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.

(Uproxx)   Theory: The NRA Convention only exists to give Jon Stewart and The Daily Show endless amounts of material   (uproxx.com) divider line 351
    More: Amusing, NRA, Ted Cruz, political convention  
•       •       •

11036 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2013 at 12:56 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 02:07:02 PM

spawn73: Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.


Good to see that you don't actually understand how that whole organized militia works, nor that this is only one aspect of the 2A, not the sole reason for it.
 
2013-05-07 02:08:45 PM
i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...
 
2013-05-07 02:11:13 PM

optimus_grime: i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...


Arms != Ordnance.
 
2013-05-07 02:11:47 PM

spawn73: Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.


I guess you have a GED in Law.  Try reading up on your actual Constitutional Law sometimes.  Start with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is not directly connected to militia service.  The "right to bear arms" and "militia" clauses of the amendment are not legally directly related to each other.

Doesn't matter if you're in a militia or not, you still have the basic right to bear arms in the US.

"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-05-07 02:12:58 PM
Silverstaff:

  Just have random police searches of houses and cars.  Random roadblocks.  Arrest people for contraband or warrants.  Think how many criminals we could sweep up, how many lives we could save. . .just at the cost of just a little freedom, just one more amendment.


As if this isn't happening already?
Whoops, wrong house, sorry we shot your dog.


\farking pigs.
 
2013-05-07 02:13:22 PM

ronaprhys: spawn73: Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.

Good to see that you don't actually understand how that whole organized militia works, nor that this is only one aspect of the 2A, not the sole reason for it.


Then why, in this day and age, does the 2nd Amendment exist? It isn't for a 'well-regulated militia', since that was rendered irrelevant when we established a standing army. And it can't be to fight governmental tyranny because...well, we have a standing army, with tech that makes anything available to civilians about as effective as hurling pebbles. So what, pray tell, is the reason you speak of?

/For the record, I'm not for repealing the 2nd, nor am I for banning guns. I AM for better background checks and fewer loopholes to avoid background checks.
 
2013-05-07 02:13:30 PM

optimus_grime: i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...


Oh I love this line of argument. Usually, the gun nuts will tell you that the 2nd Amendment obviously doesn't apply to heavy machine guns, or artillery, or nukes. But let them put their guard down for a moment (i.e. get the slightest bit drunk) and they'll tell you how being denied their right to own rocket launchers is the greatest assault against liberty since Kristallnacht.
 
2013-05-07 02:15:23 PM
I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?
 
2013-05-07 02:15:41 PM
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz

These are the GOP heroes.......I think that is a sufficient insult to conservatives in itself.
 
2013-05-07 02:16:45 PM

Firethorn: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event."

Exactly.  All the law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights will be on their absolutely best behavior with unloaded weapons.  All the cops, mindful that these are politically active law abiding types, will be on their own best behavior.  Anybody who screws up will be raked over the coals with the approval of everybody else.  There will be enough cops in the area that any criminal elements will stay far away.

Look at it this way - it's like the difference between a 16 year old behind the wheel of a kia vs a 40 year old professional truck driver.  Sure, the truck could theoretically do more damage, but in reality the cops are going to be responding to the Kia driver doing something wrong far more often.

Along those lines, the cops actually have far more to worry about with the various officially unarmed protests - the various occupy movements, anti-war protestors, anti-gay protestors, pro-gay protestors, pro-free trade, anti-free trade, anti-globalism, and such that have a fairly extensive record of property damage and even injuries.

I figure that 90% of anybody carrying will not have any ammunition at all on them, but in a worst case scenario I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10% quickly became loaded, though most would only have a single magazine.


Jesus, how can you even put your pants on in the morning with that much brain damage?  Because people are armed and we know it, they are less of a threat than a bunch of peaceful protesters?  Listen to yourself.  Really, get a recorder, say what you said out loud and then listen to it.  It's totally farking couldn't-be-more-backward-if-you-turned-yourself-inside-out backwards.

You must be a republican.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:27 PM

Bonkthat_Again: vpb: It used to be more about hunting and gun safety.  Not enough money in that I guess.

I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing? A lot of my gun owner friends have shied away from them. Even the gun manufacturers feel like they don;t have a grip on the NRA anymore.


Freepers, white supremacists, and DoD contractors.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:33 PM

EyeballKid: Silverstaff: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1755


You're not a freedom fighter protecting your liberties from an evil tyrant. You're a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get everything you want.

EyeballKid, 2013


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

/Tyrannies do not have be started by tyrants
 
2013-05-07 02:18:01 PM

optimus_grime: i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...


