Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NYPost)   Sorry gun control nuts, it's not ever going to happen. It's because this country has already locked and loaded   (nypost.com) divider line 219
    More: Obvious, Washington Navy Yard, Seung-Hui Cho, assault weapons ban, Newseum, semiautomatic pistols, Leavenworth, assault weapons, Jared Loughner  
•       •       •

1886 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2013 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-26 07:26:03 AM  
TFA is simplistic, but makes some decent points.

If you want a really in-depth treatment about why any significant gun control in the United States is doomed to fail, read this:

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/imagining-gun-control-in-america-unde rs tanding-the-remainder-problem
 
2013-09-26 07:27:33 AM  

dittybopper: TFA is simplistic, but makes some decent points.

If you want a really in-depth treatment about why any significant gun control in the United States is doomed to fail, read this:

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/imagining-gun-control-in-america-unde rs tanding-the-remainder-problem


Oops, I guess Wake Forest Law Review moved it.  Here is a direct link to another copy of it:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wake-forset-law -r eview.pdf
 
2013-09-26 07:37:54 AM  
I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.
 
2013-09-26 07:50:36 AM  
I don't have any friends who own guns who oppose the Brady Bill. Are they nuts?
 
2013-09-26 07:59:06 AM  

vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.


The devil is in the details, though.

Right now, if you've been committed, or otherwise adjudicated by a court to be mentally unstable, you can't legally own or handle a firearm.

That's the law, as it stands right now, both federally, and I'm willing to bet every state in the US has a similar provision.

So what would you change to make it less likely that something like the Navy Yard shootings would happen?  Firearms disability because someone thinks you're acting different, or that you have views that are out of the mainstream?  What standard of proof would you use?  How would you accomplish this without violating the right each one of us has to due process under the law?

I think we are in agreement that keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerously mentally unstable people is a laudable goal.  Setting aside the Second Amendment for a minute, I'm skeptical that such a goal can be achieved without a significant restriction of other rights*.  In fact, such an effort might actually be counter-productive.  Instead of seeking help, the edge cases might decide that the potential risks far outweigh the potential benefits, and avoid contact with mental health professionals.  At that point, you'll only get the people who come to the attention of law enforcement in very obvious ways, and it's likely at that point that they already have a firearm disability anyway.

*Among them:  Right to Free Speech, right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, due process rights, right against self-incrimination, etc.  That's not an exhaustive list.
 
2013-09-26 08:02:57 AM  

ginandbacon: I don't have any friends who own guns who oppose the Brady Bill. Are they nuts?


I oppose it, because I don't think you should need to ask permission from the government before exercising a fundamental, enumerated right.  That makes it a privilege instead, and that's what "Universal Background Checks" will do.

Also, for a universal background check system to work, some third party to the transaction is going to have to keep a permanent record of the transfer in order to prevent "cheating".  That means there is the potential for nearly complete registration after a couple of decades.
 
2013-09-26 08:22:56 AM  

dittybopper: I oppose it,


Jesux Crist  4 out of 6 posts already... often posting one right after another... Did you submit this thread... the headline seems trollish and simplistic -shiat I could've come up with that.

But anyways... oblig:
thismodernworld.com
 
2013-09-26 08:45:43 AM  

dittybopper: In fact, such an effort might actually be counter-productive. Instead of seeking help, the edge cases might decide that the potential risks far outweigh the potential benefits, and avoid contact with mental health professionals.


And, for that matter, anyone sane enough to suggest that they might need help -- as anyone that sane, might also suggest to a court of competent jurisdiction that this person needs their head examined.

Contrariwise, that nothing short of a total ban would have been certain to stop this incident does not mean that steps short of a total ban should not be considered, if such shorter steps might have reduced the chance of such an incident -- EG, contributed to ameliorating some of the cultural emphasis on guns that contributes to that mode of running amok. (Though I admit, such an effect may be entirely conjectural.)
 
2013-09-26 08:54:52 AM  

vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.


