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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report