed and you'll avoid worrying people that you have ulterior motives.  I'm also advocating that it be free and easy to do for people who live out in the country so they are not unduly burdened.

Please tell me what is unreasonable about these points?  You get what you want.  The gun people retain what they want.  Everyone is happy.  No?
 
2013-04-19 01:01:20 AM

The Name: The Sandy Hook shooter didn't steal the guns.  They were guns that he had used and that he had access to because his mom didn't see any problem with him being able to take and use them.


 Okay. And how would mandatory background checks have helped here, again?

I'm not getting into the "locking up" nonsense with you because home defense, full stop. Let's add "unenforceable" on there too.
 
2013-04-19 01:02:06 AM
Wow, there are some real keyboard commandos here. When I think of all my K-12 teachers, the thought of any one of them touching a weapon is laughable, let alone possessing the necessary training and temperament to use a firearm in a real situation (pro-tip, it's not like Grand Theft Auto).

OK, can think of one gym teacher, but he was a Marine in Korea, and would've laughed mrbogey's ass out the door at the suggestion of arming other teachers.
 
2013-04-19 01:02:39 AM

remus: gun rights


See, the fact that we even think about the problem in these terms is in itself a problem.  You don't have a right to own any kind of object except guns, and that is only because of an accident of history and our country's rampant and unhealthy obsession with guns.  I say we should let states and local governments make their own gun laws, so we don't have to have a constitutional crisis every time a community decides that it would rather outlaw gun ownership than put up with all the turmoil that comes with having guns circulate like currency.
 
2013-04-19 01:03:29 AM

Mike Chewbacca: Seriously? This is your logic?


His "logic" is that background checks are the same as house-to-house searches.  Hence there is none.
 
2013-04-19 01:07:43 AM

TsukasaK: The Name: The Sandy Hook shooter didn't steal the guns.  They were guns that he had used and that he had access to because his mom didn't see any problem with him being able to take and use them.

 Okay. And how would mandatory background checks have helped here, again?

I'm not getting into the "locking up" nonsense with you because home defense, full stop. Let's add "unenforceable" on there too.


Well, the locking up thing is something people had talked about, but people like you made such a stink about it that it never made it past committee.

And must you have a gun for home defense?  What about pepper spray, tasers, rubber bullets, baseball bats and any number of means of home defense?  (And by the way, that's sort of the reason cops exist, as well . . .)

And unenforceable?  Do you know how they enforce anti-meth lab laws?  They don't go house to house looking for meth labs.  They just enforce other things and if they happen to come across a meth lab along the way, they bust them.  The same would apply to guns lying around on the living room floor.  Or do you think we should do away with anti-meth lab laws too?
 
2013-04-19 01:08:17 AM

jake_lex: The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.


Yay, another excuse to post this :D

http://wonkette.com/455230/violent-birther-gun-nut-also-massive-fan- of -tranny-porn-dildos

Violent Birther Gun Nut Also Massive Fan of Tranny Porn, Dildos

Dildos help induce tears while praying?Freedom fighter Darren Huff is a half-wit Georgia Militia birther goon in the news lately for being convicted of plotting a commando assault on the Monroe County courthouse in Tennessee, his mission being to punish a few lowly municipal employees for the sin of refusing to try to remove President Obama from office. He brought with him the usual violent nutjob accountrements such as an AK-47, a Colt .45 and several hundred rounds of ammunition, but according to the FBI's "Returned Property" document detailing the items that were given back to Huff after his arrest, he also apparently needed his trusty remote-controlled pink dildo and his DVD of "Tranny Hunter" to help him fulfill his crusader mandate from Jeebus.

And yes, before you ask, Huff was also chaplain of the Georgia Militia, for extra scary self-loathing, gun-wielding, secret tranny-loving Jesus freaks-and-their-tears-of-rage bonus points.

gurukalehuru.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-19 01:22:50 AM

remus: Ok, here are my honest questions:


Here are my honest (If not misguided) answers:

1) Community standards. Just like pornography with the 1st amendment (As the Supreme Court has already decided.)

2) I wasn't aware that so much info was required. I cannot answer this at this time.

3) You stated in question 2 that "they ask to list each firearm being purchased including make, model, and serial number". Isn't this already how it works? If so, this wouldn't change.

Also, just so you know, the voter ID (at least in Wisconsin) is NOT free if you previously had a state issued ID. Before the courts put a temporary hold on it, it cost me $28 to buy the ID so that I could vote. But that's a different discussion.
 
2013-04-19 01:31:04 AM

Burn_The_Plows: red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.

There won't be. In fact it would be the opposite. If a Senator in a red state voted for the bill, the teabaggers would come out and vote against them in the primary.

Let's face it, most people don't vote in the primaries unless motivated against someone. The teabagger candidate would possibly be destroyed in the general election.

The Republican Party knew this, and for once, were thinking ahead.


It will be interesting to see how your prediction plays out come election time.
 
2013-04-19 01:34:15 AM

red5ish: Burn_The_Plows: red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.

There won't be. In fact it would be the opposite. If a Senator in a red state voted for the bill, the teabaggers would come out and vote against them in the primary.

Let's face it, most people don't vote in the primaries unless motivated against someone. The teabagger candidate would possibly be destroyed in the general election.

The Republican Party knew this, and for once, were thinking ahead.

It will be interesting to see how your prediction plays out come election time.


Sorry, but I have to concur that there will be no repercussions.  See my comment above about Americans being mostly backwards rubes.
 
2013-04-19 01:39:17 AM

red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.


The NRA is a big political player, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if they were able to be broken down. After all they did have a less than 1% success rate electing the candidates they endorsed in 2012. They've currently got deep pockets and our Congressmen's balls in a vice group, but they've also got the same shrinking demographics of the Republican Party.

Their current strategy seems to be "Instead of convincing 10 guys to each buy 1 gun, we can just get 1 crazy guy to buy 20 guns and we'll still be rich!" How long can you sustain that? It's not like they're gonna do outreach and try to branch out to new demographics.

