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.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   (usatoday.com) divider line 453
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8135 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 01:00:43 PM
What we need is more guns, everywhere.  Have them at pedestrian crossings, instead of the orange flags.  The "leave one, take one" penny dish?... scrap it and have one filled with guns.
 
2013-07-08 01:03:10 PM
Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

MFAWG: Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


Jon iz teh kewl: conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.


From these insightful counter-arguments I deduce that Liberalism means walking around not being terrified of everything, and not wanting to buy a gun to defend yourself, and that this is being rational.

So I'm guessing that it's slightly more difficult to be a Liberal in Camden NJ than in other places.
 
2013-07-08 01:07:37 PM

Dimensio: Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.


I could go into that he made no proposal to confiscate weapons,but how about I just let his (Muhlbauer's) own actions prove my point.  Even just suggesting something that might be about taking some guns in one State got so much backlashMuhlbauer is backpedaling faster than the speed of sound.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/muhlbauer-says-gun-grabbing-commen ts -were-taken-out-of-context-audio-proves-they-werent/

If that was a real proposal (it wasn't) then it proves what I said about being marginalized if you even mention confiscation or banning all guns.

If that wasn't a real proposal then it makes sense since he never did anything but say that one sentence  (that he said was out of context) to suggest taking any guns.  No legislation, not even any debate.
 
2013-07-08 01:09:15 PM

Click Click D'oh: Smokeless powder is not an explosive or a precursor to one so it can not be regulated as an explosive.


This is true, *BUT* you can still make bombs from it.

Having said that, you can load cartridges with black powder or BP substitute.  You'll get lower velocity for a given volume of powder, but the difference might not matter all that much in the real world, and some of the relatively common "smokeless" cartridges these days have roots in the days of BP, like the .45-70, .45 LC, .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum, etc.  Some actually were originally loaded with BP, and some are based upon cartridges that were originally loaded with BP.
 
2013-07-08 01:09:25 PM

bigpete53: manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.

Very well said. I want a Tommy gun. And a full-auto AK. And a full-auto SKS. And a full auto M-16. And a 40mm gun. There should be no laws against the possession of inanimate objects. I'm gonna build be a snuke.


First, if you want a a Tommy Gun, full-auto AK or SKS or M16, go for it, I hope you are rich though, but it is legal to posses them.

Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance.   It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart.  There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..
 
2013-07-08 01:10:23 PM

Dimensio: I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.


What is the purpose of the threaded barrel? Why would it be banned?

You can purchase a semi-auto rifle. You can purchase a semi-auto pistol. You can purchase a semi-auto shotgun. Just because you can't modify the dang thing the way you want to doesn't mean it's excessive. It just means that you can't modify it the way you want to. If losing access to a threaded barrel is your big complaint, you're really concerned about the wrong things.
 
2013-07-08 01:13:05 PM

Zasteva: That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).


He's still correct; 'almost nil' isn't the same as 'nil'.  DUI, handicapped parking spots, and 'public nuisance' in some areas are the notable exceptions.  Go out in the country where you actually have room to drive around completely on private property that you either own or have permission to use and you don't need to drive a vehicle that meets standard emissions(in many states), be registered, have plates, meet safety regulations, etc...  You personally don't need to have a driver's license.

Zasteva: You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.


That's an administrative action - you're being fined for having a vehicle that's registered to be on the public roads without insurance.  They don't know it's up on blocks; it's your job to inform them when the status of your vehicle changes.  In other areas they simply suspend your registration.  Turn in the tags(so now it's not a road-legal vehicle) and you're good to go.

you have pee hands: How many people exclusively operate firearms on private property? Unless you've got 10+ acres you're probably not shooting in your yard.


I have plans for a 10 yard indoor basement range.  I used to live out in the country where there was no houses within 10 miles within particular sweeps.  Closest house was more than a block's worth away.  Noise concerns are an issue - but that's where relaxing the rules on firearm mufflers would be good.  After that all you have to worry about is having a good backstop(Safety first!).

Still, let's get back to the popular car example.  That you live in a city or burbs doesn't mean that you can't own and operate a non-street legal race car.  You just need to trailer it to where it'll be used.  The track is private property, though you probably don't own it yourself.  So isn't many/most ranges.

Non-Street Racer:Trailer:Track
Firearm:Case:Range
 
2013-07-08 01:13:25 PM

Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?


Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?
 
2013-07-08 01:14:13 PM

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.

So, what part of your school experience dictates that school shooting teams, in school firearms education and students with firearms in their car leads to school shootings?  Oh, and which school shooting(s) can be attributed to those above items?

