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)   Wolverine showed up on The Daily Show and made everyone smarter about the gun debate. Wait, wuh?   (uproxx.com) divider line 188
    More: Cool, wolverines, loins, Hugh Jackman, political discussion, gun safes  
•       •       •

9464 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Sep 2013 at 1:29 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 12:53:33 PM
m8.i.pbase.com

OK, I could totally see that.
 
2013-09-19 01:36:21 PM
No video at work. Anyone got a transcript?
 
2013-09-19 01:37:14 PM
Can someone summarize? Since I live in evil Canada, I can't watch the video. And I'm way too lazy to load up firefox with my international cheater plugin to watch it.

/using IE
/save it, not interested in why you think IE is bad
 
2013-09-19 01:38:03 PM
Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

It's depressing, it's ridiculous, and it isn't going to change until we ignore the ignorant, and move on beyond the empty, long debunked talking points.

To be fair, the above could just as well be describing the budget, health care, infrastructure, or even attempting to reign in military spending. Tthe US is well and truly screwed right now.
 
2013-09-19 01:41:21 PM
If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.
 
2013-09-19 01:43:54 PM
I think Stewart should have spent more time explaining why he thinks Canada is so great!

/just sayin'
 
2013-09-19 01:44:55 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.



STOP MAKING SENSE, LIBTARD!!!
 
2013-09-19 01:48:04 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.


Ah, if only we lived in a sane society...
 
2013-09-19 01:50:17 PM

asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.


I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.
 
2013-09-19 01:50:36 PM

Kuroshin: IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.

Ah, if only we lived in a sane society...


That would require decent mental healthcare, which this country hates.
 
2013-09-19 01:52:10 PM

Kuroshin: IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.

Ah, if only we lived in a sane society...


I'm not sure if the guy on NPR was joking or if either of you guys is joking, but these are literally the reforms put forward by President Obama.

The Democrats are occupying the easy common ground and they aren't going to the extreme (except for a few powerless outliers).  Besides NRA members, who actually thinks Democrats are coming to take their guns?
 
2013-09-19 01:54:26 PM
The "silent majority" need to stop being so silent in this debate.  Just like with freedom of speech, there are reasonable limitations on what you can say, how you can say it, and where you can say it.  You can't talk about explosives at an airport, you can't threaten to kill people, you can't slander people, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  There appears to be some grey area we need to fight over when it comes to "free speech zones" and such, but as a society we generally agree on what free speech entails.

We have a right to bear arms.  I enjoy guns for sport, for protection, and for what they represent in ensuring our government must face a strong, capable, armed populace when making decisions about our freedoms.  Not so we can fight back, but so we don't have to fight back.  But I don't think I can own cruise missiles, Gatling guns, and explosive mines.  Nor do I think that a background check, a "blacklist", or even a reasonable registration are somehow violations of my rights.

I think most people in the U.S. tend to think this way.

I wish they would speak up more often.
 
2013-09-19 01:56:38 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.


Citation please.
 
2013-09-19 01:58:47 PM

YodaTuna: I'm not sure if the guy on NPR was joking or if either of you guys is joking, but these are literally the reforms put forward by President Obama.

The Democrats are occupying the easy common ground and they aren't going to the extreme (except for a few powerless outliers). Besides NRA members, who actually thinks Democrats are coming to take their guns?


That's great and all but then before we can get started someone like Feinstein or Rand Paul opens their mouth and farks the whole thing up
 
2013-09-19 02:01:51 PM
lh3.ggpht.com

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.
 
2013-09-19 02:08:20 PM

DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.


"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." 
- Dianne Feinstein
 
2013-09-19 02:09:09 PM
I call for this thread to be flooded with hot Hugh Jackman photos -- don't disappoint me, Farkers.

us.cdn281.fansshare.com
 
2013-09-19 02:09:30 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.


I'm not even saying that gun owners are the problem, I know more than a few who agree with me. I'm saying it's the vocal minority who nonetheless manages to dictate policy by shouting non stop, and doing nothing else.
 