Thanks to Citizens United, anti gun groups can now more easily organize and build political infrastructure and it's not like it's going to be hard to find new members in the future. As long as the NRA is fighting tooth and nail to make sure insane people can buy as many guns as possible without so much as a record of the transaction, we're sure to have plenty more mass shootings in the future. Those communities will constantly produce new activists as more and more of us know people affected by horrific mass murders.
 
2013-04-19 01:58:21 AM

Burn_The_Plows: remus: Ok, here are my honest questions:

Here are my honest (If not misguided) answers:

1) Community standards. Just like pornography with the 1st amendment (As the Supreme Court has already decided.)

2) I wasn't aware that so much info was required. I cannot answer this at this time.

3) You stated in question 2 that "they ask to list each firearm being purchased including make, model, and serial number". Isn't this already how it works? If so, this wouldn't change.

Also, just so you know, the voter ID (at least in Wisconsin) is NOT free if you previously had a state issued ID. Before the courts put a temporary hold on it, it cost me $28 to buy the ID so that I could vote. But that's a different discussion.


Thanks for the response.

On 1).  Hmm, that's tough.  It's subject to change at the whim of the local officials.  If you have an ardent anti-gun mayor, I can see definitions of mental deficiency being changed to include almost everyone in an attempt to just ban everyone.  Sadly, people like that exist who insist on projecting their view on everyone else and using their position to do so.  I'd feel more comfortable being specific so local officials can't move the goal posts.

2)  Yes, the form can be found here:  http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf  It asks for quite a lot of things that really have nothing to do with a "background check".  Seriously, why do they need to know your Race (block 8)?  How does that matter to you being allowed to purchase a gun?  Racism?   See sections B and D.  They ask what gun(s) are being purchased quite clearly.  Check out Block 17 as an interesting note.  It's specific to gun shows.  Kind of proves that background checks are actually ran at gun shows.

3)  Noted, it wouldn't change.  But they shouldn't be asking those questions to begin with.  Now they want to capture 100% of the sales and ask these questions.  I can see why some people are concerned it is to create a registry.  Why not just clean it up as I proposed and eliminate the whole registry concerns?  Seems pretty easy to just eliminate unneeded questions and make everyone happy.

As to you paying $28 for an ID to vote.  Did your comment about having a previously issued state ID mean you lost your other one?  I guess I can see charging for a replacement, but $28 is robbery.  I'd advocate it should be free no matter what.  If they require an ID to vote, then it should be guaranteed free and they should offer assistance to anyone that has problems with their documentation to try and get it for them (e.g. ordering a copy of their birth cert for free).  Again, make both sides happy.
 
2013-04-19 02:01:30 AM

The Name: red5ish: Burn_The_Plows: red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.

There won't be. In fact it would be the opposite. If a Senator in a red state voted for the bill, the teabaggers would come out and vote against them in the primary.

Let's face it, most people don't vote in the primaries unless motivated against someone. The teabagger candidate would possibly be destroyed in the general election.

The Republican Party knew this, and for once, were thinking ahead.

It will be interesting to see how your prediction plays out come election time.

Sorry, but I have to concur that there will be no repercussions.  See my comment above about Americans being mostly backwards rubes.


There may or may not be repercussions. We're talking about a lot of elections in a lot of different parts of the country where this issue may or may not be a factor. That's why it will be interesting and that's why I don't predict things all falling out one way or another.
 
2013-04-19 02:03:16 AM

remus: If you have an ardent anti-gun mayor, I can see definitions of mental deficiency being changed to include almost everyone in an attempt to just ban everyone. Sadly, people like that exist who insist on projecting their view on everyone else and using their position to do so.


But then the people would presumably vote out that mayor if they have a problem with it, right?

Why is it that gun owners make sure to vote, call their representatives and fill out petitions when it comes to preventing any and all gun control measures, but then turn around and say that they oppose any and all gun control measures because politicians aren't responsive to the wishes of the people?
 
2013-04-19 02:16:25 AM
Until someone shoots up Congress or the House not a damn thing will change...

Fingers crossed.
 
2013-04-19 02:24:35 AM

nmrsnr: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

Not many and very little:



So it's gun-control advocates who are the cheapskates.
 
2013-04-19 02:32:20 AM

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


Sloppy drunk or just sloppy?
 
2013-04-19 02:43:07 AM

nmrsnr: TheManofPA: I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

Opensecrets.org is your friend. But I agree that it's a very chicken-and-egg problem with campaing donations. Do you vote a certain way because you received donations? Or do people donate to you because they know you will vote a certain way, and therefore want you to win? Don't know how you could possibly tease those two apart.


You would have to look for changes in voting habits and try to correlate that with an influx of money.   If you can correlate "new cash" with "changes votes" you are on your way to finding a causal relationship.
 
2013-04-19 05:34:16 AM
At least we've pinpointed the 3 who are completely bonkers.
 
2013-04-19 05:36:07 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: So how many Senators received money from any group that cares about gun control (vs. a gun control PAC)?
How much money did they receive from those groups?


Why don't you do some research?
 
2013-04-19 07:38:47 AM
Just renewed my NRA membership, and included an extra $30 just in case. I'm glad it got put to goo use.

Next step: expand ownership of fully automatic weapons.

I AM the gun lobby!
 
2013-04-19 07:49:33 AM
Yes, I'm sure the criminals will be kept from gun ownership thanks to more background checks.
 
2013-04-19 08:02:33 AM

Lawyers With Nukes: Just renewed my NRA membership, and included an extra $30 just in case. I'm glad it got put to goo use.


True.  I imagine the blood of innocent folks killed in a mass shooting is pretty gooey.  Thanks for your contribution to that.
 
