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  
•       •       •

11050 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 03:57:47 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.


So you are saying, no new gun laws will be passed? Oh, all the legislation being pushed is just make believe? NY and other states are not passing draconian gun control laws? Phew, was worried for a minute. It is no fallacy. Every right you give up makes it easier to lose another.
 
2013-05-07 03:58:08 PM

Thunderpipes: 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.


Did it in my middle school. It was a two-week course that was part of gym. Even had a field trip to a shooting range for those that got an A.
 
2013-05-07 03:58:22 PM

Evil Mackerel: clintster: 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.

Which is odd, since the NRA leadership seems to be doing everything in their power to increase gun sales through fear.

If they build a massive space station and disband the senate I'll start to worry.


I did not log onto Fark to watch my people suffer from derp while you discuss this convention in a committee!
 
2013-05-07 03:58:57 PM

dartben: Silverstaff: optimus_grime:
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?


Are you using logic on Fark again?

/seriously, look at all the crazies with guns
 
2013-05-07 03:59:56 PM

Thunderpipes: So you are saying, no new gun laws will be passed? Oh, all the legislation being pushed is just make believe? NY and other states are not passing draconian gun control laws? Phew, was worried for a minute. It is no fallacy. Every right you give up makes it easier to lose another.


You didn't understand what I posted. And background checks don't take away any of your rights.
 
2013-05-07 04:02:13 PM

smells_like_meat: Silverstaff: That's a reason the NRA is so resistant to ANY further gun control, as far as they're concerned, the other side tipped their hand years ago, and know that they want to ban all guns, so they're going to try to do it one bit at a time. One new restriction. One new rule. One new limit, until guns are pretty much gone, along with the way of life they represent.

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?


GOP logic: "Not all gun owners are criminals! Don't tread on me because of a few bad apples!"
"ALL MUSLINS ARE TURRISTS!!1!!"
 
2013-05-07 04:03:50 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?

Is the ACLU bad?


Yes, but I donate money to them anyways.  The good they do outweighs the harm.

I'm also an Endowment Member of the NRA.
 
2013-05-07 04:05:52 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: So you are saying, no new gun laws will be passed? Oh, all the legislation being pushed is just make believe? NY and other states are not passing draconian gun control laws? Phew, was worried for a minute. It is no fallacy. Every right you give up makes it easier to lose another.

You didn't understand what I posted. And background checks don't take away any of your rights.


Like Obamacare would let me keep my insurance and not increase rates? And yet, look, millions of people will NOT be able to keep their insurance because it does not meet the new regulations.

Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Think about this, I live in Vermont. if I dared travel through NY state, and brought my M1A with me, I could be charged with a crime, even though the weapon is perfectly legal here. This is just the start. Let's say libs get a watered down bill passed. What will the next emergency bring? Another round of laws to tighten up what we currently have. Repeat. More and more young people are growing up with an iPhone instead of hunting with their Dads. They won't care, they are voting in bigger numbers. Think that generation will care about the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-05-07 04:06:56 PM

Ned Stark: impaler: WizardofToast: "Gun grabbers use emotion to justify taking away your rights! That is wrong! Also, if you don't have a gun, YOU ARE GOING TO DIIIIIIIIE."

How do they not notice Beck's doublethink?

They're authoritarians. Authoritarians are completely incapable of recognizing logical inconsistency.

People should be able to arm themselves as they desire: authoritarian
The state should decide who can be armed: not authoritarian

Right-o.



If their only goal was allowing Americans to have guns, then you're right, that per se is not authoritarian.  One of the points that Jon Stewart made (and was echoed in this thread), however, is that the speakers at the convention did NOT stick to that one theme, but instead insisted on weaving a number of OTHER issues together with their core pro-gun-rights message.  Because of that it, IS valid to comment on the entire package and call it "authoritarian."
 
2013-05-07 04:07:53 PM

Thunderpipes: Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone.


A background check does not end your ability to sell a gun to a friend.
 
2013-05-07 04:08:16 PM
Wolf_Blitzer:
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.

You're not very familiar with guns are you? A lot of simple, effective open-bolt designs can be made by anybody with a few tools and some plumbing parts, like the Sten.

The Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required a minimum of machining and manufacturing. Much of the production could be performed by small workshops. Over the period of manufacture the Sten design was further simplified: the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours work. Some of the cheapest versions were made from only 47 different parts. It was distinctive for its bare appearance (just a pipe with a metal loop for a stock), and its horizontal magazine.

