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  
•       •       •

11056 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2013 at 12:56 PM (1 year 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 02:54:47 PM  

Silverstaff: The NRA says and does a lot of stupid things.

I still pay them membership dues.  Why?

Because they do one thing very, VERY well.  They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right.  I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators.  However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse).  Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

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

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job.  That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.


I would say the ACLU would be a perfect litmus test. If they're not going to advocate for you, then your civil liberties or constitutional rights aren't infringed. Until they're on your side, nothing that's being done should be considered an infringement on your gun fetish.
 
2013-05-07 02:55:04 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.


Gun control does have a long history of racism both in explicit wording of laws and in selective enforcement, yes.
 
2013-05-07 02:55:10 PM  
No statistical evidence that gun bans reduce gun crime, period. The previous assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing. How has Chicago been these many years?

That is what people like me have a problem with. Gun control has ALWAYS been a liberal ideal. They simply want to take our guns, period. Can call it what you want, but liberals would be ecstatic if they could ban guns, then break the 4th amendment so they could go house to house taking them. That is exactly what they want.

They don't want to tackle the problems, which are bad people and bad parenting, coupled with a mental health system that sucks and nobody having responsibility anymore. Can't legislate that. Difference is now, kids are so entitled and selfish and screwed up they think nothing of going on a shooting rampage. Older generations of kids tended to be taught things like responsibility, empathy, caring, and being a decent human being. Why is it so many people like me grew up with unlimited access to guns, and ammunition, yet school shootings were extremely rare? Logical solution would not be to tighten gun laws, but loosen them.
 
2013-05-07 02:55:41 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Not much.

"There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event."


Interesting...  Please note that I consider actually marching/protesting with a firearm to be a rather extreme act, but then I tend not to protest in general.

Still, one of their links was them counter-protesting a gun control protest.  Discounting the tone of the article:
1.  These people aren't professional protestors.  They're doing it on their own.  As such, expect stupid and inarticulate arguments at times.  I mean, even the POTUS flubs at times, and he's a professional at it.
2.  "Do you know anyone who goes hunting with this?" - speaking of an AR-15.  Fact is, most gun owners today don't hunt.  Most guns sold are unlikely to EVER be used in the act of hunting.  I own a number of perfectly good hunting rifles as well as a AR-15.  Guess which one I take to the range more often?  The AR provides a good shooting experience, allowing you to fire at longer ranges than with a .22lr firearm while still keeping ammunition costs and shoulder abuse to a minimum.  It also doubles as an excellent home defense weapon.

Finally, AR-15 rifles are actually used for hunting.  AR-15 rifles are extremely modular.  In under a minute without tools I can change the caliber, sight, add or remove a front grip or bipod, etc...

Roughly speaking, the AR15 is the SUV of guns - and not a wimpy SUV either, but one that's as ready to tow a boat as it is to go mudding.
 
2013-05-07 02:56:54 PM  

Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?


Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.
 
2013-05-07 02:57:11 PM  

Thunderpipes: How has Chicago been these many years?


Chicago has been getting its guns from elsewhere inside the state and across state lines. A perfect example of why we need expanded background checks on a national level.
 
2013-05-07 02:58:36 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: The NRA exists to give the average Joe a voice in protecting the Second Amendment

libtards suck communist pickles


This what retarded rednecks actually believe and why the gun industry is booming right now.  They have you idiots duped with fear and are making a ton of money.  You keep sticking it to those libtards though.
 
2013-05-07 02:59:44 PM  

Wade_Wilson: 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 wh ...


Instead of trying to get arround a constitutional right by nefarious means, maybe they should do it the proper way and have a propasal to change the amendment and ratification of said proposal, you know, the right and legal way to change the constitution? After allif the "90% want it"  is in fact true then 2/3 should be no problem right?
 
2013-05-07 03:00:52 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: 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.


No, the argument is that legally-owned fully automatics are rarely used.  Illegally obtained ones, however, may be a different story.

The counter to that is that other arms have also substituted themselves quite nicely for fully automatics.  But explain to me how prohibition and the war on drugs are working out for us.
 
