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 05:10:13 PM

Silverstaff: 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 ...


Blah, blah blah.  I'm a selfish prick that doesn't want to be inconvenienced and I will propagate any conspiracy theory to justify my horrible behavior.   Basically your whole argument.
 
2013-05-07 05:11:19 PM

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

Hey, we should do that with voting.


Yeah, we should even register voters with the government...

/your analogy won't end up where you think it will
 
2013-05-07 05:14:51 PM

CynicalLA: Silverstaff: 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 ...

Blah, blah blah.  I'm a selfish prick that doesn't want to be inconvenienced and I will propagate any conspiracy theory to justify my horrible behavior.   Basically your whole argument.


Not to mention he skipped the actual question asked. He expressed his reasons for being against background checks, but never answered how they're unconstitutional or otherwise violate the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-05-07 05:15:11 PM

BMFPitt: 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.


Gun owners. Its where all their money comes from. Or the majority of it, anyway.

In 2010 they had an annual income of $227.8 million. $115 million came from fundraising, sales, advertising (they sell ads in their magazines and publications), and royalties. The remaining $112.8 million came from membership dues, making membership dues the largest single chunk of their income.

Between 2005-2010 they received $14.8 million from more than 50 different firearm-related firms, or just under $3 million per year on average. In 2010 their advertising income, most of it from industry, came to $20.9 million (9.2%). Assuming their total income from industry consists of advertising + corporate donations, that's $20.9 + $3 million = $23.9 million, or about 10.5% of their annual income.
Based on their publicly available finances, it sure looks like their mostly speaking for their dues-paying members.

If you're interested in the actual firearms industry trade group, that'd be the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
 
2013-05-07 05:17:01 PM

Thunderpipes: You don't like a particular constitutional right, the 2nd, so you seek to impose taxes, and make that right harder to realize.


Background checks aren't taxes. And declaring yourself "100% right" doesn't make it so. Ask any seven year old.
 
2013-05-07 05:18:53 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Background checks aren't taxes.


When you attach a fee to having them run, they become one. How well would you respond to a fee being levied every time you tried to visit a church?
 
2013-05-07 05:23:38 PM

BayouOtter: When you attach a fee to having them run


I didn't attach a fee. The legislation doesn't either. If you're being charged a fee, take it up with the private entity running the background check.
 
2013-05-07 05:26:56 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!!

[eloquentscience.com image 500x265]

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


I feel like we should get rid of the apostrophe altogether. The cartoon has not worked. It's purely ornamental in contractions. The only place it really needs to be (sometimes) is the possessive.
 
2013-05-07 05:28:03 PM

ciberido: 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.


You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.
 
2013-05-07 05:29:39 PM

Joe Blowme: 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?


Aw, hell, Joe's here.  This thread is gonna embiggen, and I'm gonna need more popcorn.
 
2013-05-07 05:31:16 PM
Endowment NRA member and even I think that background checks make sense.

And I want a magazine with enough capacity that it needs its own hi-cap magazine.
 
2013-05-07 05:32:12 PM

Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.


A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.
 
2013-05-07 05:32:28 PM

BayouOtter: BMFPitt: 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.

Gun owners. Its where all their money comes from. Or the majority of it, anyway.

In 2010 they had an annual income of $227.8 million. $115 million came from fundraising, sales, advertising (they sell ads in their magazines and publications), and royalties. The remaining $112.8 million came from membership dues, making membership dues the largest single chunk of their income.

Between 2005-2010 they received $14.8 million from more than 50 different firearm-related firms, or just under $3 million per year on average. In 2010 their advertising income, most of it from industry, came to $20.9 million (9.2%). Assuming their total income from industry consists of advertising + corporate donations, that's $20.9 + $3 million = $23.9 million, or about 10.5% of their annual income.
Based on their publicly available finances, it sure looks like their mostly speaking for their dues-paying members.

If you're interested in the actual firearms industry trade group, that'd be the National Shooting Sports Foundation.


I don't know whether to address the fact that you replied to me and tried to answer someone else's question, or the fact that you completely misunderstood the question.
 
2013-05-07 05:33:22 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: When you attach a fee to having them run

I didn't attach a fee. The legislation doesn't either.