Since you are claiming your position in based on reason and logic, that should be pretty easy to provide an answer for....


I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.  I don't have any problem with that, the resource officer at my school is pretty cool, and has incorporated some great strategies for intruder scenarios that differ from just hiding under desks or locking yourself in a room, potentially becoming a sitting duck.

Without any research, I can't come up with a specific occurrence in which a gun in a student's car has lead to a school shooting, but the potential risk is definitely there. For example, if another student knew of that gun and wanted to commit a violent crime. That risk, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

My experience comes from being a teacher in public schools. The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course. The resource officers in our schools do an excellent job in educating the student and teacher population on how to handle emergency situations involving a shooter, but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).
 
2013-07-08 01:14:28 PM

dittybopper: some of the relatively common "smokeless" cartridges these days have roots in the days of BP, like the .45-70, .45 LC

...

I still run both of these on BP just for the woosh of it.
 
2013-07-08 01:17:20 PM

Aldon: BgJonson79: Aldon: BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.

What restrictions are there for the Fourth and Fifth?

Just some quick examples, there are many more (probably can just google it):

Fourth amendment: Have you heard of the NSA spying debate going on since at least 2002?  George W. Bush's administration thought he didn't even have to go though the FISA court to listen into phone conversations.  It is not applicable in international airports etc....

Fifth Amendment: Have you heard of "enhanced interrogation" (torture)?  The right does not extend to civil court.  You can be required to give incriminating evidence for federal tax purposes...etc...

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head.  There have literally been volumes dedicated to this stuff.


I was under the impression that both of those are illegal...
 
2013-07-08 01:17:26 PM

manimal2878: Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance. It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart. There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..


The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to say that you cannot restrict rights. As for possessing full auto weapons, it is far more difficult to get one than any other type of firearm, due to pricing and licensing. The point is that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, and most everyone recognizes that they are sensible. Eventually, some of the basic things, like background checks, will become universal and we won't think twice about them. Why? Because they make sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:19:11 PM

vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.


No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).


So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?
 
2013-07-08 01:22:09 PM
The cardinal rule of a Fark gun thread.

1. Troll early, and troll often.
 
2013-07-08 01:22:28 PM

bigpete53: manimal2878: Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance. It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart. There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..

The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to say that you cannot restrict rights. As for possessing full auto weapons, it is far more difficult to get one than any other type of firearm, due to pricing and licensing. The point is that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, and most everyone recognizes that they are sensible. Eventually, some of the basic things, like background checks, will become universal and we won't think twice about them. Why? Because they make sense.


Not to get into the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment debate, but almost nobody thinks the 2nd was talking about anything other than small arms.

Of course you can restrict rights, rights come with responsibility.  I didn't say there should be no regulation, my argument is there shouldn't be any limiting the type of gun.   I think there are enough laws to serve the purpose of promoting responsible gun ownership, the actions of using a gun irresponsibly are already covered criminalized and punishable.
 
2013-07-08 01:22:51 PM

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva:MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things.

The vast majority of the time, no, it's not.  If you think it is, that just confirms more for me that you have zero experience with firearms, or killing.  If you think that your average range rat with his sandbags, sighting scope and bench even in the slightest resembles anything remotely like killing, you are deluded.  Poking holes in paper is just that, poking holes in paper.


Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.

And while your experience with firearms is clearly greater than mine if you are training people to kill with them, I do have enough experience to know that it's not just about poking holes in paper. The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it? Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?

Just for grins, let's say I take you at your word -- firearms have plenty of other purposes than killing, target shooting and collecting, for example. So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets. So we don't worry about the firearms at all, and just control the lethal ammunition.
 
2013-07-08 01:24:00 PM

Gimli_Gloin: Wow, someone had the cojones to write a "The Emperor has no clothes" article on gun laws. II am sure her tenure at USA Today will be short.


What's amazing about the article is that it's about solving the actual problems behind gun violence. More laws won't do it, less laws won't do it, but changing the culture of violence might:

  The focus was not on gun laws but on long-standing issues that fed Baker's struggles:
  a failing education system, a dearth of jobs, and a street culture that rewards and
  even encourages criminal behavior.

Specifically, the machismo and "street cred" of being a criminal, and all of the power, cash, women, and lifestyle that goes with it.


It's apparent that most of the posters here didn't bother reading the article, so this thread has ended up being just another typical anti-gun/pro-gun thread.
 
2013-07-08 01:26:08 PM

manimal2878: Of course you can restrict rights, rights come with responsibility. I didn't say there should be no regulation, my argument is there shouldn't be any limiting the type of gun. I think there are enough laws to serve the purpose of promoting responsible gun ownership, the actions of using a gun irresponsibly are already covered criminalized and punishable.