2013-05-07 03:01:45 PM  

Joe Blowme: Instead of trying to get arround a constitutional right by nefarious means, maybe they should do it the proper way and have a propasal to change the amendment and ratification of said proposal, you know, the right and legal way to change the constitution? After allif the "90% want it" is in fact true then 2/3 should be no problem right?


Considering that the bastion of conservative legal thought, Antonin Scalia has written that none of the gun control measures being proposed in the Senate would actually violate the Constitution, we're gonna go with no.
 
2013-05-07 03:01:50 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?

Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.


Ahhh the old point to stupidity to justify other stupidity, i think you have to throw a THE CRUSADES!!! or a RON PAUL in there somewhere to make it count.

/But mommy, Billy did it too so that makes it ok!!!
 
2013-05-07 03:04:52 PM  

Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?

Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.

Ahhh the old point to stupidity to justify other stupidity, i think you have to throw a THE CRUSADES!!! or a RON PAUL in there somewhere to make it count.

/But mommy, Billy did it too so that makes it ok!!!


Except, that ain't it at all.
 
2013-05-07 03:05:59 PM  

ronaprhys: No, the argument is that legally-owned fully automatics are rarely used. Illegally obtained ones, however, may be a different story.

The counter to that is that other arms have also substituted themselves quite nicely for fully automatics. But explain to me how prohibition and the war on drugs are working out for us.


There's a world of difference between a drug that can be grown in a field or even a basement and a repeating firearm that requires precision machining. The U.K. has massive drug problems same as us, but their gun problems are practically nil.
 
2013-05-07 03:07:14 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Instead of trying to get arround a constitutional right by nefarious means, maybe they should do it the proper way and have a propasal to change the amendment and ratification of said proposal, you know, the right and legal way to change the constitution? After allif the "90% want it" is in fact true then 2/3 should be no problem right?

Considering that the bastion of conservative legal thought, Antonin Scalia has written that none of the gun control measures being proposed in the Senate would actually violate the Constitution, we're gonna go with no.


Because you know it could not be done the right way, but thanks for playing.
 
2013-05-07 03:07:30 PM  

Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?

Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.

Ahhh the old point to stupidity to justify other stupidity, i think you have to throw a THE CRUSADES!!! or a RON PAUL in there somewhere to make it count.

/But mommy, Billy did it too so that makes it ok!!!


I take it you didn't actually do what I suggested, because you have no idea what COINTELPRO actually was.
 
2013-05-07 03:08:51 PM  
That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.
 
2013-05-07 03:11:09 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: ronaprhys: No, the argument is that legally-owned fully automatics are rarely used. Illegally obtained ones, however, may be a different story.

The counter to that is that other arms have also substituted themselves quite nicely for fully automatics. But explain to me how prohibition and the war on drugs are working out for us.

There's a world of difference between a drug that can be grown in a field or even a basement and a repeating firearm that requires precision machining. The U.K. has massive drug problems same as us, but their gun problems are practically nil.


They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well. 
Also, firearm manufacturing isn't particularly difficult.  It really hasn't changed much at all since the turn of the century and anyone with any mechanical sense can do it with relative ease.  I don't disagree that the items are different, but Prohibition in the United States has never worked.  If we want something, we'll get it. Plain and simple.
 
2013-05-07 03:12:00 PM  

Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.


Conservatives already have the Democrats.
 
2013-05-07 03:12:06 PM  

Silverstaff: The NRA says and does a lot of stupid things.

I still pay them membership dues.  Why?

Because they do one thing very, VERY well.  They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right.  I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators.  However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse).  Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

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

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job.  That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.


PETA also does one thing and does it very well.
But they are batshiat insane and will never get one dime of mine or my support.
There are other animal welfare organizations out there who aren't insane and who do the job better, who should be getting my support.
So I won't be like you and just buy in to "the ends justifies the means".
 
2013-05-07 03:13:54 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?

Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.