I know you're being sarcastic, but having a Phalanx turret for your house is not allowed.

A Phalanx CIWS turret is obviously fully automatic.  Fully automatic weapons are strongly restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which de facto banned fully automatic weapons from civilian ownership.  (Yeah, there are some exceptions, they're expensive, hard to get, and you won't get one for a Phalanx turret).

This was upheld by SCOTUS in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Basically, Congress cannot inherently ban a weapon as long as it meets a two-pronged test:
1. It has a legitimate and lawful civilian use.  Self defense counts for this.   So does hunting.  (Fully automatic weapons failed on this, can't really hunt with a machine gun, and they aren't very practical for self defense).
2. It's in common use.  If it's a common weapon, then it's what is accepted by the society of the time.

I have actually found a number of my real-life friends who are pro-gun-control don't know this.  They have it in their heads that right now, today, you can just walk into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic gun on the spot.  Full-auto weapons were made very tightly restricted almost 80 years ago, and under no circumstance can any full auto weapon made after 1986 be lawfully owned by a civilian in the US.
 
2013-05-07 02:18:26 PM

Coastalgrl: Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".


Tell your friend this is demonstrably false, because one of the very first modern "mass shootings" happened in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
 
2013-05-07 02:18:28 PM

EyeballKid: Silverstaff: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1755


You're not a freedom fighter protecting your liberties from an evil tyrant. You're a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get everything you want.

EyeballKid, 2013


This x100.  Why don't you guys just stop lying and be truthful about your selfish reasons?  People would respect it a lot more than the pathetic comparisons.
 
2013-05-07 02:18:28 PM

Coastalgrl: "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker.


Which incident? The bombing itself? The last thing I thought when I was watching the immediate aftermath of the bomb going off on Boylston Street was "You know what this chaotic situation could use? Some crossfire."
 
2013-05-07 02:18:47 PM

Coastalgrl: Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".


Or people with a vague resemblance to the bombers would've gotten shot, or police might've mistaken some wannabe vigilante for an accomplice and shot him, or the bombers could've stolen more weaponry...

Encouraging vigilantism is not a good idea.
 
2013-05-07 02:18:53 PM

Coastalgrl: No one would ever try this in Texas".


Fort Hood and clock tower guy disagree.
 
2013-05-07 02:20:01 PM
Marcus Aurelius:
 It's a GOP fringe group.

Except when a Democrat is solid on gun rights:
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2010/06/14/ohio-governor-lands-nr a- endorsement-in-campaign/
But please hold on to your "vast right-wing conspiracy"
 
2013-05-07 02:22:00 PM

optimus_grime: i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...


www.awesomestories.com
 
2013-05-07 02:22:31 PM

12349876: Coastalgrl: No one would ever try this in Texas".

Fort Hood and clock tower guy disagree.


Eh, I wouldn't count Fort Hood, the gun nuts will be in here in a second to tell you how you can't carry on an army base. But clock tower guy definitely applies.
 
2013-05-07 02:23:05 PM

LordJiro: ronaprhys: spawn73: Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.

Good to see that you don't actually understand how that whole organized militia works, nor that this is only one aspect of the 2A, not the sole reason for it.

Then why, in this day and age, does the 2nd Amendment exist? It isn't for a 'well-regulated militia', since that was rendered irrelevant when we established a standing army. And it can't be to fight governmental tyranny because...well, we have a standing army, with tech that makes anything available to civilians about as effective as hurling pebbles. So what, pray tell, is the reason you speak of?

/For the record, I'm not for repealing the 2nd, nor am I for banning guns. I AM for better background checks and fewer loopholes to avoid background checks.


Because it served multiple purposes, one of which revolves around the unorganized militia (of which all males citizens, aged 17-45 are a part). This still exists.  That being said, self-defense also factors in.  I disagree with your comment on governmental tyranny, though.  What you seem to envision is a fight between two standing armies, which I would agree is a failed concept.  Trying to fight our military is a losing proposition at this point.  However, that's not the only method.  It also assumes that those in the military are mindless automatons who'll do nothing but turn their arms on citizens - which is one hell of a stretch, in the big picture.

I'd argue that the background checks now would likely work just fine - but I do remember reading that many states aren't actually collecting all of the data necessary to process them properly.  Fixing that doesn't require new laws, it requires fixing the lack of reporting (specifically around mentally unstable types).  Secondly, a huge component of our homicide rate is related to illegal drugs.  Obviously our approach there isn't working - what can we do to fix that?
 
2013-05-07 02:23:12 PM

Coastalgrl: I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?


I'm sorry but your friend sounds like just another ignorant gun nut.
 