See also some other garage-guns made/seized by criminals.

lh3.ggpht.comlh3.ggpht.com2.bp.blogspot.com
Even in Australia. Sorry.
 
2013-05-07 04:11:58 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.

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.



It could be done similarly to how we teach driver's ed. I'd bet that we could put a bunch of experienced range instructors in a room and get a quorum on several things that should be taught for basic gun safety pretty quickly. We might have more disagreement on the more advanced safety concepts (e.g. how hobbyists can best mix and prepare their own powder for their muzzle-loaders), but I don't see the basic curriculum as being the problem.

Several states require written tests before issuing a license to carry - e.g. Tennessee (http://memphis.about.com/od/governmentandpolitics/ht/gunpermit.htm) . I'm guessing this is also not particularly controversial for most people (including most gun owners). What the leadership of the NRA decides to get mad about is their own business.

I'd go further and agree with stevarooni that gun safety should be taught in high school (maybe with an opt-out system for odd circumstances), but  Thunderpipes is correct that this is extremely unlikely.
 
2013-05-07 04:14:39 PM

Thunderpipes: 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.


You are aware that slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy?  Your argument is based on the false premise that regulations are going to continue increasing.  You have no way to prove that objectively, and rely only on your emotional characterization of liberal politicians of your choosing.  You skip right over any middle ground and just assume that if some small step is made to restrict gun ownership, then that implies eventually all gun ownership will be outlawed completely.  It would be like the argument in the other direction that if gun control is relaxed, then eventually every person will have their own personal cache of nuclear missiles.

You are extrapolating when you don't have any logical ground to do so.
 
2013-05-07 04:14:48 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone.

A background check does not end your ability to sell a gun to a friend.


It does limit the freedom. You would have to pay basically a tax, and register with the government. Would you like to have to pay a free speech fee and register with the government to speak your opinion?

That most certainly is an act of infringement on your rights. We have the right to vote... Would putting in place a fee to vote be okay with you? Why not? How about the right to a jury of your peers? Should a person have to pay for that? Where do you draw the line?
 
2013-05-07 04:17:01 PM

Thunderpipes: It does limit the freedom.


No it doesn't.

Thunderpipes: You would have to pay basically a tax, and register with the government.


Yeah. And? You're being marginally inconvenienced. Tyranny tyranny.
 
2013-05-07 04:18:01 PM

chocolate covered poop: You skip right over any middle ground and just assume that if some small step is made to restrict gun ownership, then that implies eventually all gun ownership will be outlawed completely.


The entire argument against background checks relies on slippery slopes and paranoia.
 
2013-05-07 04:18:34 PM

chocolate covered poop: Thunderpipes: 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.

You are aware that slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy?  Your argument is based on the false premise that regulations are going to continue increasing.  You have no way to prove that objectively, and rely only on your emotional characterization of liberal politicians of your choosing.  You skip right over any middle ground and just assume that if some small step is made to restrict gun ownership, then that implies eventually all ...


Just brought up a very recent example, Obamacare. Supposed to cost X amount, won't lose your insurance, won't increase costs, yet the opposite of that is happening. Obama won't increase taxes on the middle class, yet that is exactly what is happening. My state, Vermont, Governor Shumlin ran with the promise of no new broad based taxes, well, they just increased the gasoline tax and are set to increase property taxes again.  It happens quite often with knee-jerk legislation.

I am supposed to just trust far left politicians won't allow anything bad to happen to me? bah.
 
2013-05-07 04:19:07 PM

Thunderpipes: Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone.

A background check does not end your ability to sell a gun to a friend.

It does limit the freedom. You would have to pay basically a tax[1], and register with the government[2]. Would you like to have to pay a free speech fee and register with the government to speak your opinion?

That most certainly is an act of infringement on your rights. We have the right to vote... Would putting in place a fee to vote be okay with you? Why not? How about the right to a jury of your peers? Should a person have to pay for that? Where do you draw the line?


1. Would you say the same thing about sales tax? That paying 3-10% on top of the purchase price "limits your freedom" to buy a handgun?
2. The latest bill explicitly forbid collection of records into a centralized database. It's why FFLs keep their own logbooks.
 
2013-05-07 04:19:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: It does limit the freedom.

No it doesn't.

Thunderpipes: You would have to pay basically a tax, and register with the government.

Yeah. And? You're being marginally inconvenienced. Tyranny tyranny.


Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?
 
2013-05-07 04:20:39 PM

Thunderpipes: Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?