I walked into a gun show here in LA and purchased a handgun with no safety course required and no check other than a Fed check. I fail to see how responsible gun ownership was promoted in the transaction. Mandatory firearm safety courses would do a lot to curb theft and accidental shootings.
 
2013-07-08 01:26:24 PM

Loadmaster: Gimli_Gloin: Wow, someone had the cojones to write a "The Emperor has no clothes" article on gun laws. II am sure her tenure at USA Today will be short.

What's amazing about the article is that it's about solving the actual problems behind gun violence. More laws won't do it, less laws won't do it, but changing the culture of violence might:

  The focus was not on gun laws but on long-standing issues that fed Baker's struggles:
  a failing education system, a dearth of jobs, and a street culture that rewards and
  even encourages criminal behavior.

Specifically, the machismo and "street cred" of being a criminal, and all of the power, cash, women, and lifestyle that goes with it.


It's apparent that most of the posters here didn't bother reading the article, so this thread has ended up being just another typical anti-gun/pro-gun thread.


verbaltoxin: The cardinal rule of a Fark gun thread.

1. Troll early, and troll often.

 
2013-07-08 01:26:58 PM

manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?


if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:27:06 PM

redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.


Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.
 
2013-07-08 01:32:32 PM

bigpete53: I walked into a gun show here in LA and purchased a handgun with no safety course required and no check other than a Fed check. I fail to see how responsible gun ownership was promoted in the transaction. Mandatory firearm safety courses would do a lot to curb theft and accidental shootings.


Are you a felon?  Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen?  What is the irresponsible part?
 
2013-07-08 01:32:54 PM

Zasteva: Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.


So you finally admit that practicing with a firearm simply improves proficiency with the firearm and does nothing towards actually practicing to kill.  Took you a while to be honest with that.  I note, that you still have yet to admit that not all firearms are designed to kill.  Still working on that one then.  Don't worry, honesty will come eventually.

Zasteva: The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it.


If true, explain they why the lowly .22, the least powerful of firearms, is the most common firearm?  Seems like an awful odd way of being fascinated with lethality... but finding the least lethal option...

Zasteva: If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it?


Friendly competition
Personal competition and improvement
Because it's a lot of fun for some people to have the discipline and skill necessary to make a tiny group at several hundred yards

Zasteva: Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?


Because physics.

Show me a non-lethal alternative that is accurate enough to group at 100 yards.

Zasteva: So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets.


You better be prepared to give that license to anyone competing with a firearm in any type of event... because physics.

Oh, and to all other American citizens, because they do after all have the right to effective self defense.
 
2013-07-08 01:33:37 PM

Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.


Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.
 
2013-07-08 01:34:41 PM

Alphakronik: Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


That's great. And how am I supposed to rely on that for self-defense? Relying on someone's software to decide if the human I'm trying to shoot is a bad guy or a good guy? Wouldn't it be easier and more reliable to trust people have proven their reliability by being, you know, not criminals?

Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now. You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.


The problem with your smart-gun idea, is that it's gonna be REALLY hard to make the bad guys use them, when they ignore the laws that say they shouldn't have guns AT ALL. How about instead of this unworkable idea, we put criminals in jail for a mandatory 5 years if they use a gun in a crime? That way, you protect society from them for 5 years at a time, and you use a punishment which is consistent and applied to the person who is actually doing something wrong.
 
2013-07-08 01:34:58 PM

vanbiber874: Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance.


And what a raving success zero tolerance has been! Young kids getting kicked out of school for having squirt guns, making gun shapes with their fingers, and drawing pictures with guns in them--it's a wonder that anyone opposes more restrictions!
 
2013-07-08 01:35:28 PM

cptjeff: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.


So something he declared distinctly unconstitutional would qualify as a reasonable restriction? Maybe I missed that part then.

Just because it's something I do personally doesn't mean it's even close as to whether or not I prefer to see it mandated. If local PD/sheriff or government were required to give safety classes and trigger/breech locks out, I might think about it.
 
2013-07-08 01:36:16 PM

cptjeff: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.


You might want to reread Scalia's decision.

Held:
...
  3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
 
2013-07-08 01:40:23 PM

Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)


Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.
 
2013-07-08 01:41:17 PM

manimal2878: Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.

Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.{?}


Sure, as soon as you use correct punctuation and complete sentances.

/Every time.
 
2013-07-08 01:42:08 PM

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).

So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?


That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling. And I've noticed that attempting to respond to your comments doesn't really lead anywhere. So....

btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.
 