The only people who can perform a background check are FFLs, which do charge fees and are allowed to do so under Manchin-Toomey
 and Schumer's bill. Forcing all transfers to go through an FFL therefor places a fee on them via law.
 
2013-05-07 05:34:25 PM
In another 15 years we'll be talking about 

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

Hey, we should do that with voting.

Yeah, we should even register voters with the government...

/your analogy won't end up where you think it will


Yeah, because poll taxes are legal, and records of who you vote for are kept and made publicly available along with your address, right?
 
2013-05-07 05:34:47 PM

Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.


Tee hee!  You're funny.
 
2013-05-07 05:36:05 PM

BayouOtter: The only people who can perform a background check are FFLs, which do charge fees and are allowed to do so under Manchin-Toomey
 and Schumer's bill. Forcing all transfers to go through an FFL therefor places a fee on them via law.


So the Toomey-Manchin proposal doesn't change how the background check fee apparatus already currently operates. So...yeah.
 
2013-05-07 05:36:53 PM

CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.

He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.
 
2013-05-07 05:40:02 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: The only people who can perform a background check are FFLs, which do charge fees and are allowed to do so under Manchin-Toomey
 and Schumer's bill. Forcing all transfers to go through an FFL therefor places a fee on them via law.

So the Toomey-Manchin proposal doesn't change how the background check fee apparatus already currently operates. So...yeah.


It just puts everyone under the umbrella so they have to pay the fees. Like converting every road to a toll road? I'm not sure what analogy will help you.
 
2013-05-07 05:40:48 PM
BayouOtter: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.

That's very interesting, but it's not relevant.  The validity of an idea does not depend upon its source.

The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is a perfectly valid argument unless you want to take the absolutist position that one person's rights always trump all other considerations, and a civil society built on such an absolutist position simply cannot last.
 
2013-05-07 05:41:15 PM

BayouOtter: It just puts everyone under the umbrella so they have to pay the fees.


Right. You could even say it's universal.
 
2013-05-07 05:45:37 PM

s2s2s2: Still nothing on the crypto anarchist that put plans for 3D printable guns online?


Does it affect gun sales?
 
2013-05-07 05:48:50 PM

Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.
He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.


Exactly how does requiring everyone get a background check before buying a firearm stripping someone of a right? If you can pass a background check, you can buy a firearm. Am I missing something?
 
2013-05-07 05:49:51 PM

BayouOtter: Dusk-You-n-Me: Background checks aren't taxes.

When you attach a fee to having them run, they become one. How well would you respond to a fee being levied every time you tried to visit a church?


I agree.  I dislike it anytime the government says, "you must do this, and you also must pay for it yourself."  Well, almost anytime, at least; I reserve the right to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis..  This is the sort of thing that should be taken care of by general taxes, not as a specific fee.  Reminds me too much of making the family of an executed criminal pay for the bullet, if you'll forgive the hyperbole.
 
2013-05-07 05:51:18 PM

ciberido: Reminds me too much of making the family of an executed criminal pay for the bullet


Uh, in what respect, Charlie?
 
2013-05-07 05:56:36 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.


Given your inability to argue otherwise I assume it is you who'd not understand it.

Also, why is that good in any case?
 
2013-05-07 05:58:46 PM

Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.
He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.


Yup.  Big ol' soft cocoon.
 
2013-05-07 05:59:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ciberido: Reminds me too much of making the family of an executed criminal pay for the bullet

Uh, in what respect, Charlie?


In the "I'm going to make you do something you don't want to do, AND I'm going to make you pay for it to boot" respect.
 
2013-05-07 06:02:26 PM

ciberido: cameroncrazy1984: ciberido: Reminds me too much of making the family of an executed criminal pay for the bullet

Uh, in what respect, Charlie?

In the "I'm going to make you do something you don't want to do, AND I'm going to make you pay for it to boot" respect.


You don't want to go through a background check to purchase a firearm? Why not?
 
2013-05-07 06:06:34 PM

Silverstaff: vpb: ronaprhys:
That's an interesting correlation equals causation argument you've got there, Lou.  Demonstrate the causal link between NRA activities and the thousands of deaths.

No, you just have an interesting denial problem.

If people are being killed in incidents that could be prevented by public safety laws and the NRA is preventing public safety laws then the NRA is responsible for people being killed due to the absence of public safety laws.