We're discussing guns and gun laws.
 
2013-05-07 04:21:33 PM

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


^this
 
2013-05-07 04:22:07 PM

Dr Dreidel: Thunderpipes: Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone.

A background check does not end your ability to sell a gun to a friend.

It does limit the freedom. You would have to pay basically a tax[1], and register with the government[2]. Would you like to have to pay a free speech fee and register with the government to speak your opinion?

That most certainly is an act of infringement on your rights. We have the right to vote... Would putting in place a fee to vote be okay with you? Why not? How about the right to a jury of your peers? Should a person have to pay for that? Where do you draw the line?

1. Would you say the same thing about sales tax? That paying 3-10% on top of the purchase price "limits your freedom" to buy a handgun?
2. The latest bill explicitly forbid collection of records into a centralized database. It's why FFLs keep their own logbooks.


1. Sales tax does not only apply to guns. Guns are not being singled out.
2. Oh, just trust your overlords again, like liberals did when they whined about the Patriot act, which was far less invasive and would impact far, far fewer people. Double standards, how do they work?
 
2013-05-07 04:22:36 PM

Jackpot777: 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!!

/* or "it has", but definitely not "its".


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

Happy now?
 
2013-05-07 04:24:22 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?

We're discussing guns and gun laws.


We are discussing an amendment involving a specific right. Perfect to compare it to other amendments that involve specific rights.

So once again, why not tax voting, trial by jury, heck, an anti illegal search and seizure fee? Oh, those rights you agree with?
 
2013-05-07 04:27:05 PM

Thunderpipes: We are discussing an amendment involving a specific right. Perfect to compare it to other amendments that involve specific rights.

So once again, why not tax voting, trial by jury, heck, an anti illegal search and seizure fee? Oh, those rights you agree with?


The weakness of your argument is directly proportional to the number of other issues you bring into it.

Obamacare
Voting
Trial by Jury
Search and seizure
Patriot Act

Cruising right along.
 
2013-05-07 04:28:49 PM

Thunderpipes: Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?


I'll take you seriously when you and the NRA try to push for subsidized gun sales that provide equal access to guns for poor people.
 
2013-05-07 04:29:54 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: We are discussing an amendment involving a specific right. Perfect to compare it to other amendments that involve specific rights.

So once again, why not tax voting, trial by jury, heck, an anti illegal search and seizure fee? Oh, those rights you agree with?

The weakness of your argument is directly proportional to the number of other issues you bring into it.


Seems reasonable enough. If you propose to place a tax and penalty on Amendment X, your reasoning and acceptance should remain if applied to Amendment X-1, or X+1, etc.
 
2013-05-07 04:31:13 PM

impaler: Thunderpipes: Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?

I'll take you seriously when you and the NRA

ACLU try to push for subsidized gunprinting press sales that provide equal access to gunsfree press for poor people.

FTFY
 
2013-05-07 04:32:15 PM

Thunderpipes: Oh, just trust your overlords again, like liberals did when they whined about the Patriot act, which was far less invasive and would impact far, far fewer people. Double standards, how do they work?


That's not an argument against this law, it's an argument against ALL law.

// and FTR, you're not going to find many liberals happy about the PATRIOT Act or its extension
 
2013-05-07 04:33:19 PM
I get all my news from Jon Stewart...
 
2013-05-07 04:35:55 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.


I wouldn't go that far.  But it does seem that the fundamental difference between the pro-gun and the anti-gun crowd is that the latter do not see gun ownership as a fundamental right, or at least not ownership of ANY gun, including fully-automatic weapons and grenades.

Additionally, even among those who DO see gun ownership as a fundamental right, there is still an argument to be made that even fundamental rights have limits in society.  The ur-example is not allowing a person to cry "fire" in a crowded theater (when there isn't actually a fire).  That is a reasonable limitation on free speech, and free speech is something that almost all Americans, no matter how conservative or liberal, see as a fundamental right.
 
2013-05-07 04:39:41 PM

smells_like_meat: Silverstaff: That's a reason the NRA is so resistant to ANY further gun control, as far as they're concerned, the other side tipped their hand years ago, and know that they want to ban all guns, so they're going to try to do it one bit at a time. One new restriction. One new rule. One new limit, until guns are pretty much gone, along with the way of life they represent.

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?


I hate to play the tu quoque game, but this really is problem on all sides, and unless everybody works on speaking a little more civilly when they argue, I don't see it getting any better any time soon.
 