2013-04-19 08:26:43 AM
The assumption is that anyone who opposes or questions the effectiveness of "gun-control" or some or all of the new gun law proposals is by default a knuckle dragging,dumb,right-wing,NRA b*tch.

What if there are people who genuinely wish to help curb all this violence but are just plain smart enough to realize that gun control is for the most part pointless?

The words "ban" and "control" are utterly meaningless to a sociopath who wishes to murder innocents.

How would ANY law affect someone who is willing to murder their own mother in order to steal a gun in order to massacre children?

Do drug laws have any or all affect on an addict?

Anyone who thinks that any new gun related legislation will work towards preventing violence is clueless and delusional.
 
2013-04-19 08:31:23 AM

craigdamage: The assumption is that anyone who opposes or questions the effectiveness of "gun-control" or some or all of the new gun law proposals is by default a knuckle dragging,dumb,right-wing,NRA b*tch.

What if there are people who genuinely wish to help curb all this violence but are just plain smart enough to realize that gun control is for the most part pointless?

The words "ban" and "control" are utterly meaningless to a sociopath who wishes to murder innocents.

How would ANY law affect someone who is willing to murder their own mother in order to steal a gun in order to massacre children?

Do drug laws have any or all affect on an addict?

Anyone who thinks that any new gun related legislation will work towards preventing violence is clueless and delusional.


This is actually a good comparison. Its becoming abundantly clear that the unhealthy obsession with personal firearms in this country is an addiction and should be treated like one
 
2013-04-19 08:50:52 AM

doglover: thisdaydreamer: Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?

Three sane senators out if 100 sounds about right.


I was going to say, what I learned from the headline that there are at least three suckers in the Senate.
 
2013-04-19 09:05:59 AM
remus: ...the form can be found here:  http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf  It asks for quite a lot of things that really have nothing to do with a "background check".  Seriously, why do they need to know your Race (block 8)?  How does that matter to you being allowed to purchase a gun?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say "Because the law was written by white people".
 
2013-04-19 09:15:36 AM

thisdaydreamer: Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?


I think the NRA will now reward them handsomely.
 
2013-04-19 09:41:23 AM

nmrsnr: snuff3r: Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress

Not that it doesn't happen but the sorts of stories that come out of the US don't come even remotely close to the sorts of things we see here. The US system does come across as particularly corrupt.

Take their ranking for what you will, but according to the Corruption Perceptions Index places the US at #19 out of 176. We're middle of the pack when compared to First World European countries, but compared to the rest of the world in general the US is squeaky clean.


That's because a lot of things that would be considered as corruption in other countries are considered legal in the USA. There is leas needs for under-the-table shenanigans when you have super-pacs and corporations and lobbies can directly contribute to campaigns, all of which ate considered ny lots of countries as anathema to democracy.

//Corporations have free-speech ? WTF ?
 
2013-04-19 09:56:56 AM

craigdamage: What if there are people who genuinely wish to help curb all this violence but are just plain smart enough to realize that gun control is for the most part pointless?

The words "ban" and "control" are utterly meaningless to a sociopath who wishes to murder innocents.

How would ANY law affect someone who is willing to murder their own mother in order to steal a gun in order to massacre children?


It's always good to remember that the true victim in all this is the sociopaths. WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE SOCIOPATHS?!

Also, I hear despite being frequently posted on roadsides, speed limits are broken on a daily basis. Plans to turn the nation's highway system into one big Autobahn in 3...2...
 
2013-04-19 10:20:56 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: nmrsnr: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

Not many and very little:

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x495][farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x499]

that is incomplete data.
TFA claims that if you receive money from a group that lists gun rights as one of their priorities, that that counts too.

So how many Senators received money from any group that cares about gun control (vs. a gun control PAC)?
How much money did they receive from those groups?


LOST
1 Pair of Goalposts

Last seen in Post 7

If anyone knows of their whereabouts please return them to Thread  #7706888

 
2013-04-19 10:39:30 AM

BarkingUnicorn: nmrsnr: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

Not many and very little:


So it's gun-control advocates who are the cheapskates.


Most regressive assholes are cheapskates.  Sure, they don't care about the rights of individuals, but they don't not care enough to spend their own money fighting for the man.  How many anti-gay marriage people donate money to maintain a level of oppression?    At best, they donate to an umbrella group that covers a wide range of bullshiat, whether it be a Repub PAC or party that also opposes abortion rights or a Dem PAC that fights tooth and nail to be sure nobody has the freedom to choose how to invest a measly 5% of their social security account.
 
2013-04-19 11:06:54 AM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose

A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.


I greatly despise this line of thought.  Whereas a successful uprising of US Citizens against the US Govt would be a very steep hill to climb.  The thought that the US Govt would use MBTs against the US population on US soil is just nonsense.  There will be 3 sides to this if it were to ever come out.  The Gov't vs US Rebels vs The general population who doesnt want to be involved.  To think that any rebel force in the US would establish singular bases of operations in order to be targeted by teh US Govt is stupid.  No they would sit in the home and pretend to be part of Group 3.  The US Govt isnt going to roll an M1 Abrams MBT down Main Street, USA and start blowing up houses.  You risk significant collateral damage and also risk moving people from Group 3 into Group 2.  And when you combine Group 3 and Group 2 you have a HUGE manpower difference over Group 1.

Yes Group 1 (US Govt) has a significant advantage with a lot more cool toys to play with, but the destructive ones are pretty much off the table.  This leaves you with surveillance drones/aircraft and moving APCs into areas to keep your soldiers safe, but then engaging is conventional firearms warfare.  Where Group 2 is going to have a problem is in logistics, Group 1 is just far better at moving poeple and supplies around.  However, Group 1 will lose poeple to Group 2 or 3...and some of Group 3 may end up joining Group 2.

This isnt anything close to simple or one sided.  Both sides have their advantages/disadvantages.  But seriously, stop with the "But but but TANKS!" because they wont matter.
 
2013-04-19 11:46:26 AM

Gavenger: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose

A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.

