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  
•       •       •

11049 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
 
2013-05-07 12:20:15 PM
Reality: Republicans are just this stupid and crazy.

Please proceed, GOP.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:39 PM
The whole thing was an embarrassment.  And I used to belong to this nuthouse.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:17 PM
Well, we're done here. Pack it up.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 12:40:58 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The whole thing was an embarrassment.  And I used to belong to this nuthouse.


It used to be more about hunting and gun safety.  Not enough money in that I guess.
 
2013-05-07 12:51:57 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 12:57:10 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.


Which is odd, since the NRA leadership seems to be doing everything in their power to increase gun sales through fear.
 
2013-05-07 01:00:47 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.


I think they've realized they can get more money and power by being the "Tea Party: with guns!" instead of just focusing on the guns part.  I seriously doubt that people like Glenn Beck really give a crap about guns, it's just another way to get an audience.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:01:48 PM
Bonkthat_Again:
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.

I think they have decided that there is more money to be made with a small but intense following than a large but less motivated membership.

I haven't heard that about the manufacturers, but I can see why they would be worried about the long term consequences of doubling down on the crazy.
 
2013-05-07 01:01:56 PM
How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

eonclicker.com
 
2013-05-07 01:03:16 PM
If it looks stupid, but it works...
 
2013-05-07 01:03:32 PM
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.
 
2013-05-07 01:05:37 PM

JohnCarter: not an actual news article


What part of img1.fark.net tried to suggest otherwise?
 
2013-05-07 01:05:40 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.


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

Happy now?
 
2013-05-07 01:06:01 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.


Hey, its totally possible to find the NRA off putting and also think they should have guns.
 
2013-05-07 01:06:03 PM
 
2013-05-07 01:09:50 PM
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz among them

Dear god...
They're not even trying
 
2013-05-07 01:10:15 PM
Me, a gun owner, to the NRA...

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 01:10:33 PM
"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?
 
2013-05-07 01:10:34 PM
i171.photobucket.com

This shiat just writes itself.
 
2013-05-07 01:11:15 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 01:12:10 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?


Must be the two turntables and a microphone.  :/
 
2013-05-07 01:13:11 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

"[Incoming president] Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits."


I think this is a case of the gun manufacturer's creation (the "new" i.e. rabidly partisan NRA) going beyond what they intended and losing control. Much like the astroturfers who created the Tea Party to attack Obama but found the result to be Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin.
 
2013-05-07 01:13:31 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.


I'd say gun nut is a very applicable term considering most of the content in those speeches was herp derp that has nothing to do with guns.
 
2013-05-07 01:14:02 PM
There, there now ... I'm sure any veterinarian or veterinary assistant will tell you that the NRA isn't TRULY malevolent, it's just frightened - and often a frightened animal will lash out in vicious, almost incomprehensible ways.

What's it frightened of? Well, for starters, it's worried that people who refuse to associate with guns, who refuse to foam at the mouth over the 2nd Amendment, might know something it doesn't know: namely, that rational thought and deliberate planning will keep people out of 90 percent of the scenarios in which the NRA envisions a gun might be necessary.

So, in conclusion, someone just needs to throw a towel over the NRA, scoop it up firmly and love it and scratch it behind the ears and reassure it that nothing bad will happen if people are compelled to give up their mobile rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades.
 
2013-05-07 01:14:54 PM

stevarooni: 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?

Must be the two turntables and a microphone.  :/


i'd say it was his Devil's Haircut.  listen to the lyrics of that song
 
2013-05-07 01:15:07 PM

Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?


Just a thought, but they probably think they are representing the millions of people that give them yearly dues.  It is an "Association" that people voluntarily pay to be a part of.  If they didn't represent those people, then they wouldn't get very much money. (I heard that gun companies only give about 10% of the total NRA funding)  I'm not a member but from what I know they started out as a safety organization that helped organize gun competitions. But as more power is concentrated into the hands of fewer politicians they have found that it pays to leverage their money into lobbing. Much like any other political organization.
 
2013-05-07 01:15:10 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?


They're authoritarians. Authoritarians are completely incapable of recognizing logical inconsistency.
 
2013-05-07 01:16:17 PM

fruitloop: [i171.photobucket.com image 559x297]

This shiat just writes itself.


He didn't even have to write anything. He just played it.

I watch TDS every night and I can't remember the last time I was absolutely gobsmacked like I was watching this episode.
 
2013-05-07 01:18:11 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 01:18:16 PM
You should really feel embarrassed if you are still a member of that politicalized joke of an organization.
 
2013-05-07 01:19:05 PM
NRA member.

"Video games caused this!!1111"

[sounds of membership card being shredded.]

...and we're done here.
 
2013-05-07 01:19:41 PM
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.
 
2013-05-07 01:19:52 PM

Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?


People who hate Fartbama, people who hate Liberals, .... I think that's it.
 
2013-05-07 01:20:57 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: stevarooni: 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?

Must be the two turntables and a microphone.  :/

i'd say it was his Devil's Haircut.  listen to the lyrics of that song and study it out.


FTFY.
 