2013-05-07 04:41:14 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: We are discussing an amendment involving a specific right. Perfect to compare it to other amendments that involve specific rights.

So once again, why not tax voting, trial by jury, heck, an anti illegal search and seizure fee? Oh, those rights you agree with?

The weakness of your argument is directly proportional to the number of other issues you bring into it.

Obamacare
Voting
Trial by Jury
Search and seizure
Patriot Act

Cruising right along.


An yet I am 100% right, and you know it. You don't like a particular constitutional right, the 2nd, so you seek to impose taxes, and make that right harder to realize. But if it is a right you like, like the right to vote, well Hell, move heaven and Earth to avoid a tax on that. It is simple double standards, which liberals always do.

And you are too dumb to see that randomly taking away constitutional rights could backfire on you if people you don't agree with come to power.

So I am right, you are wrong, end of story.
 
2013-05-07 04:42:51 PM

plewis: 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?


You'd better check to see that you're wearing pants.  'unarmed' does not automatically equal 'peaceful'.  Gun owners have far more to lose from any criminal conviction, the police still outgun them, etc...

Oh, and I most closely match with the libertarian party.  Note that this still means that I am far from in lockstep with the party.

Silverstaff: 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.


There actually is, but it's something of a shell game for the really rich, or the really dedicated.
1.  Start your own class III 'dealership'.  It'll cost a bunch of paperwork and ~$1k/year in fees and such.  You can actually sell normal weapons to cover the other costs, even if you don't manage to sell any NFA controlled weapons.
2.  Join/Start some sort of security company.  IE Blackwater or some such.  The company owns the guns, you own the company 100%(or some proportion with your buddies).

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


In a time when CCW was still illegal.  Right up until the Lubbie's massacre and the consequent legislation.  Texas is actually middle-road when it comes to gun control.  Open carry, for example, is illegal in cities.

12349876: Fort Hood and clock tower guy disagree.


Fort Hood is a gun free zone, Whitman did his shootings before CCW was legal, and he acted like a sniper to boot - right down to taking rifle fire from defending civilians, at which point the death toll dropped.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That's not their stated plan.


Yeah, when I reread and saw that part, I'm like 'What the?'

ronaprhys: 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.


Given the performance of full auto weapons, I'd almost WANT spree shooters to be armed with fully automatic weapons than the semi-autos they currently attack with.  Why?  Without a good deal of training, full auto would mean they'd be wasting much of each magazine into the ceiling.

Wolf_Blitzer: 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.


Like it's really all that difficult:  M-3 "grease gun" 1943 cost: $20.  Only 2 precision machined parts.

Making Meth is, in some ways, more difficult.
 
2013-05-07 04:45:21 PM

dartben: 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?


My objections to expanded background checks is:

1. How would requiring background checks for private gun sales have prevented Newtown?  That's what started this whole modern scandal, and it wouldn't have stopped that.  Wouldn't have stopped Aurora.  Heck, the old AWB was in full force in '99 when Columbine happened and that didn't stop that (despite the weapons used at Columbine being banned).  If this is the knee-jerk response to Newtown, why is there so little correlation between the "solution" and the problem?

2. "The camel's nose under the tent" so to use the metaphor.  Too many anti-gun types have made it clear they seek banning all or most guns, abolishment of the second amendment, confiscation of personally owned firearms ect.

I remember how in the days right after Newtown how Fark was filled with posters saying that THIS would be the "tipping point" where the consensus of Americans would want hardcore European-style gun control, or that could lead to repealing the Second Amendment, or a handgun ban, or an assault weapons ban, ect.  They whittled down gun control suggestions until they got to the so-called "gun show loophole" background checks.  That's the control they'd go for, today.  Today.  Then they'd be right back to ask for a little more, one more law, one more regulation, one more "common sense" rule that didn't exist yesterday the next time anything happened.  No.  Anti-gun advocates tipped their hand about wanting outright banning and confiscation of firearms that are currently legally owned.  They did that back in the '70's, they did that back regarding the AWB in '94, and they did it last December.  It's hard to negotiate in good faith with a movement that seeks to outright abolish one of your civil rights, and is willing to do it by a death of a thousand cuts.

3.  Devil is in the details.  Okay, so, you want to require background checks for personal sales?  How are we going to do this?

If Grampa wants to give his grandson a rifle for his 13th birthday, does he need his grandson's SSN and personal information to run a check on him or he's looking at Federal prison?  If I'm going hunting with a friend of mine, and he wants to try out my rifle and I hand it to him, did I just "transfer" a weapon to somebody without a background check and commit a felony?