I greatly despise this line of thought.  Whereas a successful uprising of US Citizens against the US Govt would be a very steep hill to climb.  The thought that the US Govt would use MBTs against the US population on US soil is just nonsense.  There will be 3 sides to this if it were to ever come out.  The Gov't vs US Rebels vs The general population who doesnt want to be involved.  To think that any rebel force in the US would establish singular bases of operations in order to be targeted by teh US Govt is stupid.  No they would sit in the home and pretend to be part of Group 3.  The US Govt isnt going to roll an M1 Abrams MBT down Main Street, USA and start blowing up houses.  You risk significant collateral damage and also risk moving people from Group 3 into Group 2.  And when you combine Group 3 and Group 2 you have a HUGE manpower difference over Group 1.

Yes Group 1 (US Govt) has a significant advantage with a lot more cool toys to play with, but the destructive ones are pretty much off the table.  This leaves you with surveillance drones/aircraft and moving APCs into areas to keep your soldiers safe, but then engaging is conventional firearms warfare.  Where Group 2 is going to have a problem is in logistics, Group 1 is just far better at moving poeple and supplies around.  However, Group 1 will lose poeple to Group 2 or 3...and some of Group 3 may end up joining Group 2.

This isnt anything close to simple or one sided.  Both sides have their advantages/disadvantages.  But seriously, stop with t

he "But but but TANKS!" because they wont matter.

Both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War resulted in full scale war. I guarantee that Sherman, who had a class of tank named after him, would have loved to have tanks on his march to the sea.

Even if you don't agree with that I hope that you can agree that a 30 round pistol magazine has only two uses: Wasting rounds at the range and killing as many people as you can before someone stops you, as demonstrated by Jared Loughner. If someone is trying to defend themselves from a mugging or rape and can't manage to kill or maim their attacker at close range in the first five rounds(or ten if you prefer) then they're probably going to be mugged/raped anyway and the rounds that missed their target may well have struck an unintended target. Pistols are of limited use in an actual war situation(toppling a tyrannical government) and the lack of an extended magazine isn't going to be the difference between being the rebels in the Revolutionary War and the rebels in the Civil War.
 
2013-04-19 11:46:43 AM

EyeballKid: Also, I hear despite being frequently posted on roadsides, speed limits are broken on a daily basis. Plans to turn the nation's highway system into one big Autobahn in 3...2...


Considering that lots of highways in the country go through long stretches of rural areas with not much traffic, I'm actually ok with an American autobahn.

Getting back on topic, it's already illegal for criminals to acquire guns. Since they and their suppliers already break existing law to acquire firearms, how would one more law criminalizing something that's already illegal be more effective or enforceable than the current system?
 
2013-04-19 11:51:15 AM
A while back I saw a whitehouse.gov petition to require congress to wear jackets with the logos of all their political sponsors much like NASCAR. I think it is an excellent idea and should be worthy of bipartisan support.
 
2013-04-19 12:11:29 PM

heypete: EyeballKid: Also, I hear despite being frequently posted on roadsides, speed limits are broken on a daily basis. Plans to turn the nation's highway system into one big Autobahn in 3...2...

Considering that lots of highways in the country go through long stretches of rural areas with not much traffic, I'm actually ok with an American autobahn.

Getting back on topic, it's already illegal for criminals to acquire guns. Since they and their suppliers already break existing law to acquire firearms, how would one more law criminalizing something that's already illegal be more effective or enforceable than the current system?


It will make it double illegal. And if the weapon is used to kill someone it may be triple or even quadruple illegal. Laws are like solid oak doors. You may be able to break through one easily but the second, third, and fourth are going to be much harder. It will be so difficult, in fact, that the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas of the world will just stay home.
 
2013-04-19 12:43:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"


They're certainly not doing anything to help stop criminals from getting guns.
 
2013-04-19 12:59:05 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War resulted in full scale war. I guarantee that Sherman, who had a class of tank named after him, would have loved to have tanks on his march to the sea.

Even if you don't agree with that I hope that you can agree that a 30 round pistol magazine has only two uses: Wasting rounds at the range and killing as many people as you can before someone stops you, as demonstrated by Jared Loughner. If someone is trying to defend themselves from a mugging or rape and can't manage to kill or maim their attacker at close range in the first five rounds(or ten if you prefer) then they're probably going to be mugged/raped anyway and the rounds that missed their target may well have struck an unintended target. Pistols are of limited use in an actual war situation(toppling a tyrannical government) and the lack of an extended magazine isn't going to be the difference between being the rebels in the Revolutionary War and the rebels in the Civil War.


Well during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the populations were a little more polarized to one side or the other than they are currently.  And Group 3 in my above statement is a much larger group than either Group 1 or Group 2.  Also, population density at the time of Sherman was a lot more spread out and you wouldnt have had as much collateral damage as you would now.  Sure some areas were densely populated, but not to the degree they are now.  Both sides in both conflicts also formed into large organized armies.  If anything were to occur in the future it would be closer to guerrilla warfare here in the States.

Personally I agree that I dont see the real need for a 30 round magazine for a pistol.  The magazine in question was originally designed for the Glock 18.  The G18 has such a high rate of fire that it would empty a standard (17rd) Glock magazine before you could effectively release the trigger.  FYI, the G18 is not a normal pistol for people to purchase, it is heavily regulated as it is a fully automatic machine pistol.  Due to the nature of the Glock designs, the higher capacity magazines fit all the same caliber handguns.  So the 30rd magazine designed for the G18 also fits the G17 and the smaller ones.  However, I disagree with limitations on access to the standard issue 17rd magazine that comes with the G17.