Ahhh the old point to stupidity to justify other stupidity, i think you have to throw a THE CRUSADES!!! or a RON PAUL in there somewhere to make it count.

/But mommy, Billy did it too so that makes it ok!!!

I take it you didn't actually do what I suggested, because you have no idea what COINTELPRO actually was.


Yes, FBI was out to get them... because they were innocent people that just wanted to fart unicorns and ride rainbows. No go do some real research on the Black Panther Party. Then you can come back and justify retardation of BPP by pointing out the retardation of the FBI. I bet you are one of those "chickens come home to roost" kinda guys

/but mommy, Billy MADE me do it.
 
2013-05-07 03:14:16 PM  

ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.


I love this stupid argument the most.  It reminds of the health care debate.  The comparison works really well and you are just too selfish to admit it.  See Austrailia for even a better comparison.
 
2013-05-07 03:15:25 PM  

Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.


As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?
 
2013-05-07 03:17:17 PM  

Joe Blowme: Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.

As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?


Are you trying to make pro-gun people look like complete retards?  If so, please continue.
 
2013-05-07 03:17:46 PM  

ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture. Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.
Also, firearm manufacturing isn't particularly difficult. It really hasn't changed much at all since the turn of the century and anyone with any mechanical sense can do it with relative ease. I don't disagree that the items are different, but Prohibition in the United States has never worked. If we want something, we'll get it. Plain and simple.


Again, demonstrably false. Tim McVeigh didn't use fertilizer and diesel because he couldn't afford C4.
 
2013-05-07 03:20:10 PM  

CynicalLA: Joe Blowme: Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.

As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?

Are you trying to make pro-gun  Elecets democrat officials people look like complete retards?  If so, please continue.


/FTFY so people will at least think you can actually read other posts
 
2013-05-07 03:20:29 PM  

CynicalLA: ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.

I love this stupid argument the most.  It reminds of the health care debate.  The comparison works really well and you are just too selfish to admit it.  See Austrailia for even a better comparison.


Australia had non-gun crime decrease at the same rate as gun crime after their gun control law.

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.

Cross-cultural comparisons are tough.
 
2013-05-07 03:21:45 PM  

Joe Blowme: Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.

As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?


Citation please.
 
2013-05-07 03:21:59 PM  

draypresct: CynicalLA: ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.

I love this stupid argument the most.  It reminds of the health care debate.  The comparison works really well and you are just too selfish to admit it.  See Austrailia for even a better comparison.

Australia had non-gun crime decrease at the same rate as gun crime after their gun control law.

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.

Cross-cultural comparisons are tough.


Not really.
 
2013-05-07 03:23:39 PM  

Begoggle: PETA also does one thing and does it very well.
But they are batshiat insane and will never get one dime of mine or my support.
There are other animal welfare organizations out there who aren't insane and who do the job better, who should be getting my support.
So I won't be like you and just buy in to "the ends justifies the means".


PETA isn't exactly fighting the repeal of animal cruelty laws, though.  They had a goal, they achieved it, and their mission warped to perpetuate the bureaucracy rather than to achieve the initial goals.  The NRA fights and continues to fight to maintain gun rights against what are incremental encroachments (see: Social Justice).  So there's a substantial difference between the two groups within the terms on which you compare them.
 
2013-05-07 03:26:38 PM  

CynicalLA: ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.

I love this stupid argument the most.  It reminds of the health care debate.  The comparison works really well and you are just too selfish to admit it.  See Austrailia for even a better comparison.


See Australia for a complete violation of what we'd call the 2A and 4A.  Also, hint:  just because you think an argument is stupid doesn't make it so.
 
2013-05-07 03:27:57 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture. Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.
Also, firearm manufacturing isn't particularly difficult. It really hasn't changed much at all since the turn of the century and anyone with any mechanical sense can do it with relative ease. I don't disagree that the items are different, but Prohibition in the United States has never worked. If we want something, we'll get it. Plain and simple.

Again, demonstrably false. Tim McVeigh didn't use fertilizer and diesel because he couldn't afford C4.


I'll take the exception for the rule for $200, Alex.