2013-05-07 01:21:06 PM
The daily show could have just done a special broadcast from there. When Glen Beck was on I didn't know weather to laugh or face palm. It was just....just ....just I cant even put it into words
 
2013-05-07 01:22:59 PM

darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]


Meh...California, what would you expect.  Houston, Texas in 2000.  Texas GOP convention. NBPP shows up with long guns...if there was an outcry, I never heard or read of it.  Most folks were pissed an old man confronting the NBPP got pushed down.
 
2013-05-07 01:24:07 PM

vpb: Marcus Aurelius: The whole thing was an embarrassment.  And I used to belong to this nuthouse.

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


The surveys show that fewer and fewer people are buying guns. But the few who are buying are buying more, so the NRA, the marketing arm of gun manufacturers are just catering to this new market segment to encourage even more purchases.
 
2013-05-07 01:24:17 PM

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

Right-o.


We aren't talking about responsible gun ownership here, we're discussing the NRA.

That audience is RWA. Don't like it? Tough shat. Link
 
2013-05-07 01:27:15 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.


You seem like a smart and savvy consumer, not like most of the rubes here on Fark. How would you like, as part of a very special discount to a limited number of people, to be one of the first to buy a case of my brand new rhiocerous repellant?
 
2013-05-07 01:27:26 PM
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?
 
2013-05-07 01:28:00 PM

darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]


I personally would feel safer around those gun rights activists than around the NRA

/gun owner
 
2013-05-07 01:28:13 PM

EyeballKid: rhinocerous


But, if you order early, I'll throw in some of my super-secret rhiocerous repellant along with the rhinocerous repellant!
 
2013-05-07 01:28:39 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?


Because that's twice as much thinking as they're used to?
 
2013-05-07 01:28:41 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.


Its an absolutist position that probably gets thousands of people unnecessarily killed each year, but at least its an ethos.
 
2013-05-07 01:29:05 PM

MonoChango: they probably think they are representing the millions of people that give them yearly dues. It is an "Association" that people voluntarily pay to be a part of. If they didn't represent those people, then they wouldn't get very much money.


If you read the NRA email broadcasts, it's pretty obvious there money comes from telling impressionable, low-information people that they are threatened, and the NRA needs money to fight for them.

For normal people the NRA funding pleas have all the legitimacy of a Nigerian email scam.

But a significant number of rubes can be fooled into sending them money again and again.
 
2013-05-07 01:29:12 PM

darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]


Clearly, their guns should be taken! They're -- *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* -- "socialists."
 
2013-05-07 01:29:14 PM
Do they pay the people who make this website?  What professional would post two videos and have them both start automatically as soon as the page is loaded?

Hey web developer, come into my office.  YOU'RE FIRED!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:29:36 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.


Of course the guys who think that having an AR-15 is a civil right are the craziest gun nuts of all.  I wonder what you think is wrong with the NRA if you think that is right?
 
2013-05-07 01:30:07 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?


Nevermind what it does.

Its members are loud and uneducated. Its just not respectable.
 
2013-05-07 01:31:07 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?


Newsflash: They aren't fighting to keep the 2nd amendment.

They're fighting to convince idiots to spend money on guns.
 
2013-05-07 01:31:09 PM
April 18, 2013

Mr. David A. Keene
President
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Mr. Keene,

This letter shall serve as formal resignation of my life membership in the NRA. I ask that you immediately remove my name from your membership roles [sic] and provide me an acknowledgement of this action.

As most in your organization would admit, I have historically been a staunch defender of the NRA purpose and tradition in representing the interests of gun owners. I have personally devoted countless financial resources and time to nurture an intelligent environmental policy that provided for the proud tradition of personal hunting for generations to come.

It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as "reasonable"? Furthermore, I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable. In fact, according to a Johns Hopkins University study, 74% say they support background checks.

I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus places a priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point.  The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners.

In closing I find it important to extend my personal thanks to Chris Cox and David Lehman for their support of so many important environmental issues. I will miss that level of friendship and support, but must take this action based upon my personal feelings toward the distorted values I see emerging within the NRA.

Sincerely,

Adolphus A. Busch, IV
 
2013-05-07 01:31:28 PM

frankencj: darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]

Meh...California, what would you expect.  Houston, Texas in 2000.  Texas GOP convention. NBPP shows up with long guns...if there was an outcry, I never heard or read of it.  Most folks were pissed an old man confronting the NBPP got pushed down.


I wonder what will happen when white people try it in D.C. this 4th of July?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/open-carry-march-washington _n _3222511.html
 
2013-05-07 01:31:44 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?


People who are afraid of:
- Obama
- non-caucasians
- non-Americans
- a long line at the Ponderosa buffet
- Messicans taking their jerbs
- Obama
- the illegality of incest
- science
- scientists
- ... Ah, hell. Basically the entire LOPCATGOPATA
 
2013-05-07 01:31:48 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.


Right there with you.  +1
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:31:55 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?


Welcome to Earth.
 
2013-05-07 01:32:00 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.


Uproxx wasn't a clue? And you can be all for gun rights and still realize the NRA are whacko.
 
2013-05-07 01:32:16 PM
Did they announce the new date for the race war?
 