I agree with you that any future uprising will not be fought with pistols vs tanks.  It will be long guns vs. long guns.  Tanks are too vulnerable in densely populated areas against modible forces.  Too easy to sneak up on it and plant an IED to disable it.  Great against other tanks...but the rebels wont have tanks.  So that means you have to deploy your infantry to counter.  And its these forces that will do battle.  The tank cant just start unleashing 105mm hell into a neighborhood, this would be very bad for Group 1.  Sure, you could use it to hide behind, but thats about as useful as itll be.  Better to use APCs since they can carry more people and are protected from small arms fire.
 
2013-04-19 01:14:39 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"

They're certainly not doing anything to help stop criminals from getting guns.


No, they're not doing what you think will stop criminals from getting guns.  The most effective way of keeping criminals from running around shooting people is to catch them early.  We managed to do this in the 50's quite effectively, but then the prison lobby and people who don't want deranged people to have their feelings hurt took over, and now we're reaping the benefits.  But by all means, keep trying to cure a cold with kleenex, instead of addressing the root cause and source of the problem, because that line of thinking works oh so well.
 
2013-04-19 01:25:16 PM
I don't know man. Guerrilla warfare is great for making life hell for a lot of people, I just don't see it as a viable option for overthrowing and supplanting a government. Eventually you'll have to organize and attack in force in order to take key pieces of territory such as D.C. and at that point your army will be vulnerable to tools of conventional warfare. In my opinion, if the US government becomes so bad as to truly warrant a revolution then there will be sufficient numbers of rebels that a ten round magazine limit and universal background checks won't hinder their cause. It's something I'm willing to risk if it means fewer/less effective mass shootings and less gun violence in general. You can argue whether or not those laws would be effective but for fark's sake at least have the debate on it rather than filibustering it outright.
 
2013-04-19 02:01:12 PM
Pretty sure the criminals that are buying and selling guns are doing it out the back of a van/in a motel room and neither the buyer or the seller in this case is going to do any of it legally.
 
2013-04-19 02:10:28 PM

garraty: Until someone shoots up Congress or the House not a damn thing will change...

Fingers crossed.


Already happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident _% 281954%29
 
2013-04-19 02:25:08 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I don't know man. Guerrilla warfare is great for making life hell for a lot of people, I just don't see it as a viable option for overthrowing and supplanting a government. Eventually you'll have to organize and attack in force in order to take key pieces of territory such as D.C. and at that point your army will be vulnerable to tools of conventional warfare. In my opinion, if the US government becomes so bad as to truly warrant a revolution then there will be sufficient numbers of rebels that a ten round magazine limit and universal background checks won't hinder their cause. It's something I'm willing to risk if it means fewer/less effective mass shootings and less gun violence in general. You can argue whether or not those laws would be effective but for fark's sake at least have the debate on it rather than filibustering it outright.


Good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Revolutionary-Warfare-African-Revolut io n/dp/B000NVB5ZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366395863&sr=8-1&keywords=hand book+of+revolutionary+warfare
 
2013-04-19 03:01:53 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I don't know man. Guerrilla warfare is great for making life hell for a lot of people, I just don't see it as a viable option for overthrowing and supplanting a government. Eventually you'll have to organize and attack in force in order to take key pieces of territory such as D.C. and at that point your army will be vulnerable to tools of conventional warfare. In my opinion, if the US government becomes so bad as to truly warrant a revolution then there will be sufficient numbers of rebels that a ten round magazine limit and universal background checks won't hinder their cause. It's something I'm willing to risk if it means fewer/less effective mass shootings and less gun violence in general. You can argue whether or not those laws would be effective but for fark's sake at least have the debate on it rather than filibustering it outright.


Ok lets say your right, that ten round magazines will not hinder any future uprising against an unjust government.  How would it make them any less effective in use during a mass shooting?  Im actually for universal background checks.  However, I am against registration regardless of what term you use for it.  The threat of some future US Govt using the registration as a means to confiscate is as real as anything can be in the "future".  Its an unknown.  Schroedingers Cat if you will.  But let me ask this, do you have a savings account?  For what purpose?  A big reason for a savings account is to guard against future financial difficulties.  You dont know if they will happen, but you sure as hell dont want to have difficulties and not be prepared.  True, not everyone does this, and not everyone uses it for the same reason.  Some poeple use the funds for hobbies.  And the same things goes for firearms.  You dont WANT to have to use a firearm for self defense, but youd rather have it and not need it as they say.  Not everyone will have a firearm for their own personal reasons, but to stand up and say "I dont like them so you cant have them is incredibly selfish" (I am talking about lawful ownership).  People also use them for various hobbies outside self defense.  Hunting, target practice, competitions and such.

There is no data supporting whether increased background checks or lower magazine capacities will equal to less mass shootings.  (Put aside the immediate argument of one organization lobbying against commissions to obtain said data.  They didnt happen so I think it inappropriate to use the "lack of data" to support an argument.)  Common sense would indicate that the recently proposed amendments would not have prevented the mass shootings.  The only one that may have an impact is the AWB and thats an outright ban of a very specific type of firearm, and would move a would-be shooter to a different type of firearm.  I do NOT advocate lawlessness, laws, good ones, are necessary.  But most of everything put forth has been attacks against law-abiding citizens.  Lets try not to create more criminals, and deal with the ones we have.
 
2013-04-19 03:12:09 PM

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


This.

During the last election, Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" alone spent as much as the NRA *AND* the gun manufacturer lobby (NSSF) combined on the election.

It's not the money that tipped the balance.  It was the ability of the NRA to get grassroots *VOTES* in some areas.

Support for gun control amongst the general public is very wide after a tragic event like Sandy Hook, but very shallow.  After the tragedy fades from the limelight, they go back to worrying about something else.  There are almost no single issue gun control voters.

There are, however, millions of single issue gun rights voters.  The support for gun rights isn't necessarily as wide as for gun control, but it's always there.  Narrower, but *MUCH* deeper, and that translates into votes.
 
2013-04-19 03:33:17 PM

TheManofPA: I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.


Start it up; I'll donate!
 