2013-09-19 02:10:01 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." 
- Dianne Feinstein


That's one.
 
2013-09-19 02:10:28 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.


THIS^^^^^

Asshole states like Illinois and New York in which it's extremely difficult to purchase and use a gun, let alone get a concealed carry license, also indicate the far-left mindset.

A larger step towards ending the large scale shootings would be to expand the definition of, enforce the hospitalization of, and rights revocation of mental patients.  Pretty much all of the mass shootings were carried out by people who were showing signs of degrading grasps on reality, but the pressures of allowing anonymity and the rights of the mentally ill have failed society at large.  And by rights revocation, I mean have decent facilities in which to house and treat them, not store them in prison.
 
2013-09-19 02:11:55 PM

OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.


The reality is when a ban like this goes into effect, it takes time to remove guns from circulation.  Years.  As criminals are rounded up, more come out, and there are less to replace it with.  By your graph (assuming it's accurate), there's been a pretty strong downward trend since the ban went into effect.  Of course it would take time.  A one or two year spike are anomalies in the data.  The trend is strongly downward over the 15 year window.

That being said, I don't think a "ban" on guns is the solution here in the U.S., nor do I think it's even a good idea.  But your numbers distinctly go against your point.  Now, if you show breakdowns of what type of weapon was used in these homicides, we might learn something different.
 
2013-09-19 02:13:31 PM
 
2013-09-19 02:15:21 PM

OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.


Now i'm no math scientist, but those numbers look like its 350 a year when the regulations went into effect and 250 a year a decade and a half later. Now as an American I am fully aware that when a law is implemented that whatever its intent was is achieved because long term consequences don't affect me.

Or maybe the Australian economy has kicked ass over the past fifteen years and everybody has been less angry so they dont want to shoot eachother as much, I don't know.
 
2013-09-19 02:17:13 PM

OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.


So curious that our Homicide rate has been dropping since then as well.    I wonder if our homicides were often done by armed illegal Aussies?
 
2013-09-19 02:21:16 PM

DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.


CBS-TV 60 Minutes What Assault Weapons Ban? produced by Rome Hartman aired 2/5/95

Stahl [voiceover, footage of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) at podium, holding up an AR-15]: California Senator Dianne Feinstein worked for more than a year to get the assault weapons bill passed, in the face of ferocious opposition from the National Rifle Association. She says she got the best she could.
[cut to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's voice]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there.

Or do you mean other people?
 
2013-09-19 02:21:51 PM

DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." 
- Dianne Feinstein

That's one.


Context needed.  Was she talking about all guns or just specific types of guns?  The whole speech would be nice to see right about now.
 
2013-09-19 02:22:50 PM

DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." 
- Dianne Feinstein

That's one.


No.

"Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them"

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

Not all guns. The quote from Feinstein is not in reference to banning all firearms. It was in reference a question regarding the limits on the possession and sale of 'assault weapons'.

I'm not saying that Senator Feinstein isn't in favor of an outright weapons ban, and I'm not debating the merit or viability of the definition of 'assault weapon', but the quote you've offered is NOT regarding an all out ban on guns.
 
2013-09-19 02:22:56 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.

So curious that our Homicide rate has been dropping since then as well.    I wonder if our homicides were often done by armed illegal Aussies?


Well, they fancy they can shear the wool, but the beggars can only tear and pull.
 
2013-09-19 02:23:02 PM

dittybopper: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

CBS-TV 60 Minutes What Assault Weapons Ban? produced by Rome Hartman aired 2/5/95

Stahl [voiceover, footage of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) at podium, holding up an AR-15]: California Senator Dianne Feinstein worked for more than a year to get the assault weapons bill passed, in the face of ferocious opposition from the National Rifle Association. She says she got the best she could.
[cut to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's voice]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there.

Or do you mean other people?


Every assault weapon of every firearm?
 
2013-09-19 02:23:23 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.


You see, that's just not right.

Democrats have pretty much given up on a new assault weapon ban and have settled on background checks and closing the gun show loophole. But according to the NRA, that's the first step in seizing everyone's guns and throwing political dissenters into concentration camps.
 