2013-05-07 01:33:10 PM

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


citation_needed.jpg
 
2013-05-07 01:34:58 PM

fruitloop: This shiat just writes itself.


that pic looks like jon is coaching steven through a live prostate exam
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:35:19 PM

darth_badger: frankencj: darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]

Meh...California, what would you expect.  Houston, Texas in 2000.  Texas GOP convention. NBPP shows up with long guns...if there was an outcry, I never heard or read of it.  Most folks were pissed an old man confronting the NBPP got pushed down.

I wonder what will happen when white people try it in D.C. this 4th of July?


Considering that the laws in 21st century DC aren't the same as the laws in 1960's California, I hope arrest and prison time.
 
2013-05-07 01:35:27 PM
I dated a girl that worked at the NRA she got fired from it for pulling a gun on someone. Later on she stalked me. Good times.
 
2013-05-07 01:35:59 PM

mysticcat: April 18, 2013

Mr. David A. Keene
President
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Mr. Keene,

This letter shall serve as formal resignation of my life membership in the NRA. I ask that you immediately remove my name from your membership roles [sic] and provide me an acknowledgement of this action.

As most in your organization would admit, I have historically been a staunch defender of the NRA purpose and tradition in representing the interests of gun owners. I have personally devoted countless financial resources and time to nurture an intelligent environmental policy that provided for the proud tradition of personal hunting for generations to come.

It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as "reasonable"? Furthermore, I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable. In fact, according to a Johns Hopkins University study, 74% say they support background checks.

I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus places a priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point.  The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners.

In closing I find it important to extend my personal thanks to Chris Cox and David Lehman for their support of so many important environmental issues. I will miss tha ...


Not to be confused with August Busch IV, the last CEO before inbev. It's not actually the famous name you think it is. August Busch IV is somewhat culpable in the death of two ladies, led an OJ style car chase, and is a drug addict. I'm not sure if he has enough brain cells functioning to make an intelligent stand. Just an FYI.

Now AB is owned by soulless inbev, who would never make a political statement anyways, because business.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:46 PM

darth_badger: I wonder what will happen when white people try it in D.C. this 4th of July?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/open-carry-march-washington _n _3222511.html


Aw, Jebus. I'm gonna have to get the fark out of Dodge for a few days, aren't I?

// lives a mile-ish from the Mall
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:38:28 PM

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

citation_needed.jpg


It's funny how "citation needed" has come to mean "I can't dispute what you say but I don't like it.  i guess you've never heard of Sandy Hook?

Gun related deaths
 
2013-05-07 01:38:48 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

"[Incoming president] Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits."

I think this is a case of the gun manufacturer's creation (the "new" i.e. rabidly partisan NRA) going beyond what they intended and losing control. Much like the astroturfers who created the Tea Party to attack Obama but found the result to be Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin.


Manufacturers are still giving away memberships with purchase and linking to NRA from their webpages and they were everywhere at the convention. Shares are up. They're just fine with the NRA, even your favorite brand.
 
2013-05-07 01:38:49 PM
i32.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-07 01:39:03 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?


They fight against any laws (like the expanded background checks favored by the vast majority of Americans) that would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms. And they've jumped on the same right-wing crazytrain the Tea Party jumped on.

They're not a civil rights group any more. They're a puppet of gun manufacturers and the GOP, existing purely to scare idiots into buying more guns and ammo and voting Republican.
 
2013-05-07 01:40:21 PM

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

citation_needed.jpg


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=annual+US+firearms+deaths
 
2013-05-07 01:40:47 PM
says a lot about the current NRA when i know at least 5 people(+my self) who have cancelled there life time memberships do the the disconnect from reality the current leadership has

Heston just liked Guns, but the guys that have followed him are just beyond logic
 
2013-05-07 01:41:41 PM

cubic_spleen: - ... Ah, hell. Basically the entire LOPCATGOPATA


Somehow you need to rework that acronym to say LOLCATGOPATA
 
2013-05-07 01:42:35 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Wolf_Blitzer: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

"[Incoming president] Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits."

I think this is a case of the gun manufacturer's creation (the "new" i.e. rabidly partisan NRA) going beyond what they intended and losing control. Much like the astroturfers who created the Tea Party to attack Obama but found the result to be Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin.

Manufacturers are still giving away memberships with purchase and linking to NRA from their webpages and they were everywhere at the convention. Shares are up. They're just fine with the NRA, even your favorite brand.


And most Republicans will still swear they support the Tea Party, too. Just look at Smith & Wesson to see what happens when you go up against the Inquisition.
 
2013-05-07 01:42:39 PM

mysticcat: National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030


Ugh. I get so tired of being reminded that I have to stare directly at their building looking out my office window every damn day.
 
2013-05-07 01:43:10 PM

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

citation_needed.jpg

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=annual+US+firearms+deaths


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.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:00 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?


They've gone completely partisan.  They were always racist, but this new batch of "leaders" is like a whos-who of hard right ideaology.

To give you some idea, they even have Grover Norquist on their board of directors.  And Bob Barr.  Not to mention good old Ted Nugent.