2013-05-07 02:24:20 PM

Firethorn: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event."

Exactly.  All the law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights will be on their absolutely best behavior with unloaded weapons.


That's not their stated plan.
 
2013-05-07 02:24:35 PM

Mighty_Joe: Except when a Democrat is solid on gun rights:
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2010/06/14/ohio-governor-lands-nr a- endorsement-in-campaign/
But please hold on to your "vast right-wing conspiracy"


Wow, that left-leaning Ted Strickland? I'll bet he's as liberal as those hippies Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Bart Stupak.

Yes, Virginia, there are right-wing Democrats, or "Blue Dogs," or "obvious stooges," however you wanna call them.
 
2013-05-07 02:25:47 PM

Silverstaff: However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.


I disagree. I know many responsible gun owners, and any time the NRA comes up in the conversation, they are pretty quick to distance themselves. Even the ones who ARE members.

Their behavior is so extreme of late that they give gun opponents a handy target to beat up on, and make the rest of you look bad by association. They represent you about as well as PETA represents animal lovers.

Giving them money just encourages them. I guarantee they'd start to act more reasonably if (and only if) failing to do so was costing them money.
 
2013-05-07 02:27:30 PM

CynicalLA: Coastalgrl: I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?

I'm sorry but your friend sounds like just another ignorant gun nut.


Nope a boring professor who doesn't even own a gun. Took a rifle class once.
 
2013-05-07 02:28:22 PM

CynicalLA: EyeballKid: Silverstaff: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1755


You're not a freedom fighter protecting your liberties from an evil tyrant. You're a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get everything you want.

EyeballKid, 2013

This x100.  Why don't you guys just stop lying and be truthful about your selfish reasons?  People would respect it a lot more than the pathetic comparisons.


Because I'm not lying, and I'm not being selfish.

What I want:

1.  To be able to own semi automatic pistols with ammo with high stopping power (like hollow point) for defense of my home and family, and to carry that weapon in a concealed fashion for self defense after going through proper background checks and training/verification of skill (I do have a concealed weapons permit).

2.  To own semi automatic rifles such as an AR-15 for target shooting purposes.  While I don't hunt, I would like to think that I could go hunting with it if I chose to.

3. To be able to sell, swap and exchange firearms with friends and acquaintances that are gun enthusiasts without fear that we're going to PMITA prison for some tiny technical violation of Federal law

(Note, every one of those 3 things is legal right now)

4. To be able to engage in the above three things without interference from well meaning but misguided individuals in attempts to "do something" about a non-existent crime problem or who feel threatened or unsafe by the very existence of guns.

Funny thing is, when something bad in this country happens, there's so often a rush to "do something" with legislation.  Crap like that is how we got the PATRIOT Act.  Let's not double down on that derp with gun control right after some senseless shooting that while tragic, is a statistical outlier in an overall downward trend in violent crime.
 
2013-05-07 02:29:56 PM

Coastalgrl: Nope a boring professor who doesn't even own a gun. Took a rifle class once.


Well, he using their argument and people have posted why he is ignorant of the history of Texas gun violence.
 
2013-05-07 02:30:08 PM

Wade_Wilson: Silverstaff: However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

I disagree. I know many responsible gun owners, and any time the NRA comes up in the conversation, they are pretty quick to distance themselves. Even the ones who ARE members.

Their behavior is so extreme of late that they give gun opponents a handy target to beat up on, and make the rest of you look bad by association. They represent you about as well as PETA represents animal lovers.

Giving them money just encourages them. I guarantee they'd start to act more reasonably if (and only if) failing to do so was costing them money.


His statement was that the best way to thwart anti-gun activists was to pay his dues and let the NRA fight the fight.  Objectively, that seems to be true.  Feinstein's nonsense was stopped and it's difficult to argue that they didn't have a large role in that.  Same with the other proposals that were put forth.  Not getting the AWB renewed?  Seems like they played a big roll in that.

I'm not saying I agree with their tactics and all of their stances, but I don't think you can argue their effectiveness.
 
2013-05-07 02:30:42 PM

Silverstaff: Fun

ny thing is, when something bad in this country happens, there's so often a rush to "do something" with legislation. Crap like that is how we got the PATRIOT Act. Let's not double down on that derp with gun control right after some senseless shooting that while tragic, is a statistical outlier in an overall downward trend in violent crime.

I know, right? Imagine how bad Aurora or Newtown would have looked had background checks been in place!
 