The last time I engaged in a private sale of a gun was about a year and a half ago.  A friend of mine was in hard times financially, and wanted to sell me one of her guns for some grocery money.  I was visiting her house and she offered to sell me a gun, out of nowhere.  I paid her $250 cash for a handgun on the spot, because I knew she needed the money.  Now, if we want to do this "by the book" with background checks, what would we had to have done?  Go to a FFL licensed dealer and pay them a fee to run a background check on me so I can take the gun from her?  Provide her with my SSN so she can go online and do a background check?  Is it a felony for me to just give her the money now so she'll have grocery money, since she hadn't run the check yet and might not be able to until tomorrow?

4.  If we're hopping through all these hoops to stay legal, but there's no way to verify who's being law-abiding and who isn't, then is there any point?  If we make law-abiding citizens go to all these troubles, but there's no reliable way to stop underground sales, then are we just hassling good folks for no reason?

Basically I am unconvinced of the need for it, unconvinced that gun-control advocates will quit after "universal background checks", and unconvinced that it won't substantially increase the burden on regular gun owners.
 
2013-05-07 04:46:54 PM
As flawed as the NRA is, they still managed to kick the crap out of the authoritarian nanny-statists who tried to take a steaming dump on the constitution. Your tears taste delicious.
 
2013-05-07 04:47:23 PM

WizardofToast: "Gun grabbers use emotion to justify taking away your rights! That is wrong! Also, if you don't have a gun, YOU ARE GOING TO DIIIIIIIIE."

How do they not notice Beck's doublethink?


I just wonder how the hell "gun-grabber" became such a popular term for someone who supports gun control... In my mind, a gun-grabber would be a super-gun-nut: someone who grabs up every single gun they see, and hoards it! A gun-grabber would own hundreds of guns, and be completely against gun control...

I know the intent is that "They're comin' to take yer guns!", and are going to "grab" them from you, but I just find it a bit of a stretch, and definitely not the first thing that leaps to mind when hearing the phrase... It's just clumsy...
 
2013-05-07 04:50:40 PM
Watch the NRA argument switch from ZOMG The government is evil with that Kynan in office and those demmycrats are trying to take away your guns and give people healthcare

to

ZOMG help us Government! People are making working Guns from 3-D printers and taking money away from the helpless gun manufacturers! In the next 5 years
Be careful for what you wish for NRA, you wanted everyone to have a gun soon you will get your wish. Bet on it
 
2013-05-07 04:52:33 PM

Thunderpipes: Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Like I said, you would be okay with a tax on voting, free speech, and trial by jury then?

Why not?

We're discussing guns and gun laws.

We are discussing an amendment involving a specific right. Perfect to compare it to other amendments that involve specific rights.

So once again, why not tax voting, trial by jury, heck, an anti illegal search and seizure fee? Oh, those rights you agree with?


Oh, you mean things like voter ids, court costs, reimbursing jails for room and board, permit fees for public demonstrations, etc? All of which are perfectly constitutional?
 
2013-05-07 04:54:08 PM

dartben: Oh, you mean things like voter ids, court costs, reimbursing jails for room and board, permit fees for public demonstrations, etc? All of which are perfectly constitutional?


I don't believe those are constitutional and I'm not sure they've been challenged yet. If ID is required for voting it should be free and easily available.
 
2013-05-07 04:58:02 PM
Those are all completely constutional, though in the case of voter ids you're correct that they have to be free.

But charging court costs, requiring permits for public protests, etc are all cobstitutional and have been for years.
 
2013-05-07 04:58:46 PM

Doom MD: As flawed as the NRA is, they still managed to kick the crap out of the authoritarian nanny-statists who tried to take a steaming dump on the constitution. Your tears taste delicious.


Tears?  You think people who don't agree with the NRA are crying about, well, anything?   I guess you must be really happy wrapped up in such a thick cocoon of delusion.
 
2013-05-07 04:59:17 PM

dartben: Those are all completely constutional, though in the case of voter ids you're correct that they have to be free.

But charging court costs, requiring permits for public protests, etc are all cobstitutional and have been for years.


Constitutional...

Friggen phone keypad...
 
2013-05-07 05:00:03 PM

ciberido: I wouldn't go that far. But it does seem that the fundamental difference between the pro-gun and the anti-gun crowd is that the latter do not see gun ownership as a fundamental right, or at least not ownership of ANY gun, including fully-automatic weapons and grenades.