It was all about hunting in the 60's and 70's.  Now hunting is nowhere to be seen.  It's a GOP fringe group.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:35 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.


well there's owners. and there are crazy people with guns who believe the liberal govt jackbooted thugs are knocking on your door just as soon as you close your eyes. and the only thing keeping them at bay are you and your peashooter.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:55 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Did they announce the new date for the race war?


January 21, 2009?
 
2013-05-07 01:46:01 PM

Qellaqan: Not to be confused with August Busch IV, the last CEO before inbev. It's not actually the famous name you think it is. August Busch IV is somewhat culpable in the death of two ladies, led an OJ style car chase, and is a drug addict. I'm not sure if he has enough brain cells functioning to make an intelligent stand. Just an FYI.


Exactly- he's the perfect NRA member

/didn't know all that
 
2013-05-07 01:46:16 PM

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

citation_needed.jpg

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=annual+US+firearms+deaths


The NRA alone causes that many deaths? Astonishing.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:19 PM

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


Looking at the availability of select types of firearms(anything resembling 'tactical') and ammunition, it's working like a champ.  All the AR-15 manufacturing companies are operating at full bore and there's STILL a six month wait for a lot of them.

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


1.  Hunting - Demographics have changed.  Today most gun owners aren't hunters.  Most own for target shooting/self defense.  Thus the NRA's priorities have shifted.
2.  Safety - The safety issue is 'pretty much' handled, but the NRA still runs it's safety programs.  It's just not sexy to report on the news that the NRA is having an 'Eddie Eagle' training program at the local schools, assuming that the school will let them due to politics.  Eddie Eagle mostly consists of 'STOP!  DON'T TOUCH!  GET AN ADULT!', but apparently that's still evil for some administrators.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:51 PM

MonoChango: I'm not a member but from what I know they started out as a safety organization that helped organize gun competitions.


A brief history of the NRA, and how they got involved with gun control

The NRA was founded in 1871, in the aftermath of the Civil War, by Union officers who were appalled at the level of civilian firearms skill in the US (and what poor shots they made as military recruits).  They thought that for better miltiary readiness, the US population should be encouraged to learn marksmanship through shooting sports.

For around a century, that's primarily what the NRA was, an organization dedicated to promoting shooting sports and learning marksmanship and gun safety.  When the National Firearms Act of 1934 came around, the act that de-facto banned fully automatic weapons, the NRA didn't seriously oppose it.  The thought at the time was that machine guns (i.e. fully automatic guns) were "gangster" weapons without legitimate civilian use for self defense or hunting, a position SCOTUS upheld in the Miller decision.

The NRA started to get involved with gun control in the late '60's.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 was opposed by the NRA, not for inherently being gun control, but because it had several provisions in there that were pretty harsh on dealers.  (These provisions were later repealed or allowed to sunset).

However, fresh off the success of the '68 act, the nascent gun control movement in the US was emboldened by a Presidential commission report on crime released in '72.  This report recommended banning handguns in the US, and confiscating all civilian owned handguns, over a 10 year period, and when combined with strict registration and licensing of rifles/shotguns, making the US a de-facto gun free nation by the early 1980's.

Well, the gun control movement was fueled by this.  There was increasing talk of gun control, of banning all guns, of banning handguns, ect in the early to mid 1970's.

Until this point, the people who had been the bulk of the NRA membership had never seen any real attempt to take guns away.  For millions and millions of people, gun ownership was just simply a way of life, and that way of life was now under attack from what was seen to be urban liberals.

The NRA mobilized, en masse, to pressure Congress to not even consider further gun control.  That whole bit with Charleton Heston holding a gun, saying you could only get it from out of his cold dead hands?  That wasn't hyperbole when placed against rhetoric coming from the left about gun confiscation and abolishment at the time.

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.

All it takes is the likes of Gov. Cuomo or Sen. Feinstein saying anything about gun confiscation and that's enough to inflame that old wound for years to come.

So, that's how a marksmanship club founded in the aftermath of the Civil War has become pretty much a devoted anti-gun-control lobbying group.
 
2013-05-07 01:47:02 PM

darth_badger: frankencj: darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]

Meh...California, what would you expect.  Houston, Texas in 2000.  Texas GOP convention. NBPP shows up with long guns...if there was an outcry, I never heard or read of it.  Most folks were pissed an old man confronting the NBPP got pushed down.

I wonder what will happen when white people try it in D.C. this 4th of July?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/open-carry-march-washington _n _3222511.html


Not much.

"There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event."
 
2013-05-07 01:48:51 PM

kronicfeld: mysticcat: National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Ugh. I get so tired of being reminded that I have to stare directly at their building looking out my office window every damn day.


A clip from JUAN OF THE DEAD for you ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2p2FCNWZEU
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-07 01:50:34 PM
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.
 
2013-05-07 01:53:50 PM

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.



The assumption the initial post (with the lmgtfy) made was that all firearm deaths were preventable; if only we'd passed legislation that the NRA alone was responsible for blocking, all these deaths would not have occurred. It's not accurate.
 
2013-05-07 01:54:34 PM

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.