2013-04-19 03:56:43 PM

Gavenger: You dont WANT to have to use a firearm for self defense, but youd rather have it and not need it as they say.  Not everyone will have a firearm for their own personal reasons, but to stand up and say "I dont like them so you cant have them is incredibly selfish" (I am talking about lawful ownership).  People also use them for various hobbies outside self defense.  Hunting, target practice, competitions and such.


I'm not in favor of banning guns. However, large capacity magazines don't increase your ability to defend yourself(most concealed carry weapons are compact semi-autos or revolvers) nor are they necessary for hunting. I find it difficult to compare one's desire to use a large capacity magazine for target practice or for competition with the lives lost in mass shootings. Our society already bans fully automatic and burst fire weapons(apart from highly regulated special permits) in order to prevent mass casualties, magazine size limits are just one more step in that direction.

Gavenger: There is no data supporting whether increased background checks or lower magazine capacities will equal to less mass shootings.


Jared Loughner's shooting spree ended when he failed to properly change magazines. 11 children at Sandy Hook escaped during a magazine change by Adam Lanza. 80,000 people were denied the sale of a weapon due to a background check. Just because it only makes it more difficult and doesn't stop them from purchasing the guns through illegal means doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. There's also evidence from Australia(from Wednesday's TDS) that gun control laws do reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence in general(though, as in Britain, I'm sure that stabbings and beatings increased).

Gavenger: The only one that may have an impact is the AWB and thats an outright ban of a very specific type of firearm, and would move a would-be shooter to a different type of firearm.


That different type of firearm would have been far less effective and that's the whole point. In a gun friendly society like ours there will never be a way to stop gun violence but we can at least take steps to reduce the number of casualties. Sure, America will be less fun with an AWB(which I haven't decided if I support or not, due to the shiatty way the last one was written and the implications of writing a proper one) but maybe we'll lose fewer school children every year to gun violence.

To speak to the issue in TFA, when 85-90% of America supports universal background checks, it's unconscionable to forbid even debating the checks on the senate floor. One of my senators(Baucus) is up for reelection next year(his 7th term) and his decision to side with the Republicans on this issue is going to weigh heavily in my decision to vote for him in a primary. Unfortunately, it's likely that any Republican on the ticket would be as bad or worse on this topic and substantially worse on many other important issues.
 
2013-04-19 05:02:04 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I'm not in favor of banning guns. However, large capacity magazines don't increase your ability to defend yourself(most concealed carry weapons are compact semi-autos or revolvers) nor are they necessary for hunting. I find it difficult to compare one's desire to use a large capacity magazine for target practice or for competition with the lives lost in mass shootings. Our society already bans fully automatic and burst fire weapons(apart from highly regulated special permits) in order to prevent mass casualties, magazine size limits are just one more step in that direction.


Here is where we may differ on the definition of "large capacity magazines", Any magazine that is issued with the firearm, from the manufacturer, I deem as a "standard capapcity magazine".  Excessive speed kills, so therefor I find it hard to justify any vehicle being capable of exceeding the speed limit.  Thousands of teenagers die every year from excessive speed.  So we should ban all vehicles capable of exceeding the speed limit and force manufacturers to produce cars that cannot do so.  The previous 3 sentences are stupid.  I know, you know it, we both agree.  Are there laws that say it is illegal to speed?  Yes there are, but we dont stop making vehicles that can exceed the limit.  So yeah, you want to eliminate 50rd, 100rd drum magazines, even that 30rd Glock mag which doesnt come standard with any of the Glock firearms.  I personally dont have an issue with it.  But lets let common sense rule, the magazine the manufacturer issues with the firearm should always be considered "standard capacity."

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Jared Loughner's shooting spree ended when he failed to properly change magazines. 11 children at Sandy Hook escaped during a magazine change by Adam Lanza. 80,000 people were denied the sale of a weapon due to a background check. Just because it only makes it more difficult and doesn't stop them from purchasing the guns through illegal means doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. There's also evidence from Australia(from Wednesday's TDS) that gun control laws do reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence in general(though, as in Britain, I'm sure that stabbings and beatings increased).


Id like to know the details of Loughners shooting.  Like, he fired 30 rounds, I wanna know what each one of the rounds hit in order.  I can imagine after the first 15 or so he wasnt hitting much because by then most people have been on the ground hiding or behind something if they had the presence of mind to do so.  I could be wrong but this is data Id like to see.  Sandy Hook would have been better off with a single police officer sitting in a surveillance room watching CCTV of the outside of the school.  Im sure such a room doesnt exist, but would be far more effective than reducing the capacity of the magazines that were carried.  Catch the activity before it became a tragedy.  The 80,000 figure was already proved to be BS in another thread, even the source said Biden came out and doubled their numbers.  Even still, I know its illegal for felons to possess firearms, same for diagnosed mentally ill, but where is the legality of an attempt to purchase?  If the attempt is unsuccessful, is it still a crime?  Is it a crime everywhere?  I honestly dont know.  Any counttry other than the US is completely different socioeconomically than the US and is a hard sell for me to compare the two.

Whistling Kitty Chaser: That different type of firearm would have been far less effective and that's the whole point. In a gun friendly society like ours there will never be a way to stop gun violence but we can at least take steps to reduce the number of casualties. Sure, America will be less fun with an AWB(which I haven't decided if I support or not, due to the shiatty way the last one was written and the implications of writing a proper one) but maybe we'll lose fewer school children every year to gun violence.

To speak to the issue in TFA, when 85-90% of America supports universal background checks, it's unconscionable to forbid even debating the checks on the senate floor. One of my senators(Baucus) is up for reelection next year(his 7th term) and his decision to side with the Republicans on this issue is going to weigh heavily in my decision to vote for him in a primary. Unfortunately, it's likely that any Republican on the ticket would be as bad or worse on this topic and substantially worse on many other important issues.