By gravely restricting or essentially abolishing a basic civil right?

So, just think how many lives we could save if we abolished the 4th amendment.  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.

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


be honest, you threw you drumsticks down when you FINALLY got to use that quote
"a penny saved is a penny earned"
Benjamin Franklin, too lazy to look up date
 
2013-05-07 06:06:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.
He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.

Exactly how does requiring everyone get a background check before buying a firearm stripping someone of a right? If you can pass a background check, you can buy a firearm. Am I missing something?

Background checks aren't even close to what gun control advocates were asking for. They negotiated in bad faith and it's painfully obvious what their endgame is. The "compromise" they asked for is devoid of anything that could be considered compromise. Just asking/demanding one side to give up crap is not a prudent negotiation strategy.
 
2013-05-07 06:09:42 PM

ciberido: Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: 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.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum?  It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.
He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.

Yup.  Big ol' soft cocoon.

Oh hey, words. It still doesn't make that legislation any less dead in the water. Hope you enjoyed losing those senate seats over this disaster.
 
2013-05-07 06:10:31 PM

Doom MD: Background checks aren't even close to what gun control advocates were asking for


Really? Then why were background checks in the bill?

Doom MD: They negotiated in bad faith and it's painfully obvious what their endgame is


Please explain what makes this "painfully obvious"?

Doom MD: The "compromise" they asked for is devoid of anything that could be considered compromise


Why is putting forth a measure that is supported by 86% of the population not considered a compromise?
 
2013-05-07 06:11:15 PM

Doom MD: Hope you enjoyed losing those senate seats over this disaster.


You know what's funny? The people who voted  against it are the ones dropping. Look up Sen. Jeff Flake's numbers pre and post Manchin-Toomey vote.
 
2013-05-07 06:16:37 PM

ciberido: BayouOtter: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.

That's very interesting, but it's not relevant.  The validity of an idea does not depend upon its source.

The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is a perfectly valid argument unless you want to take the absolutist position that one person's rights always trump all other considerations, and a civil society built on such an absolutist position simply cannot last.


No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.
 
2013-05-07 06:19:17 PM
The biggest threat to gun rights is the NRA.
 
2013-05-07 06:21:19 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.


Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.
 
2013-05-07 06:22:09 PM
I used to be afraid all the time.

Then I bought a gun.

Now I'm afraid all the time that they're going to take my gun.

What should I buy?
 
2013-05-07 06:22:52 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I used to be afraid all the time.

Then I bought a gun.

Now I'm afraid all the time that they're going to take my gun.

What should I buy?


I believe the next step is "all the ammo you can get your hands on, regardless of caliber"
 
2013-05-07 06:25:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Background checks aren't even close to what gun control advocates were asking for

Really? Then why were background checks in the bill?

Doom MD: They negotiated in bad faith and it's painfully obvious what their endgame is

Please explain what makes this "painfully obvious"?

Doom MD: The "compromise" they asked for is devoid of anything that could be considered compromise

Why is putting forth a measure that is supported by 86% of the population not considered a compromise?


Gun control advocates were pushing for a new and stricter AWB, mag cap limits, etc. with this wave of legislation. To say this was just about background checks is totally disingenous.

When notable people in your gun control movement go on the record saying things like "confiscation could be an option"  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could- b e-option-eliana-johnson or have made similar comments for years  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI then yes, you can say their endgame is painfully obvious. When you state you want to confiscate guns, I'm not going to expect you to stop at background checks.

And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.
 
2013-05-07 06:29:00 PM

impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.


You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items.  What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly?  What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?
 
2013-05-07 06:29:12 PM

Doom MD: Gun control advocates were pushing for a new and stricter AWB, mag cap limits, etc. with this wave of legislation


Okay, and what bills were these?

Doom MD: When notable people in your gun control movement go on the record saying things like "confiscation could be an option"


What bill did Cuomo put forth in the US Congress?

Doom MD: And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.


You know, for someone who is so adamant that he understands what gun control advocates want, you appear to be really, really uneducated on the legislation pertaining to the subject. Please read up on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, because that did not require a background check for loaning a rifle. Why do you believe that all private sales should not require a background check? Do you support felons and the mentally ill being able to purchase firearms? Why?
 