Try again.
 
2013-05-07 03:29:32 PM  

Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Wolf_Blitzer: Joe Blowme: Know how i know you know nothing about the history of the Black Panther party?

Oh I get it, we're pretending it was a terrorist organization. Maybe you should look up a little thing called COINTELPRO.

Ahhh the old point to stupidity to justify other stupidity, i think you have to throw a THE CRUSADES!!! or a RON PAUL in there somewhere to make it count.

/But mommy, Billy did it too so that makes it ok!!!

I take it you didn't actually do what I suggested, because you have no idea what COINTELPRO actually was.

Yes, FBI was out to get them... because they were innocent people that just wanted to fart unicorns and ride rainbows. No go do some real research on the Black Panther Party. Then you can come back and justify retardation of BPP by pointing out the retardation of the FBI. I bet you are one of those "chickens come home to roost" kinda guys

/but mommy, Billy MADE me do it.


A group of citizens that banded together to arm and defend themselves in the face of a state apparatus that not only failed to offer that protection but was in fact openly malicious to blacks.

Pretty much a go to example of what an armed citizenry is good for, no?
 
2013-05-07 03:31:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Me, a gun owner, to the NRA...


Seriously. NRA : gun owners :: MPAA : movie watchers.

/gun owner
//not NRA member
 
2013-05-07 03:31:07 PM  

CynicalLA: draypresct: CynicalLA: ronaprhys: They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture.  Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.

I love this stupid argument the most.  It reminds of the health care debate.  The comparison works really well and you are just too selfish to admit it.  See Austrailia for even a better comparison.

Australia had non-gun crime decrease at the same rate as gun crime after their gun control law.

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime.

Cross-cultural comparisons are tough.

Not really.


Yes, really. I'm guessing you don't think we should increase gun ownership to Switzerland levels in order to reduce gun crime.

Cross-cultural comparisons are really tough in health care, politics, and just about anything else involving people. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it easy to draw meaningful conclusions.
 
Ant
2013-05-07 03:33:44 PM  

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?


If I didn't know any better I'd think they were trying to get rid of it by giving it a bad name.

Holy crap! The NRA is a false flag operation!!!!
 
2013-05-07 03:34:07 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: 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.


You guys are forgetting the Luby's shooting in Killeen also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre
 
2013-05-07 03:35:27 PM  

Joe Blowme: Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.
Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.
Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.

As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?


Cargo-cult reply detected.

"I've seen people say that Republicans are electing the crazy, so I will say Democrats are the ones doing it!"

FYI, Joe Blowme (favorite: typical lying Republican), this is an actual ELECTED Republican:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-07 03:39:23 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: The NRA says and does a lot of stupid things.

I still pay them membership dues.  Why?

Because they do one thing very, VERY well.  They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right.  I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators.  However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse).  Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

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

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job.  That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.

Its an absolutist position that probably gets thousands of people unnecessarily killed each year, but at least its an ethos.


Less than 400 deaths a year come from rifles of which assault weapons are a part of. So ignorance of stating thousands must be your ethos.
 
2013-05-07 03:40:34 PM  

Silverstaff: 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.


Given that SCotUS said that they didn't know of shotguns in current-use by the average soldier in the military at the time (though they were)...and automatic weapons are in current-use in the military at this time, Miller would seem to me to imply that M-16s ought to be under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-05-07 03:41:14 PM  

draypresct: 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'v ...

In all seriousness: This sounds like gun control. How would you mandate this? Or enforce it? What standards would you use for "gun safety"?
IMHO, I have no problem with people learning this stuff, but if you want to "require" it, then you may piss off the NRA, who don't seem to want to have ANY government involvement where firearms are concerned. They always seem to skip over that "well-regulated militia" part.

So yeah, the wife is not too happy with me wanting to school my daughters on firearm safety. We are both what most would call Liberal or Progressive, but I have no problem with gun ownership. Also, I dont have a problem with Government regulation of guns.
 
2013-05-07 03:41:55 PM  

JohnCarter: Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.