2013-09-19 02:24:00 PM

Khellendros: We have a right to bear arms.


No, people back then had the right to bear arms to make sure there were militias available to fight foreign threats. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant today and should be abolished.
 
2013-09-19 02:25:34 PM

YodaTuna: Kuroshin: IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.

Ah, if only we lived in a sane society...

I'm not sure if the guy on NPR was joking or if either of you guys is joking, but these are literally the reforms put forward by President Obama.

The Democrats are occupying the easy common ground and they aren't going to the extreme (except for a few powerless outliers).  Besides NRA members, who actually thinks Democrats are coming to take their guns?


Did either of us say anything about Obama?

Our society won't let it happen.

I also did not say citizenry.  I said society.

Responsible gun owners want it.  People who don't like guns will settle for it.  Nutballs on both sides won't have anything less than 100% access or bannination.  Industry forces hate it.  Media sources prefer chaos, foaming rants, and body counts.  Politicians couldn't care less, other than for the campaign donations that the issue helps keep flowing.

So like I said, our society is not sane and would not allow sane solutions to real issues.  Hell, just fixing healthcare access would cause these mass killings to be much more rare.  But no, we can't have sane approaches to healthcare - mental health in particular.
 
2013-09-19 02:26:48 PM

asquian: Once again relevant

http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/r ef uting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/


And, as I noted previously in response to

To drive this point home, I will give you a real life example: Imagine a situation where a psychopath enters a school and starts shooting kids with an assault rifle. In response to this threat, a teacher pulls out his assault rifle (legally bought and licensed) and begins shooting at the school shooter. It is certainly possible that this teacher gets a lucky shot (assuming that the shooter isn't wearing body armor) and kills the shooter quickly, but a likely result of this situation would be a mass-shootout in the school. Two shooters unloading assault weapons on each other could result in a crossfire of hundreds of bullets and would potentially result in many more deaths than the original shooter would be able to do alone.

A scenario that is entirely "imagined" is not a "real life example".
 
2013-09-19 02:27:00 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I...blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes


Feinstein was specifically referring to "assault weapons" not "all the guns."

So you, gun rights advocate, are either a gullible dupe or a liar.
 
2013-09-19 02:28:40 PM
Look, Feinstein was holed up in San Francisco City Hall when Milk and Moscone were gunned down. She has a very intimate history w/ gun violence. Of course she's going to be pretty far left on gun control.
 
2013-09-19 02:28:59 PM

kasmel: Not all guns. The quote from Feinstein is not in reference to banning all firearms. It was in reference a question regarding the limits on the possession and sale of 'assault weapons'.

I'm not saying that Senator Feinstein isn't in favor of an outright weapons ban, and I'm not debating the merit or viability of the definition of 'assault weapon', but the quote you've offered is NOT regarding an all out ban on guns.


Here's the problem:  The term "Assault Weapon" is very, very fungible.  As it was, the ban, such as it was, only banned irrelevant cosmetic features that had nothing to do with the actual function of the gun.

To get a real, effective "assault weapons ban", you have to ban semiautomatic firearms, especially ones with removable magazines.  Until you do that, you aren't really banning anything:  The manufacturers will simply make the same guns without the cosmetic features that are banned, like they did in the 1990's.  The problem is, that if you do that, you're also banning a bunch, and I'm talking multiple tens of millions here, of non-militaristic looking sporting and self-defense firearms.

So, do we trust that Feinstein is an idiot who doesn't know what the fark she's talking about, or do we assume the worst and take her at her word that she wants to essentially ban semiautomatics?
 
2013-09-19 02:29:43 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: If I was a walking regenerating tank I think I'd have a reasoned position on the gun debate as well

joke aside, there was a dude on NPR this afternoon talking about the gun debate and how unfortunately both sides go to the extreme when in the middle there is very easy common ground like limiting access to those who pose a danger to themselves or others and a simplifying of the background check system to make it more universal and easier for law abiding folks.