Horseshiat.  What you've said is absolute horseshiat.  How would the laws have prevented the Colorado theater shooting?  Sandy Hook?  VA Tech - maybe, as the shooter should've been registered in his state as mentally unstable and thusly prevented from making the firearm purchase.   Background checks?  They already exist for all non private party sales.  All dealers must exercise background checks.  Banning evil black rifles?  That didn't work worth a shiat last time it was tried.
 
2013-05-07 01:56:29 PM

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
 
2013-05-07 01:58:20 PM

vpb: ronaprhys:
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.


So is the ACLU responsible for peoples deaths because they support the 4th Amendment? After all, I'm sure the same justification for 'public safety' can be made for removing the requirements of search warrants. Lord knows, police and governmental organization have tried to push the limits constantly on that right.
 
2013-05-07 01:58:20 PM
I really do like Jon Stewart and I erroneously thought Palin had vanished from the scene (am now busy looking for for the total video of Palin's talk...)
 
2013-05-07 01:58:22 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


WOLVERINES!!!
 
2013-05-07 01:59:17 PM

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



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

EyeballKid, 2013
 
2013-05-07 01:59:31 PM
 
2013-05-07 01:59:53 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


Just think - by banning that amendment, they could search the home or car of anyone they suspect of illegally owning a firearm and seize it from those folks and leave the rest of us alone.  It's the perfect authoritarian wet dream.  Plus, the war on drugs could be dealt with much more effectively.  Just raid anyone who looks druggish.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:36 PM

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


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

EyeballKid, 2013


Actually I can.  You need to Learn2Law better.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:45 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: darth_badger: frankencj: darth_badger: How did the NRA feel about these gun rights activists?

[eonclicker.com image 448x330]

Meh...California, what would you expect.  Houston, Texas in 2000.  Texas GOP convention. NBPP shows up with long guns...if there was an outcry, I never heard or read of it.  Most folks were pissed an old man confronting the NBPP got pushed down.

I wonder what will happen when white people try it in D.C. this 4th of July?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/open-carry-march-washington _n _3222511.html

Not much.

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


Yeah. That group might be a bit zealous but they are doing their best for a peaceful protest. To the point they say they will walk away if police ask them to.

I think their best course of action would be to show up without their guns or unloaded ones though.

I can't say I agree with their stance but I agree with their right to peaceful protest which is what they claim to desire.
 
2013-05-07 02:04:22 PM

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?
 
2013-05-07 02:04:39 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?


They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.
 
2013-05-07 02:04:42 PM

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


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

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

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

I figure that 90% of anybody carrying will not have any ammunition at all on them, but in a worst case scenario I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10% quickly became loaded, though most would only have a single magazine.
 
2013-05-07 02:06:22 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?


www.inquisitr.com
 
2013-05-07 02:06:27 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?


Yeah, you tell them libtardz what's whut!
 
2013-05-07 02:06:50 PM

EyeballKid: EyeballKid: rhinocerous

But, if you order early, I'll throw in some of my super-secret rhiocerous repellant along with the rhinocerous repellant!


farm2.staticflickr.com
 
2013-05-07 02:07:02 PM

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

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

Is the ACLU bad?

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


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

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

is that cool?

if so, why not?

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

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

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

is that cool?

if so, why not?

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


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

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

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

Is the ACLU bad?

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Is the ACLU bad?

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

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


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

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

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

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

is that cool?

if so, why not?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

EyeballKid, 2013


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

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

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

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

is that cool?

if so, why not?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

EyeballKid, 2013


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

is that cool?

if so, why not?

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


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

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

Fort Hood and clock tower guy disagree.


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

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

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

Is the ACLU bad?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

EyeballKid, 2013

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


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

What I want:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Silverstaff: Fun

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that NRA


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

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


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

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

what is this I don't even.


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

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


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

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

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

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

Good luck with that NRA

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that NRA

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Good luck with that NRA

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Creating a registry was explicitly banned in the Toomey-Manchin proposal.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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.)
 
2013-05-07 06:52:28 PM
ciberido:
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.

So you're saying your 'right to feel safe' trumps all my rights?

Sounds absolutist.

Now, if we surgically muted you to prevent the possibility that you might yell fire in a theater, then you'd have a accurate analogy to what you want to do to my rights to own firearms.
 
2013-05-07 06:53:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Yeah, because people are allowed to run around shooting in the streets without trial.  Are you delusional?
 
2013-05-07 06:58:07 PM
Anyway, here's a reference to some of the many amendments on gun control the Senate failed to pass on 4/17 and 4/18
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/294649-senate-to-contin ue -amendment-votes-thursday

There's a bit more of a breakdown of it here (at least for 4/17) but I'm too lazy to hunt down all this crap. Yeah, this site is a bit biased but the amendements are the amendments:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/latest-updates-on-t od ays-senate-gun-control-amendments/

Just about background checks, indeed.
 
2013-05-07 07:00:40 PM

Doom MD: My arguments are right in front of your face, you just can't read the paragraph properly


Oh no, I read the paragraph properly. I'm just wondering what Andrew Cuomo is doing in a discussion about legislation in front of the US Senate. As far as I'm aware, he's my governor. I'm just not sure what the opinion of Andrew Cuomo has to do with a bill that was recently voted down by the Senate. Perhaps you could expound upon that for me?
 