Personally Id prefer to expand the scope of reducing gun deaths to all persons and not just limit it to school children.  And horribly written laws are horribly written and should therefore not be passed.  Not because of what they are trying to accomplish, but because they are horribly written.

I still call BS on the 90% statistic.  Where did it come from?  How many people were involved in the poll?  We know it wasnt everyone in the US.  Where was the poll conducted?  This is a tactic used to skew results.  You want a hardcore Liberal result, do a poll of persons at Berkeley, Ca, or in NYC.  Want a more conservative result?  Check the midwest or more rural areas.  This is why I HATE polls/statistics.  BOTH sides do it, which is why I ignore the stats from either side.  Because its almost a sure thing that its BS.

I dont agree with "forbiding debate."  Both sides should have a right to say their peace.  Unfortunately, "both sides" are farking useless and the whole lot of them should be replaced.  I think we might actually see some progress if it happened.
 
2013-04-19 05:11:26 PM

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.
 
2013-04-19 05:40:36 PM

Mike Chewbacca: TsukasaK: Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.

There are shootings every day in our country. Thousands of them. The catalyst for this latest attempt may be 20 dead 6-year-olds, but it's also because of all the other dead people, too.

Uncool story, Bro:

My uncle committed suicide with a gun three weeks ago today. He would probably be alive right now if we had stricter gun control laws. It turns out, when folks don't have the means to kill themselves instantly, they choose to live.

/Uncool story, Bro


Then why does the US have a suicide rate comparable to most other first world countries despite having multitudes more firearms per capita?
 
2013-04-19 05:43:56 PM

AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.


You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?
 
2013-04-19 05:45:11 PM

Gavenger: Id like to know the details of Loughners shooting.  Like, he fired 30 rounds, I wanna know what each one of the rounds hit in order.  I can imagine after the first 15 or so he wasnt hitting much because by then most people have been on the ground hiding or behind something if they had the presence of mind to do so.


31 shots fired in 15 seconds and 19 dead or injured. I'm guessing he was still hitting his targets after the first 15 rounds.

Gavenger: But lets let common sense rule, the magazine the manufacturer issues with the firearm should always be considered "standard capacity."


Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.

I think your car analogy is flawed, for at least the following reasons: One, cars have to be deemed street legal; two, we register cars; three, drivers must be licensed(not the same as a background check, it requires demonstration of knowledge and skill); four, it's much easier to arrest/fine someone in the act of reckless driving before they've killed themselves or others. There's a lot of work done both technologically and legislatively to reduce vehicle deaths, particular with respect to impaired driving. For guns, technical advances(that I've seen, I don't keep up on these things) are to increase effectiveness and decrease the chance of an AD. Legislative "advances" in the last 10-15 years have been to make guns more available.

Incidentally, every time I hear Wayne LaPierre speak it drives me further toward wanting increased gun legislation. In the same interview he said that the 1 second it takes for someone like Lanza to change magazines makes no difference, but that a 10 round magazine limit would make a huge difference for someone defending themselves. If an attacker can change magazines, why can't I? And why do I need more than 10 rounds to take down an attacker if I've taken the time to train with my firearm?


This was fun. See you at the next shooting.
 
2013-04-19 05:51:02 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.


The AR-15 has been aorund since the 60s with a "standard" capacity of 30 rounds.
 
2013-04-19 06:19:22 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?


Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?
 
2013-04-19 06:49:47 PM

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.


Well the only 30rd magazine I have issue with is the Glock one for the G18.  Im ok with the only people having access to it are the very very few people who have access to Glock 18's.  As for long guns, I only mentioned 50+rd magazines as, to date, other than going to the range and not having to reload as often, there is no justifiable reason to possess them.  And there is an issue with reliability.  The last thing I want near any of my firearms is a device attached to it and containing explosives with reliability issues.  This is a personal opinion however.  Leaving public safety up to the current legislative body is proving to be a bad choice as well.

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I think your car analogy is flawed, for at least the following reasons: One, cars have to be deemed street legal; two, we register cars; three, drivers must be licensed(not the same as a background check, it requires demonstration of knowledge and skill); four, it's much easier to arrest/fine someone in the act of reckless driving before they've killed themselves or others. There's a lot of work done both technologically and legislatively to reduce vehicle deaths, particular with respect to impaired driving. For guns, technical advances(that I've seen, I don't keep up on these things) are to increase effectiveness and decrease the chance of an AD. Legislative "advances" in the last 10-15 years have been to make guns more available.


And yet, with far more restricitons on driving a vehicle, more people die in vehicular incidents than from gun violence.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states">http://www.g unpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

270 million firearms vs. 254 million vehicles.  88 firearms per 100 people and more people die to vehicle incidents than firearms.  People are far more likely to be irresponsable behind the wheel than with a firearm.  With all that technology towards reducing deaths in vehicle incidents, they still happen more frequently than does gun violence.

I am not a member of the NRA, I dont pay attention to what he says.  If you need more than 10 rounds to take down an attacker, either (a) you need to spend more time at the range; or (b) you need a larger caliber.  Now a larger caliber may be ok for most men, but there are a lot of women out there that cannot deal with the recoil of a .45.  So you point them towards a 9mm.  A big issue I have with 9mm's is its a very small round.  It just does not convey a lot of kinetic energy to its target, when compared to a .40 or .45.  In a home defense situation, if you are using a hollow point round, there isnt a lot of time/space for that round to open up completely inside your home (situations vary based on home obviously).  If your attacker is wearing thick clothing, there is a good chance the clothing will fill the hollow point and the round becomes ball ammo and goes right through the attacker.  If your attacker is on speed or some other upper, your going to need several rounds to immobilize him...if your unlucky.  Multiply that out times multiple attackers and you see the point of more than 10 rounds.  Does everyone need more than 10 in a home invasion, no.  Are there instances where more than 10 is required, yes.  Shall we now condemn the unfortunate victim of a home invasion perpetrated by multiple attackers to a possible death so that some individuals can feel safer in the knowledge that I only have 10rd magazines as opposed to 17rd (Glock 17)?