2013-05-07 06:29:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.

You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items.  What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly?  What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?


Mainly? Training, identification and a stricter legal recourse when those firearms are used improperly. Have you never heard of the UCMJ?
 
2013-05-07 06:31:19 PM
Oh, and everyone in the military and the police are required to pass a background check.
 
2013-05-07 06:32:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BraveNewCheneyWorld: impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.

You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items.  What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly?  What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?

Mainly? Training, identification and a stricter legal recourse when those firearms are used improperly. Have you never heard of the UCMJ?


So you're ok with civilians owning these weapons if they're allowed to take the same courses?  Also, there's worse penalties for illegal use of weapons than lethal injection?
 
2013-05-07 06:34:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Gun control advocates were pushing for a new and stricter AWB, mag cap limits, etc. with this wave of legislation

Okay, and what bills were these?

Doom MD: When notable people in your gun control movement go on the record saying things like "confiscation could be an option"

What bill did Cuomo put forth in the US Congress?

Doom MD: And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.

You know, for someone who is so adamant that he understands what gun control advocates want, you appear to be really, really uneducated on the legislation pertaining to the subject. Please read up on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, because that did not require a background check for loaning a rifle. Why do you believe that all private sales should not require a background check? Do you support felons and the mentally ill being able to purchase firearms? Why?


You're either being purposefully obtuse or you were sedated and intubated in an intensive care unit the past 6 months. Also, your reading comprehension is hot garbage.
 
2013-05-07 06:44:18 PM

Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Gun control advocates were pushing for a new and stricter AWB, mag cap limits, etc. with this wave of legislation

Okay, and what bills were these?

Doom MD: When notable people in your gun control movement go on the record saying things like "confiscation could be an option"

What bill did Cuomo put forth in the US Congress?

Doom MD: And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.

You know, for someone who is so adamant that he understands what gun control advocates want, you appear to be really, really uneducated on the legislation pertaining to the subject. Please read up on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, because that did not require a background check for loaning a rifle. Why do you believe that all private sales should not require a background check? Do you support felons and the mentally ill being able to purchase firearms? Why?

You're either being purposefully obtuse or you were sedated and intubated in an intensive care unit the past 6 months. Also, your reading comprehension is hot garbage.


Oh, by all means, use ad hominems when you can't coherently defend your argument. It really helps make your point clear.
 
2013-05-07 06:47:20 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: cameroncrazy1984: BraveNewCheneyWorld: impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid.  Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people.  That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act,  it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal.  Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.

You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items.  What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly?  What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?

Mainly? Training, identification and a stricter legal recourse when those firearms are used improperly. Have you never heard of the UCMJ?

So you're ok with civilians owning these weapons if they're allowed to take the same courses?  Also, there's worse penalties for illegal use of weapons than lethal injection?


Sure, as long as they are treated exactly the same as the military and police. That means investigation every time they discharge their weapon and a tribunal hearing or court martial.
 
2013-05-07 06:50:32 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Gun control advocates were pushing for a new and stricter AWB, mag cap limits, etc. with this wave of legislation

Okay, and what bills were these?

Doom MD: When notable people in your gun control movement go on the record saying things like "confiscation could be an option"

What bill did Cuomo put forth in the US Congress?

Doom MD: And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.

You know, for someone who is so adamant that he understands what gun control advocates want, you appear to be really, really uneducated on the legislation pertaining to the subject. Please read up on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, because that did not require a background check for loaning a rifle. Why do you believe that all private sales should not require a background check? Do you support felons and the mentally ill being able to purchase firearms? Why?

You're either being purposefully obtuse or you were sedated and intubated in an intensive care unit the past 6 months. Also, your reading comprehension is hot garbage.

Oh, by all means, use ad hominems when you can't coherently defend your argument. It really helps make your point clear.


My arguments are right in front of your face, you just can't read the paragraph properly.
 
2013-05-07 06:51:13 PM
cameroncrazy1984:
Sure, as long as they are treated exactly the same as the military and police. That means investigation every time they discharge their weapon and a tribunal hearing or court martial.

Whoah, you mean we'll get to go crazy and execute people on a pretense like the police? Boy howdy is that exciting.

(Its not like an average citizen was ever investigated for a self defense shooting.)
 
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