2013-05-07 07:01:24 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because people are allowed to run around shooting in the streets without trial.  Are you delusional?


So you don't understand the difference between a jury trial and a court martial then.
 
2013-05-07 07:07:32 PM
Clearly, because the governor of New York is ON RECORD saying something is on the table, that MUST MEAN that everyone and every bill asking for universal background checks just wants to take all yer guns, right? I mean, that appears to be what you're implying.
 
2013-05-07 07:08:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: My arguments are right in front of your face, you just can't read the paragraph properly

Oh no, I read the paragraph properly. I'm just wondering what Andrew Cuomo is doing in a discussion about legislation in front of the US Senate. As far as I'm aware, he's my governor. I'm just not sure what the opinion of Andrew Cuomo has to do with a bill that was recently voted down by the Senate. Perhaps you could expound upon that for me?


Cuomo is a very visible and vocal gun-control advocate, to the point his SAFE Act is presumed to be an attempt to make his bid for the presidency. Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area. You can focus on my Feinstein video if you wish to limit the discussion to that of federal legislation.
 
2013-05-07 07:13:12 PM

Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.


Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?
 
2013-05-07 07:13:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because people are allowed to run around shooting in the streets without trial.  Are you delusional?

So you don't understand the difference between a jury trial and a court martial then.


First of all, members of the military aren't court-martialed every time they discharge their weapon.  Also, I'd LOVE to hear what you think the difference would be.  Specifically, why you would suddenly trust civilians with rocket launchers if they were tried under this system, and not our regular courts.
 
2013-05-07 07:16:35 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: First of all, members of the military aren't court-martialed every time they discharge their weapon


No, but the discussion was military  and police, and police officers most certainly are investigated every time they discharge their weapons.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Specifically, why you would suddenly trust civilians with rocket launchers if they were tried under this system, and not our regular courts.


Well, we trust our military, right? I would trust them if they reported to a chain of command and adhered to the UCMJ. I don't see why it would be much different, then.
 
2013-05-07 07:17:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-07 07:23:44 PM

Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]


That's what everyone is doing when they read your posts.  You obviously really love your guns but don't know shiat about the gun laws that were proposed.  Another moran making the pro-gun people look like retards.  Replying with insults just makes you look like a bigger idiot.
 
2013-05-07 07:25:57 PM
It amazes me how Ted Cruz can stand up there and bullshiat those people to their faces, contradicting himself just three minutes apart, and they eat it up.  They have completely lost the ability to think critically.
 
2013-05-07 07:37:43 PM

CynicalLA: Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

That's what everyone is doing when they read your posts.  You obviously really love your guns but don't know shiat about the gun laws that were proposed.  Another moran making the pro-gun people look like retards.  Replying with insults just makes you look like a bigger idiot.

Thanks for backing up your alt, but the legislation is still dead as it ever was.
 
2013-05-07 07:48:33 PM

BayouOtter: ciberido:
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.

So you're saying your 'right to feel safe' trumps all my rights?

Sounds absolutist.

Now, if we surgically muted you to prevent the possibility that you might yell fire in a theater, then you'd have a accurate analogy to what you want to do to my rights to own firearms.


What -I- want to do to your rights to own firearms?

Dude, you haven't got the slightest idea what -my- position on gun control is.
 
2013-05-07 07:50:35 PM
It is kinda fun, though, that I've got about half of the people in the thread think I'm a "gun nut" while much of the other half seem to think I want to surgically remove their trigger fingers or something.  I really will need more popcorn if this thread keeps up.
 
2013-05-07 08:16:17 PM

Silverstaff: MonoChango: I'm not a member but from what I know they started out as a safety organization that helped organize gun competitions.

A brief history of the NRA, and how they got involved with gun control


Thank you. Nicely presented without any histrionics.
 
2013-05-07 08:29:52 PM

ciberido: It is kinda fun, though, that I've got about half of the people in the thread think I'm a "gun nut" while much of the other half seem to think I want to surgically remove their trigger fingers or something.


Yeah, that's called being a Fudd.
 
2013-05-07 08:39:57 PM

Thunderpipes: 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?


is this guy serious or a master troll?
 
2013-05-07 08:51:38 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.


That's not a healthy attitude. In your example, that one employee would be poisoning the environment for others. The net effect would be negative on the workplace for everyone. That is exactly like the NRA: the net effect is bad for the country. You belong IMHO because you selfishly want them to defend your gun rights without caring about the cost to the nation.
 
2013-05-07 09:14:11 PM
Boy the Fark beta males are sure up in arms (pardon the pun) about the big bad scary gun owners and the NRA. I hope you "guys" don't pee in your panties!
 
2013-05-07 09:46:24 PM

enik: Boy the Fark beta males are sure up in arms (pardon the pun) about the big bad scary gun owners and the NRA. I hope you "guys" don't pee in your panties!


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-05-07 10:11:32 PM

Begoggle: PETA also does one thing and does it very well.


Attention whoring?
 