Plenty of gun owners (myself included) are happy to acknowledge those people are nuts... I'm against the AWB, magazine limits, and a litany of other proposals... but I cannot, for the life of me, think of any reason a responsible gun owner would be against universal background checks. The NRA exists to represent manufacturers and extremists, not responsible, sane, gun owners.
 
2013-05-07 03:44:52 PM  

Silverstaff: 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.


So you acknowledge the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, and gun ownership can be related to some extent. How then do background checks run afoul of the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-05-07 03:45:14 PM  

impaler: JohnCarter: Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

"the NRA held it's annual gun/nut convention"

Happy now?


GAAAAH!!

eloquentscience.com

/* or "it has", but definitely not "its".
 
2013-05-07 03:47:28 PM  

RoboZombie: In all seriousness: This sounds like gun control. How would you mandate this? Or enforce it? What standards would you use for "gun safety"?
IMHO, I have no problem with people learning this stuff, but if you want to "require" it, then you may piss off the NRA, who don't seem to want to have ANY government involvement where firearms are concerned. They always seem to skip over that "well-regulated militia" part.


You seem to be skipping past the definition at the time.  Well-regulated meant that it was well-trained and -supplied.

RoboZombie: So yeah, the wife is not too happy with me wanting to school my daughters on firearm safety.


Sheesh.  Your wife's like some ultra-conservative who objects to the idea of teaching sex ed on the grounds that it encourages promiscuity.  Teaching gun safety should be a requirement for high school graduation.  Now actual use and operation of firearms is a different matter; I'd like it to be taught in high school, at least as an elective, but I'm realistic enough to know that's just not going to happen in most states.
 
2013-05-07 03:50:38 PM  

firefly212: JohnCarter: Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

Plenty of gun owners (myself included) are happy to acknowledge those people are nuts... I'm against the AWB, magazine limits, and a litany of other proposals... but I cannot, for the life of me, think of any reason a responsible gun owner would be against universal background checks. The NRA exists to represent manufacturers and extremists, not responsible, sane, gun owners.


I am not against background checks, from licensed dealers. I am against background checks if my buddy wants to sell me an old rifle, or if I want to pass down my M1A and numbers matching K98 to my son. Oh sure, you will say they want to exempt family members, etc. How quickly does that change? That is the problem with people, slippery slope never ends. next would be federal registry, then would be stowage laws, then "safety checks" to make sure, then people going to prison for having an empty magazine in their trunk and driving through the wrong state, etc...... Next thing you know, it is such a pain in the ass to own weapons, people stop doing it, and liberals win. Remember, originally, Diane the witch even wanted passing down weapons to descendants illegal, wanted government to seize them upon the original owners' death. Give em an inch, they will take a mile.
 
2013-05-07 03:51:48 PM  

firefly212: Plenty of gun owners (myself included) are happy to acknowledge those people are nuts... I'm against the AWB, magazine limits, and a litany of other proposals... but I cannot, for the life of me, think of any reason a responsible gun owner would be against universal background checks. The NRA exists to represent manufacturers and extremists, not responsible, sane, gun owners.


I want to have the option to run background checks, but not the requirement.  Several reasons as to why:
-What mechanism will be used to run these background checks?  How will that be paid for?  In order to expand it to include all private firearm sales, new mechanisms will have to be created as the existing ones may not be up to the influx.
-How do you enforce this?  How many millions of firearms exist right now with no real trackable path as to how they got to their owner?  So while it might be somewhat enforceable with new firearm sales, all of those others are under the radar.
-What about privacy concerns?  How can we be sure that whatever new mechanism is put in place won't be abused?  Right now it's possible, but unlikely, that firearm stores would abuse the system.  No real motive.  However, I can certainly see situations where the system might be abused.
-What actual impact will this new restriction get us?  It doesn't seem that background checks would impact Sandy Hook, Aurora, VA Tech, or any of the other mass shootings of recent memory.  Nor does it seem likely that it'll cause any reduction in homicides related to drugs/gangs, which as I recall, are the majority of the current homicides.  So, if that's the case, why introduce something new that's unlikely to cause any meaningful drop in the homicide rate?
 