2013-07-08 01:43:41 PM

manimal2878: Are you a felon? Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen? What is the irresponsible part?


1. No.
2. gun dealer.
3. No. Brand new.
4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer. My point is that the process of purchasing a firearm does not promote responsible gun ownership. You claim that current firearms laws promote responsible gun ownership. They do not. A mandatory safety class would promote responsible gun ownership. A training session with the seller on the operation and storage of the firearms would promote responsible gun ownership.
 
2013-07-08 01:44:58 PM
 

Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.

Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.{?}

Sure, as soon as you use correct punctuation and complete sentances.

/Every time.


Seriously?  You think this makes sense?   Are you asking me something or telling me something?
 
2013-07-08 01:46:01 PM

jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.


This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.
 
2013-07-08 01:47:15 PM

vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).

So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?

That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling. And I've noticed that attempting to respond to your comments doesn't really lead anywhere. So....

btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.


It's not confusing at all unless you find "school marching band" or "school football team" confusing as well.
 
2013-07-08 01:48:52 PM

vanbiber874:That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling.

Okay, so let's make it more direct.  Do you think it's the responsibility of the parents to teach kids the following extra-curricular activities?  Band, orchestra, football, basketball, wrestling & Swim?

vanbiber874: btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.


Do you call it a school-sponsored football team?
 
2013-07-08 01:49:52 PM

bigpete53: manimal2878: Are you a felon? Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen? What is the irresponsible part?

1. No.
2. gun dealer.
3. No. Brand new.
4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer. My point is that the process of purchasing a firearm does not promote responsible gun ownership. You claim that current firearms laws promote responsible gun ownership. They do not. A mandatory safety class would promote responsible gun ownership. A training session with the seller on the operation and storage of the firearms would promote responsible gun ownership.


 I meant that current laws promote responsibility in that most every harmful act that can be committed with a gun is already criminal.  I did not mean that the law currently teaches you not to handle your gun like a moron.

That said, I have no problem requiring a safety course before buying a gun.  I'm not totally against regulation.
 
2013-07-08 01:50:06 PM

BgJonson79: Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.

EVERY armed cop has a taser?  Are you sure about that?


I didn't say that they do. At this point probably most do, they are pretty common.

Are you saying that the cops are given guns and then told -- remember, if you have to use your gun, shoot to wound -- try to hit their leg, don't aim for the center of mass.
 
2013-07-08 01:50:29 PM

bigpete53: 4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer.


Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?
 
2013-07-08 01:52:41 PM

manimal2878: That said, I have no problem requiring a safety course before buying a gun. I'm not totally against regulation.


Cool. We agree.

Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?


No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.
 
2013-07-08 01:53:40 PM

bigpete53: Dimensio: I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.

What is the purpose of the threaded barrel? Why would it be banned?


A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.


You can purchase a semi-auto rifle. You can purchase a semi-auto pistol. You can purchase a semi-auto shotgun. Just because you can't modify the dang thing the way you want to doesn't mean it's excessive. It just means that you can't modify it the way you want to. If losing access to a threaded barrel is your big complaint, you're really concerned about the wrong things.

If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.
 
2013-07-08 01:53:42 PM

Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?


If you have a drivers license it is implied you have an understanding of vehicle safety.

I've always been asked for my drivers license when I have bought a car.  I guess technically they could sell it to me without the license if I bought it in cash, didn't need insurance, and was going to load it onto a flat bed to take it off the car lot.  But I'm guessing that happens almost never.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:06 PM
Click Click D'oh:Do you call it a school-sponsored football team?

If I say yes, can this be done? It's crazy how far this discussion has changed from the article topic.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:19 PM

bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.


You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:39 PM

Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.


Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:51 PM

gameshowhost: What we need is more guns, everywhere.  Have them at pedestrian crossings, instead of the orange flags.  The "leave one, take one" penny dish?... scrap it and have one filled with guns.


We had a guy steal the tip jar at a local ice cream parlor and they ran his pic from the security camera all weekend on the local news. If one of the other customers had a gun, problem solved...ps. he is on camera paying for his ice cream with the tip jar money, takes big ones to be that brazen.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:00 PM

jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.


Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:24 PM

bigpete53: No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.


But is it necessary for the purchase?  You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase.  You weren't talking about operating in public.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:31 PM

Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.



Well, fair enough, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that being successful within the foreseeable future.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:44 PM

iserlohn: Selective gun laws in localities don't work? Well hello captain obvious.

To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.


Yes, we can make laws for America, that is fine and dandy. Good luck getting Latin America to obey those laws and not seize the opportunity like they have with drugs.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report