Additionally, even among those who DO see gun ownership as a fundamental right, there is still an argument to be made that even fundamental rights have limits in society. The ur-example is not allowing a person to cry "fire" in a crowded theater (when there isn't actually a fire). That is a reasonable limitation on free speech, and free speech is something that almost all Americans, no matter how conservative or liberal, see as a fundamental right.


I think you're right: this comes down to whether or not you see this as a civil rights issue or not.

Now, I've never advocated for civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, or of explosive devices.

Just like freedom of speech means you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, like freedom of the press means you can't legally reprint classified government documents, or how freedom of religion means you can't diddle kids under the guise of religious practice, you can't own heavy ordnance and call it "bearing arms".

However, what I am arguing is the same thing SCOTUS found in the Miller case, and built on in Heller and McDonald cases:  There is an individual civil right to bear arms for a variety of lawful purposes, as protected by the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense, sport-shooting, and collecting.  Any weapon with a bona-fide lawful use for hunting or self-defense should be allowed for civilian use.  I believe that these rights should be limited as little as possible, just like we go out of our way to not limit the free exercise of religion or freedom of the press without VERY good reason.

Hand grenades, rocket launchers, and machine guns are not viable for hunting, and not practical for self defense and can be strictly regulated or banned.  Handguns are outstanding self-defense weapons.  The AR-15 (and similar semi-automatic rifles) is a fine hunting rifle (as well as a nice rifle for target shooting, and in carbine-configurations suitable for home defense).  They should be allowed with minimal restriction to law abiding citizens.
 
2013-05-07 05:00:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yeah. And? You're being marginally inconvenienced. Tyranny tyranny.


Hey, we should do that with voting.
 
2013-05-07 05:00:49 PM
Still nothing on the crypto anarchist that put plans for 3D printable guns online?
 
2013-05-07 05:01:10 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.


No, they're not.  The ACLU isn't anti-gun.  It's neutral on the issue.
 
2013-05-07 05:04:39 PM

ciberido: No, they're not.  The ACLU isn't anti-gun.  It's neutral on the issue.


They're not anti-gun, they just disagree with the conclusion of the SCotUS when the SCotUS concluded that it's an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Apparently the People in the 2nd Amendment aren't the same People as in the other Amendments.  :D
 
2013-05-07 05:09:43 PM
Silverstaff:

Just like freedom of speech means you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater,

The reference is to the Supreme court case Schenk v. United States. Schenk was a member of the Socialist Party in the US during World War 1 and was arrested for distributing pamphlets to draftees encouraging them to do things to get out of service. The pamphlets had such inflammatory titles as "assert your rights." None of what he was suggesting they do was illegal, and in the subsequent investigation he indicated that he was a pacifist and was against war, period, and doubly against what he saw as a totally bullshiat war being fought only for the narrow economic and imperial interests of a bunch of super-rich Europeans.

He was convicted, his conviction was appealed, and eventually it got up to the Supreme Court. Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion that held his conviction was constitutional. This opinion -and the case itself - are widely considered to be some of the more farked up bits of jurisprudence that early 20th C. supreme courts put out. He said that the government had every right to curtail free speech basically as much as it wants to during wartime because when a nation is at war anything that could be construed as encouraging men not to fight can be seen as a direct attack against that nation. Basically, declaring war creates a de facto legal obligation for citizens to agree with and support the war, constitution be damned. At the very least the government has the right to force anyone who doesn't agree with it to shut up as soon as bombs start dropping.

You can well imagine the implications for, say, anti-war protesting that this case has.

The famous "fire in a movie theater" line is also from this case, and was used by Holmes to argue that the 1st is not an unlimited right. The full quote of it goes as so:
Holmes" The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

So there you go. The next time someone tries to bring up the "fire in a movie theater" argument about how rights can be restricted, point out that their argument is derived from a case in 1919 that had the basic finding that any kind of protest or statement against the government going to war is an act of treason that can be punished however the fark the government sees fit. It's a very slightly more articulate version of " If you don't SUPPORT OUR TROOPS you HATE 'MERRICA and the TERRISTS GUNNA WIN. GIT R DUN "

tl;dr: anyone who uses the "fire in a movie theater" line is literally agreeing that all war protesters should be tried for treason. Given your typical gun control advocate, pointing this out in an argument where they float that balloon can have amusing results.
 
2013-05-07 05:09:46 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.


Tinfoil hat Republicans.
 
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 »






Report