2013-05-07 10:17:19 PM

Jument: That's not a healthy attitude. In your example, that one employee would be poisoning the environment for others. The net effect would be negative on the workplace for everyone. That is exactly like the NRA: the net effect is bad for the country. You belong IMHO because you selfishly want them to defend your gun rights without caring about the cost to the nation.


What's the NRA doing to change the nation?  They do seem to associate with a lot of Republicans, but if the NRA were trying to ban abortion or make Christianity the national religion, they'd lose a lot of members (and money).  Just as the League of Woman Voters would lose membership if they started backing candidates on a partisan basis (versus, say, a candidate who proposes that women shouldn't be able to vote).
 
2013-05-07 10:42:10 PM

Thunderpipes: 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.


Europe.
 
2013-05-07 10:57:20 PM

BMFPitt: Begoggle: PETA also does one thing and does it very well.

Attention whoring?


Attention and cash.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:13 PM

Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

That's what everyone is doing when they read your posts.  You obviously really love your guns but don't know shiat about the gun laws that were proposed.  Another moran making the pro-gun people look like retards.  Replying with insults just makes you look like a bigger idiot.
Thanks for backing up your alt, but the legislation is still dead as it ever was.


A) that's not my alt and B) You're right, because  there is no such legislation.

I repeat: there is no legislation in the US Congress, or on the President's agenda to confiscate all firearms. Deal with it and change your Depends.
 
2013-05-07 11:42:15 PM
Do any of you psychopathic 2nd amendment freaks ever travel overseas to nations that have gun control?

Do you FREAK THE FARK OUT when you come to nations like mine and you have to walk the streets unarmed, the one terrified person amongst a crowd of folks who don't equate 'going to the shops' with 'making sure you are packing heat'?

Or do you just holiday in Libertarian fantasy lands like Somalia?
 
2013-05-07 11:43:11 PM
Or do you not spend your time in our nations quivering in terror because you actually realise the whole reason why you want to be armed in the US is because everybody else is armed?
 
2013-05-07 11:59:02 PM

enik: Boy the Fark beta males are sure up in arms (pardon the pun) about the big bad scary gun owners and the NRA. I hope you "guys" don't pee in your panties!


That was strangely specific.

Do we even need to look at your internet browsing history?
 
2013-05-08 12:06:51 AM

cegorach: Do you FREAK THE FARK OUT when you come to nations like mine and you have to walk the streets unarmed, the one terrified person amongst a crowd of folks who don't equate 'going to the shops' with 'making sure you are packing heat'?


Nope.  And those same people don't freak out in the U.S. when they can't go somewhere without a pistol, but they would rather have fewer "Gun Free Zones" in general.  Law-abiding citizens aren't dangerous in them, and criminals ignore the prohibition anyway.

cegorach: Or do you just holiday in Libertarian fantasy lands like Somalia?


Somalia actually has strict licensing to own a gun or ammunition.
 
2013-05-08 12:12:48 AM

vpb: Of course the guys who think that having an AR-15 is a civil right are the craziest gun nuts of all. I wonder what you think is wrong with the NRA if you think that is right?


1.5/10
 
2013-05-08 12:17:27 AM

Silverstaff: 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.


Indeed.  The 4th amendment is a relic, written when people still owned slaves, delivered mail by horseback and had flintlocks.

Think of how prosperous we could be if we could get past the 13th amendment purists and allow compromise on slavery reform.  Nobody needs ALL of their spare time to themselves, it's selfish and harmful to society.  Nobody's saying you can't have any spare time, just that their have to be limits to how much free time you spend on yourself.  Just as you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't be unenslaved all the time everywhere.
 
2013-05-08 12:18:54 AM

cegorach: Do any of you psychopathic 2nd amendment freaks ever travel overseas to nations that have gun control?

Do you FREAK THE FARK OUT when you come to nations like mine and you have to walk the streets unarmed, the one terrified person amongst a crowd of folks who don't equate 'going to the shops' with 'making sure you are packing heat'?


I hate to break this to you, but as a rational Handgun Carry Permit holder, I take offense to this kind of broad brushing of people who own firearms. The majority of HCP/CCW holders are rational people who have less than a 0.1% chance of being involved in crime.

The reason I have my HCP is because I want to be able to protect myself in an area where I know the average Law Enforcement Response Time to a situation where I will have to defend my life in a violent crime is around 5 to 8 minutes, on average. I also work in an area where there is a massive disproportionate amount of violent crime. I'm not terrified of my surroundings, or going unarmed - which I do 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, you would never know I'm armed to begin with anyway.

And I don't fantasize about killing someone either. It's something I hope that I pay 90 bucks for every five years that I never have to use, period, on any human being.

So stop doing your own side a disservice and using hyperbole to paint all gun owners as "gun freaks".
 
2013-05-08 12:19:13 AM

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.


Fail.

The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-05-08 12:21:21 AM

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman


Was that before or after Texas went to a shall-issue permit system?
 
2013-05-08 12:21:28 AM

pedrop357: Think of how prosperous we could be if we could get past the 13th amendment purists and allow compromise on slavery reform.  Nobody needs ALL of their spare time to themselves, it's selfish and harmful to society.