2013-05-07 03:52:27 PM  

stevarooni: RoboZombie: In all seriousness: This sounds like gun control. How would you mandate this? Or enforce it? What standards would you use for "gun safety"?
IMHO, I have no problem with people learning this stuff, but if you want to "require" it, then you may piss off the NRA, who don't seem to want to have ANY government involvement where firearms are concerned. They always seem to skip over that "well-regulated militia" part.

You seem to be skipping past the definition at the time.  Well-regulated meant that it was well-trained and -supplied.

RoboZombie: So yeah, the wife is not too happy with me wanting to school my daughters on firearm safety.

Sheesh.  Your wife's like some ultra-conservative who objects to the idea of teaching sex ed on the grounds that it encourages promiscuity.  Teaching gun safety should be a requirement for high school graduation.  Now actual use and operation of firearms is a different matter; I'd like it to be taught in high school, at least as an elective, but I'm realistic enough to know that's just not going to happen in most states.


Most states?

Wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it can get you arrested in school now. Teaching firearm safety? Hehe.
 
2013-05-07 03:54:49 PM  

Thunderpipes: Oh sure, you will say they want to exempt family members, etc.


Toomey-Manchin did this.

Thunderpipes: How quickly does that change?


It's been 20 years since the last gun regulation was passed and you're worried about the next next one?

Thunderpipes: That is the problem with people, slippery slope never ends.


You're the one invoking the fallacy.
 
2013-05-07 03:56:03 PM  

ronaprhys: firefly212: Plenty of gun owners (myself included) are happy to acknowledge those people are nuts... I'm against the AWB, magazine limits, and a litany of other proposals... but I cannot, for the life of me, think of any reason a responsible gun owner would be against universal background checks. The NRA exists to represent manufacturers and extremists, not responsible, sane, gun owners.

I want to have the option to run background checks, but not the requirement.  Several reasons as to why:
-What mechanism will be used to run these background checks?  How will that be paid for?  In order to expand it to include all private firearm sales, new mechanisms will have to be created as the existing ones may not be up to the influx.
-How do you enforce this?  How many millions of firearms exist right now with no real trackable path as to how they got to their owner?  So while it might be somewhat enforceable with new firearm sales, all of those others are under the radar.
-What about privacy concerns?  How can we be sure that whatever new mechanism is put in place won't be abused?  Right now it's possible, but unlikely, that firearm stores would abuse the system.  No real motive.  However, I can certainly see situations where the system might be abused.
-What actual impact will this new restriction get us?  It doesn't seem that background checks would impact Sandy Hook, Aurora, VA Tech, or any of the other mass shootings of recent memory.  Nor does it seem likely that it'll cause any reduction in homicides related to drugs/gangs, which as I recall, are the majority of the current homicides.  So, if that's the case, why introduce something new that's unlikely to cause any meaningful drop in the homicide rate?


Because we have a Democratic President and Senate. Gun control laws create division among Americans, especially conservative v liberal. A weaker populace, one that is very divided, means more votes for Democrats. It really is as simple as that. None of the Democratic leaders give one bloody cent about violence, they care about staying in power and being rich. If they cared about violence, they would tackle the causes, not the symptoms.
 
2013-05-07 03:57:41 PM  

smells_like_meat: Yes, this. And the constant demonetization of an entire group of law abiding citizens. "Gun nuts", "small penis", knuckle dragging neanderthals", "Tea baggers", etc., etc. Say that you honestly believe in your anti-gun cause. OK. How do you think that this would be beneficial to your cause?


Being for gun regulation is not the same as being "anti-gun." That's just a straw-man you gun-nuts like to wave around. Also, people who still take Palin, Beck, and the rest of those morons / charlatans seriously are in fact knuckle-dragging teabaggers. Your kind deserves all the mockery it gets.

I sincerely believe that the neanderthals were far smarter than the average gun-nut / Republican voter.

/"demonetization"?
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report