Hell if anyone needs to be limited to 10 rounds its Law Enforcement, most specifically members of the LAPD.  Whereas I am very happy the two ladies survived, multiple LAPD officers unloaded multiple magazines each into a truck and still didnt manage to incapacitate the occupants.  Again, I am HAPPY they survived, but if LEO's my tax dollars pay for are going to brandish their sidearms and open fire on a suspect, I want them to hit what they intend.  How many of those rounds missed the truck?  Hell they werent even receiving return fire! They were in a residential neighborhood, how many people were put at risk during that firefight?  Are there better officer out there, im sure there are, and those better officers should be kicking the crap out of the bad ones.
 
2013-04-19 07:26:47 PM

AteMyBrain: BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?


Except that's not what you said.  You said "You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"? "  While they may not all be manufacturers, there's plenty of groups with a financial interest in restricting firearms.  So your point wasn't based in reality.
 
2013-04-19 10:26:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?

Except that's not what you said.  You said "You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"? "  While they may not all be manufacturers, there's plenty of groups with a financial interest in restricting firearms.  So your point wasn't based in reality.


Let it go, dude. You said a stupid thing. It happens.
 
2013-04-20 01:46:43 AM
whores the lot of them
 
2013-04-20 02:55:36 AM

Gavenger: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War resulted in full scale war. I guarantee that Sherman, who had a class of tank named after him, would have loved to have tanks on his march to the sea.

Even if you don't agree with that I hope that you can agree that a 30 round pistol magazine has only two uses: Wasting rounds at the range and killing as many people as you can before someone stops you, as demonstrated by Jared Loughner. If someone is trying to defend themselves from a mugging or rape and can't manage to kill or maim their attacker at close range in the first five rounds(or ten if you prefer) then they're probably going to be mugged/raped anyway and the rounds that missed their target may well have struck an unintended target. Pistols are of limited use in an actual war situation(toppling a tyrannical government) and the lack of an extended magazine isn't going to be the difference between being the rebels in the Revolutionary War and the rebels in the Civil War.

Well during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the populations were a little more polarized to one side or the other than they are currently.  And Group 3 in my above statement is a much larger group than either Group 1 or Group 2.  Also, population density at the time of Sherman was a lot more spread out and you wouldnt have had as much collateral damage as you would now.  Sure some areas were densely populated, but not to the degree they are now.  Both sides in both conflicts also formed into large organized armies.  If anything were to occur in the future it would be closer to guerrilla warfare here in the States.

Personally I agree that I dont see the real need for a 30 round magazine for a pistol.  The magazine in question was originally designed for the Glock 18.  The G18 has such a high rate of fire that it would empty a standard (17rd) Glock magazine before you could effectively release the trigger.  FYI, the G18 is not a normal pistol for people to purchase, it is heavily regulated as it is a fully automatic machine pistol.  Due to the nature of the Glock designs, the higher capacity magazines fit all the same caliber handguns.  So the 30rd magazine designed for the G18 also fits the G17 and the smaller ones.  However, I disagree with limitations on access to the standard issue 17rd magazine that comes with the G17.

I agree with you that any future uprising will not be fought with pistols vs tanks.  It will be long guns vs. long guns.  Tanks are too vulnerable in densely populated areas against modible forces.  Too easy to sneak up on it and plant an IED to disable it.  Great against other tanks...but the rebels wont have tanks.  So that means you have to deploy your infantry to counter.  And its these forces that will do battle.  The tank cant just start unleashing 105mm hell into a neighborhood, this would be very bad for Group 1.  Sure, you could use it to hide behind, but thats about as useful as itll be.  Better to use APCs since they can carry more people and are protected from small arms fire.


Turn off Red Dawn bro, those Guatemalans ain't comin for ya.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:01 AM
At the rabid "MORE GUN LAWS!!! IT WILL SAVE US!!!" - listen stupids... making gun laws and regulations stricter will have -zero- effect on keeping guns out of criminal's hands.  How many street thugs do you think go to Gander Mountain for their hardware?  THEY BUY THE CRAP FROM EACH OTHER OR STEAL THEM.  Geezus.  I don't know what fairy-tale land those who think that banning sales of assault weapons or any OTHER kind of gun is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals live in.  Outlawing drugs has done wonders, eh?  Outlawing prostitution has done wonders too, right?  Oh but THIS will be DIFFERENT.  Ooh, now there's a LAW saying that punk with the automatic weapon who's robbing the bank your wife works in cannot have it - I am sure if you tell him that he'll come to his senses and put it down immediately.  Now, do I think there is ANY reason for ANYONE in the general public to have a (functioning) assault weapon? NO.  But I also know that all the laws in the world won't stop criminals from having guns.  Laws aren't magic (not too sure about ponies and friendship either).  Let's focus on mental health.  Yes keep gun laws or even make them tougher if you wish BUT WAKE UP and realize that it WILL NOT KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.  A .38 will make you just as dead as an AK-47.  Don't give me the "... but fewer bullets... fewer causalties..."  how many mass-shootings REALLY happen with assault weapons?  Y'all watch too many action films.
 
2013-04-20 08:29:01 AM

redmid17: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.

The AR-15 has been aorund since the 60s with a "standard" capacity of 30 rounds.


Hell, the M-1 Carbine was first sold to the public after WWII, and that had 15 and 30 round magazines standard.
 
2013-04-20 08:30:43 AM

AteMyBrain: That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed.


You keep using that phrase.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

/Common sense like NYS, where you aren't allowed to put more than 7 bullets in a 10 round magazine?
 
2013-04-20 08:40:54 AM

AteMyBrain: Let it go, dude. You said a stupid thing. It happens.


Is your new debate strategy to mirror everything I say to you, hoping nobody will notice?  Interesting, your intellect is that of a 5 year old.
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report