Makes sense, except the NRA gets all "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS~!"  Doesn't help that LaPierre is the trained monkey of gun manufacturers either.
 
2013-09-19 02:30:37 PM

Khellendros: We have a right to bear arms.  I enjoy guns for sport, for protection, and for what they represent in ensuring our government must face a strong, capable, armed populace when making decisions about our freedoms.  Not so we can fight back, but so we don't have to fight back.  But I don't think I can own cruise missiles, Gatling guns, and explosive mines.  Nor do I think that a background check, a "blacklist", or even a reasonable registration are somehow violations of my rights.


Actually you can own a gatling gun. =)
 
2013-09-19 02:32:51 PM

bluorangefyre: dittybopper: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

CBS-TV 60 Minutes What Assault Weapons Ban? produced by Rome Hartman aired 2/5/95

Stahl [voiceover, footage of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) at podium, holding up an AR-15]: California Senator Dianne Feinstein worked for more than a year to get the assault weapons bill passed, in the face of ferocious opposition from the National Rifle Association. She says she got the best she could.
[cut to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's voice]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there.

Or do you mean other people?

Every assault weapon of every firearm?


Those are technically the same thing.

Assault Rifles, in particular, are already highly regulated.  You can't buy one without special license.

Everything Feinstein likes to trot about is just set dressing.  She wants to ban scary-looking things, because scary.

I don't, and wouldn't own an AR-15, but the whole media and political blitz over "assault weapons" is tilting at windmills.  Firearms in the wrong hands - ANY firearms - can be used to mow down a large number of people.  Magazine size and black plastic don't change this.  I don't even have a dog in this hunt, but I'm sick of this disingenuous argument.  Fix what's broke: mental health access and enforcement of firearms access.  Get the crazies the help they need, and keep them away from *ALL* weapons.  Problem solved.
 
2013-09-19 02:32:57 PM

freak7: Khellendros: We have a right to bear arms.

No, people back then had the right to bear arms to make sure there were militias available to fight foreign threats. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant today and should be abolished.


You are free to attempt to muster the two-thirds majorities needed in each house of Congress and the three-fourths majority of the states for an Amendment, then.
 
2013-09-19 02:33:53 PM

BrainyBear: I call for this thread to be flooded with hot Hugh Jackman photos -- don't disappoint me, Farkers.

[us.cdn281.fansshare.com image 557x708]


To quote my fellow homo George Takei: "OH MY!"

Judging from his arms, I'd say Hugh is more than qualified to talk about guns.
 
2013-09-19 02:35:47 PM
Cool, where do I sign up? shiat's got to start somewhere.
 
2013-09-19 02:35:55 PM

KellyX: Khellendros: We have a right to bear arms.  I enjoy guns for sport, for protection, and for what they represent in ensuring our government must face a strong, capable, armed populace when making decisions about our freedoms.  Not so we can fight back, but so we don't have to fight back.  But I don't think I can own cruise missiles, Gatling guns, and explosive mines.  Nor do I think that a background check, a "blacklist", or even a reasonable registration are somehow violations of my rights.

Actually you can own a gatling gun. =)


And technically with the right chemical precursors from your average hardware store you can whip a nice batch of exploside, head on over to Radio Shack for pressure switches and rig up your own land mine.
 
2013-09-19 02:37:24 PM

Dimensio: asquian: Once again relevant

http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/r ef uting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

And, as I noted previously in response to

To drive this point home, I will give you a real life example: Imagine a situation where a psychopath enters a school and starts shooting kids with an assault rifle. In response to this threat, a teacher pulls out his assault rifle (legally bought and licensed) and begins shooting at the school shooter. It is certainly possible that this teacher gets a lucky shot (assuming that the shooter isn't wearing body armor) and kills the shooter quickly, but a likely result of this situation would be a mass-shootout in the school. Two shooters unloading assault weapons on each other could result in a crossfire of hundreds of bullets and would potentially result in many more deaths than the original shooter would be able to do alone.

A scenario that is entirely "imagined" is not a "real life example".