2013-05-07 02:31:49 PM

EyeballKid: Silverstaff: Funny thing is, when something bad in this country happens, there's so often a rush to "do something" with legislation. Crap like that is how we got the PATRIOT Act. Let's not double down on that derp with gun control right after some senseless shooting that while tragic, is a statistical outlier in an overall downward trend in violent crime.

I know, right? Imagine how bad Aurora or Newtown would have looked had background checks been in place!


You've got to be an obvious troll to say that.

what is this I don't even.
 
2013-05-07 02:32:24 PM

Coastalgrl: I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?


I have vaguely similar ideas. I've built a couple of bows (badly, but it's still fun to target shoot with something you've made with your own two hands). I would like everyone who owns a gun or a car to be responsible and trained in basic safety measures.

I'll push things a little further - see what you think: I think that being able to handle a gun safely should be considered one of those areas of basic knowledge that people acquire as they grow up. I'm not saying that every kid should be forced to know it, any more than every kid should be forced to learn how to drive or to swim. I'm saying that there should be no social stigma attached to learning how to tell if a gun is loaded, how to check the safety, how to unload it, etc.

What do you think - have I taken things further than you're comfortable with?
 
2013-05-07 02:34:31 PM

ronaprhys: I'd argue that the background checks now would likely work just fine - but I do remember reading that many states aren't actually collecting all of the data necessary to process them properly. Fixing that doesn't require new laws, it requires fixing the lack of reporting (specifically around mentally unstable types).


Except the NRA fights against increases in funding for reporting and processing that data. "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws" is a red herring and always has been.
 
2013-05-07 02:34:33 PM
It used to be that there was a  slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA
 
2013-05-07 02:34:49 PM
Did they poop on cop cars? Or have a "No RAPEY TENT"? Did they smash up shiat and leave a mess?
Or are they just acting like tards while trying to do the right thing an uphold a constitutional right that if people really want to change they can Propose and try to get it ratified... as is the law?
 
2013-05-07 02:37:03 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: It used to be that there was a  slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA


The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.
 
2013-05-07 02:37:16 PM

spawn73: They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.


You would learn what the "Militia" was by the language of the times, by reading the Federalist Papers.  Also "regulated", since that's your next "but..but..".  Hint: Everyone who isn't the military, and exercised, are what these two things mean.
 
2013-05-07 02:40:03 PM

ronaprhys: You've got to be an obvious troll to say that.

what is this I don't even.


What's to get? I know you cool-headed gun-grabbers are always slow to discuss doing something about mass shootings -- which is why it's always "too soon" to discuss solutions after said mass shootings -- but the "let's not do something rash like we did when we were cool with the PATRIOT Act" approach is absolute bullshiat. There is no way a background check not unlike that which the NRA...oops, that is, the GOP senators rejected recently, would have made said shootings worse, though the common argument has been, "Wouldn't'a done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, so fark it," which is the same rationale for that time when speed limits were abolished, since they didn't stop a fatal car crash. Quit making bullshiat excuses when you're just scared that it might be slightly less convenient for you to play tough guy with a gun at a firing range or a wooded area.
 
2013-05-07 02:43:01 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.


Hey, the problem with freedom is that you have to give it to everybody.  The problem with limiting freedom is that you have to limit it for everybody.

It's amazing what you can get a white person to give up for the sake of stopping a minority from having it.  See every drug law ever.
 
2013-05-07 02:44:21 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: ItchyMcDoogle: It used to be that there was a  slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA

The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.


You mean the "Black Panthers" not just black people but nice try to paint them as racist as dems. Who was the last Klan grand Pubah elected to office again?
 
2013-05-07 02:45:09 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: ronaprhys: I'd argue that the background checks now would likely work just fine - but I do remember reading that many states aren't actually collecting all of the data necessary to process them properly. Fixing that doesn't require new laws, it requires fixing the lack of reporting (specifically around mentally unstable types).

Except the NRA fights against increases in funding for reporting and processing that data. "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws" is a red herring and always has been.


And I disagree.  Gun grabbers have tried a variety of laws and they consistently seem to fail.  In fact, removing restrictions seems to result in either no negative impact or a downward trend in firearm deaths in that locality, whereas restricting private firearm ownership seems to result in the opposite.

Maybe there are other causes.  The failed war on drugs, for example?  Disenfranchisement of a large and young group of males, most of whom live in inner city environments, as another?

Also, there's the complete fallacy that making something illegal has ever had much impact in the US.  Prohibition and illegal drugs are two great examples of that.
 
2013-05-07 02:45:46 PM

Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: ItchyMcDoogle: It used to be that there was a  slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA

The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.

You mean the "Black Panthers" not just black people but nice try to paint them as racist as dems. Who was the last Klan grand Pubah elected to office again?