I agree. And if we involved leather bonds and a few sex toys, it could be  REALLYfun.
 
2013-05-08 12:27:26 AM

cegorach: Or do you just holiday in Libertarian fantasy lands like Somalia?


Somalia is basically the new Godwin.  Anyone who deploys it pretty much loses the argument by default.
 
2013-05-08 01:00:28 AM

draypresct: 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.


Joe Blowme is referring to a recent House resolution calling attention to the evidence that the problems of global warming (war, disease, food insecurity, drought) disproportionately effect women in poverty.

He finds that funny for some reason.
 
2013-05-08 04:18:53 AM

Silverstaff: dartben: 1. How would requiring background checks for private gun sales have prevented Newtown?


IMO the background check shouldn't just be for the wannabe gun owner, but also for the people that person lives with. If you're part of a household that includes paranoid schizos (among others), you do not get to own a gun -- or at least not store it in the house.

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 have no doubt there are  some people like that, but I doubt there are enough to make a difference.

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

You could, for instance, mandate that the people involved in the sale have to go to a govt official who'll make the necessary background check.

If Grampa wants to give his grandson a rifle for his 13th birthday,

Should a 13 year old be allowed to own a rifle? Is a 13 year old allowed to own a car?

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?

Yeah, what's the point of having laws at all? It's not as if you can verify who's following them or not.

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.

That's tinfoil-hat talk.

There is one thing about the US: Your gun-culture is nuts. Completely nuts. Norway has about the same number of firearms as the US (pr citizen), but gun-ownership simply isn't an issue. Norwegians have guns mostly for hunting (a very legitimate purpose) and plinking at targets. There are also some collectors. We do not own guns for self-defence or to protect ourselves from the gubmint.


The impression I have is that a large chunk of the US gun culture (certainly the loudest part) is motivated mainly by fear, paranoia, and some bizarre fetishistic ideology.
 
2013-05-08 04:22:53 AM

hardinparamedic: I hate to break this to you, but as a rational Handgun Carry Permit holder, I take offense to this kind of broad brushing of people who own firearms. The majority of HCP/CCW holders are rational people who have less than a 0.1% chance of being involved in crime.


Where is your gun right now?
 
2013-05-08 04:30:07 AM
Glenn Beck said "The only thing that will protect your mother or daughter from being raped or molested is a gun."

That's a good point, because if one person knows what rapists don't like, it's Glenn Beck.

/Rest in peace 1990 girl. Wish you would have had a gun to fight him off.
 
2013-05-08 05:00:23 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: hardinparamedic: I hate to break this to you, but as a rational Handgun Carry Permit holder, I take offense to this kind of broad brushing of people who own firearms. The majority of HCP/CCW holders are rational people who have less than a 0.1% chance of being involved in crime.

Where is your gun right now?


Locked up in a fingerprint biometric/keycode safe, unloaded.
The rifles are 120 miles away, locked in a browning 15 gun safe.

Why do you ask?
 
2013-05-08 05:02:00 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Where is your gun right now?


I also have no children in my brick-sided home, and shoot frangible ammo - the same that Air Marshals shoot so it won't penetrate the skin of a plane.

Please continue to make irrelevant comparisons to what I said, though.
 
2013-05-08 09:55:11 AM

Hickory-smoked: draypresct: 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.

Joe Blowme is referring to a recent House resolution calling attention to the evidence that the problems of global warming (war, disease, food insecurity, drought) disproportionately effect women in poverty.

He finds that funny for some reason.


I was wondering if he'd found an obscure politician somewhere saying something crazy, or if he was deliberately (mis)quoting out of context.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-05-08 01:32:16 PM

hardinparamedic: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Where is your gun right now?

I also have no children in my brick-sided home, and shoot frangible ammo - the same that Air Marshals shoot so it won't penetrate the skin of a plane.

Please continue to make irrelevant comparisons to what I said, though.


Our anecdotal evidence brings us up to 50% of HCP/CCWs handling their weapons responsibly.
 
2013-05-08 03:33:02 PM
Thank god. He sure could use some
 
2013-05-08 08:16:36 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Our anecdotal evidence brings us up to 50% of HCP/CCWs handling their weapons responsibly.


It's things like this that make people laugh at you.

Let's review something, shall we? You're making blatantly offensive attacks against someone who not only is a responsible, mature gun owner, but also works in a pediatric level 1 trauma center - by openly comparing him to a couple who's actions allowed their child to be killed through sheer negligence. Not only that, you're doing this to someone who generally agrees with the need for expanded restrictions and background check expansions to prevent people who should not have access to firearms from gaining that access.

You're like the Operation Barbarossa of Gun threads, dude.
 
2013-05-08 08:33:53 PM

hardinparamedic: comparing him to a couple


I was comparing you to the CCW uncle.
 
2013-05-08 08:57:53 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I was comparing you to the CCW uncle.


You really need to clarify these things.
 
2013-05-08 09:00:48 PM

hardinparamedic: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I was comparing you to the CCW uncle.

You really need to clarify these things.


Specifically referenced HCP/CCWs.
 
Displayed 351 of 351 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report