True. But if that's the only counterpoint you have to offer for the article, considering that crossfire deaths are common among all shootings where both sides are armed, then I'd say the relevance of the article remains, wouldn't you?
 
2013-09-19 02:37:58 PM

dittybopper: Here's the problem:  The term "Assault Weapon" is very, very fungible.  As it was, the ban, such as it was, only banned irrelevant cosmetic features that had nothing to do with the actual function of the gun.

To get a real, effective "assault weapons ban", you have to ban semiautomatic firearms, especially ones with removable magazines.  Until you do that, you aren't really banning anything:  The manufacturers will simply make the same guns without the cosmetic features that are banned, like they did in the 1990's.  The problem is, that if you do that, you're also banning a bunch, and I'm talking multiple tens of millions here, of non-militaristic looking sporting and self-defense firearms.

So, do we trust that Feinstein is an idiot who doesn't know what the fark she's talking about, or do we assume the worst and take her at her word that she wants to essentially ban semiautomatics?


If it was my guess, I'd bet she means semi-automatic weapons, which basically is almost all modern guns.

www.imfdb.orgOMG LOOK OUT!!! HE HAS A AR-15!
 
2013-09-19 02:38:06 PM

OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.


Homicide doesn't require a gun.

i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-19 02:38:23 PM

kasmel: I'm not debating the merit or viability of the definition of 'assault weapon'


dittybopper: semiautomatics


Even at your most inclusive definition 'semiautomatics' are still not all guns.
 
2013-09-19 02:39:47 PM

DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: DrZiffle: To The Escape Zeppelin!: asquian: Sadly, since the US gun "debate" isn't a debate but a long running game of pigeon chess, no matter who manages to roll out a sensible, even handed opinion on the matter, at the end of the day, nothing will get done, because the second you utter a single peep about any kind of gun related regulation, you get people who put their fingers in their ears and shout "They're commin to take yer guns!" and just keep shouting, and literally nothing gets done.

I feel that a lot of the reason gun owners fight against any gun regulation, even ones that when surveyed they support, is people like Feinstein. You say gun owners are being unreasonable but a few leading voices on the gun control side have openly said that they do want to take all of the guns. I don't blame gun owners for being hesitant to support reasonable changes when gun control advocates say it's the first step toward banning them.

Citation please.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
- Dianne Feinstein

That's one.


Seeing as how she is *the* lead for gun control reform, I'd say that's a pretty big "one."

I also realize I'm probably feeding a troll.

Here's Obama before he was president on banning guns, including ALL handguns:
"35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. "

Chuck Schumer voted against an amendment to prevent seizure of legally-owned guns during an "emergency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer#Gun_control

Those are the three big players. The latter two toned down their message. Feinstein, again the LEADER of the house dem gun control movement (who partnered with Schumer on the useless '94 AWB), publicly said she wants to get rid of all guns.

I'm not a gun nut, and I favor things like magazine limits (I think they're stupid, but so are people and so I acquiesce), but even I acknowledge that the fear that "gun nuts" have is not unfounded.
 
2013-09-19 02:40:10 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: And technically with the right chemical precursors from your average hardware store you can whip a nice batch of exploside, head on over to Radio Shack for pressure switches and rig up your own land mine.


Pretty sure that's a violation of federal law unless you have the right permits to own and manufacture explosives.

That Gatling Gun though is just a semi-automatic rifle... =)
 
2013-09-19 02:40:46 PM

Thunderboy: OscarTamerz: [lh3.ggpht.com image 523x342]

So a graph to answer the important question, "Did the Australian gun ban increase or decrease the murder rate?"  Of course when it became obvious year after year that the murder rate was increased by the gun ban there wasn't a damned thing the poor diggers, Ozzie slang, Strine,  not a misspelling, could do about it.  The government was willing to sit back and let the poor buggers get slaughtered for the sake of their ideology.

Homicide doesn't require a gun.

[i13.photobucket.com image 586x369]


Homicide is acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm. Otherwise, gun ban advocates would cite overall rates of homicide, rather than rates of "gun death".
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report