So the fact that it was not just black people, but a group of black people, makes the difference? Interesting.
 
2013-05-07 02:46:29 PM

ronaprhys: Also, there's the complete fallacy that making something illegal has ever had much impact in the US. Prohibition and illegal drugs are two great examples of that.


I drove 36 in a 25 mph zone without being ticketed. Therefore, every street should be like the Autobahn.
 
2013-05-07 02:49:28 PM

ronaprhys: And I disagree. Gun grabbers have tried a variety of laws and they consistently seem to fail. In fact, removing restrictions seems to result in either no negative impact or a downward trend in firearm deaths in that locality, whereas restricting private firearm ownership seems to result in the opposite.


Also, there's the complete fallacy that making something illegal has ever had much impact in the US.  Prohibition and illegal drugs are two great examples of that.


Couldn't disagree more. Gun nuts argue against restrictions on full automatics, because they're "hardly ever used in crimes". Well geniuses, its because they've been almost completely illegal since within a few years of their invention. I'd say that's been pretty effective.
 
2013-05-07 02:50:44 PM
The NRA exists to give the average Joe a voice in protecting the Second Amendment

libtards suck communist pickles
 
2013-05-07 02:51:20 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: ItchyMcDoogle: It used to be that there was a  slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA

The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.

You mean the "Black Panthers" not just black people but nice try to paint them as racist as dems. Who was the last Klan grand Pubah elected to office again?

So the fact that it was not just black people, but a group of black people, makes the difference? Interesting.


Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?
 
2013-05-07 02:52:29 PM

EyeballKid: What's to get? I know you cool-headed gun-grabbers are always slow to discuss doing something about mass shootings -- which is why it's always "too soon" to discuss solutions after said mass shootings -- but the "let's not do something rash like we did when we were cool with the PATRIOT Act" approach is absolute bullshiat. There is no way a background check not unlike that which the NRA...oops, that is, the GOP senators rejected recently, would have made said shootings worse, though the common argument has been, "Wouldn't'a done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, so fark it," which is the same rationale for that time when speed limits were abolished, since they didn't stop a fatal car crash. Quit making bullshiat excuses when you're just scared that it might be slightly less convenient for you to play tough guy with a gun at a firing range or a wooded area.


The Newtown shooter shot his mom in the face and stole her guns.  How would background checks have prevented that?  And why does your side pretend that "background checks" is really what that proposal was about?  It was a registration scheme, plain and simple.

If this was about background checks, we'd be able to get checked, get a card that says "this guy is clean", and use that without the sales being registered.  Like a concealed carry license; you need to have  a clean record to get one.  That should be enough background check, if what you REALLY want is to make sure someone's background has been, you know, checked.
 
2013-05-07 02:52:40 PM

ronaprhys: His statement was that the best way to thwart anti-gun activists was to pay his dues and let the NRA fight the fight.  Objectively, that seems to be true.  Feinstein's nonsense was stopped and it's difficult to argue that they didn't have a large role in that.  Same with the other proposals that were put forth.  Not getting the AWB renewed?  Seems like they played a big roll in that.

I'm not saying I agree with their tactics and all of their stances, but I don't think you can argue their effectiveness.


Not my point. In any debate, you have both reasonable people who discuss the matter and compromise like adults, and psychopaths who rant and rave, but get attention because they are louder than their peers. Both groups are found on both sides.

There are both reasonable gun owners who want hunting rifles, and maybe a handgun or two to defend their families if anything ever went down, and there are nuts who think everyone would act civilly if we all carried RPGs. On the other side there are people who think maybe we should have more background checks and a limit on magazine size, and there are buffoons who want to kick down the door and confiscate anything deadlier than a Nerf product.

What matters is who is allowed to dominate the conversation. Right now I don't see anyone on the "kick down the door" side being taken seriously, and no legislation of that kind even being suggested. The "let's arm lunch ladies so no one cuts in line" crowd, however, is getting standing Os.

The purpose of the extremists, despite what they have to say on the matter, is to cancel each other out so that hopefully sanity reigns. But right now the NRA is looking far too nutty to be considered reasonable, and like it or not, they are the face of gun owners in the US. They'd tone it down if it were costing them money, but if people are paying even if they disagree, why should they? They don't know (or care) if the dollars you send are in support of their behavior or not. A kid who gets candy when he's both good and bad as no reason to ever be good.
 
2013-05-07 02:53:36 PM

djh0101010: It was a registration scheme, plain and simple.


Creating a registry was explicitly banned in the Toomey-Manchin proposal.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report