It makes you normal unless you're a Fark ITG. Then all gun laws are gun grabbing or won't work or murder is already outlawed so it won't work or any other of the litany of bad logic the rest of this thread will be filled with
 
2013-09-26 08:57:15 AM  
rollingout.com
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.
 
2013-09-26 08:57:20 AM  
People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.
 
2013-09-26 08:57:47 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Jesux Crist  4 out of 6 posts already... often posting one right after another... Did you submit this thread... the headline seems trollish and simplistic -shiat I could've come up with that.


Not subby.

OK, so, I posted a link to a law review article, and you posted a cartoon, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I came up with a trollish and simplistic headline?

I just want to make sure I understand your position here.  I wouldn't want to automatically assume anything, just based upon a single post of yours.
 
2013-09-26 09:00:20 AM  
SACRED HOLY BLESSED SACRED ENUMERATED FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP
 
2013-09-26 09:01:05 AM  
I support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

And by 'support,' I mean I will fight you with everything this keyboard's got to prevent the passage of any legislation that could reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill because...

CONSTITUTION FREEDOM USA GOOD! TYRANNY ENGLAND CRIMINALS BAD LAW NO!
 
2013-09-26 09:04:20 AM  

EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.


Congratulations, gun controllers, you've won in some places.  Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies:

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-09-26 09:05:00 AM  
Because no other country with traditions of hunting and gun ownership have ever managed to reduce gun violence through stricter gun control laws.

Nope, never happened.  It's impossible.  If only there were examples of this in other countries that we could look too, but no.  When it comes to the gun debate, America exists in a vacuum, and no other countries can exist to be considered.
 
2013-09-26 09:06:30 AM  
When Aaron Alexis called the Rhode Island police a month ago to tell them that enemies were harassing him with a microwave machine, it was clear that he was suffering paranoid delusions and needed help.

Ah, this magical "help."  To hear some people talk, you'd think schizophrenia is something like an ear infection.

If this dude got help, he'd still be schizo, and he'd still be the kind of person who shouldn't have firearms.  What he needed, aside from "help," was a system that would prevent him from buying a gun once he started showing warning signs.
 
2013-09-26 09:07:15 AM  
It's simply because there's a considerable amount of "You mean to say, in order to retain my firearms I might have to use them"
 
2013-09-26 09:08:20 AM  

EyeballKid: Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.


How many times do we need to say it, those kids would be alive today if they were armed
 
2013-09-26 09:08:34 AM  

dittybopper: Also, for a universal background check system to work, some third party to the transaction is going to have to keep a permanent record of the transfer in order to prevent "cheating". That means there is the potential for nearly complete registration after a couple of decades.


This doesn't apply to current background checks; the local dealer that performs the check keeps a record and those are kept distributed in the majority of cases. The law prevents the government from collating records to produce a registry.

And practically, Manchin-Toomey was also the most viable step towards stricter background checks suggested in a long time and at the same time had incredibly forceful language against any kind of a registry.
 
2013-09-26 09:10:03 AM  

EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.


How are these kids more special than the other 16000 people that are murdered annually? Oh right, they're not blah people.
 
2013-09-26 09:10:06 AM  

sprawl15: This doesn't apply to current background checks; the local dealer that performs the check keeps a record and those are kept distributed in the majority of cases. The law prevents the government from collating records to produce a registry.

And practically, Manchin-Toomey was also the most viable step towards stricter background checks suggested in a long time and at the same time had incredibly forceful language against any kind of a registry.


so what you are saying is that Manchin-Toomey established a national gun registry?
 
2013-09-26 09:10:33 AM  

dittybopper: EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.

Congratulations, gun controllers, you've won in some places.  Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


You're better than that.
 
2013-09-26 09:10:36 AM  

EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.


Your appeal to emotion has proved that banning handgrips that stick out on rifles is sane and rational.
 
2013-09-26 09:11:21 AM  

Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.


People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.
 
2013-09-26 09:12:02 AM  

abb3w: (Though I admit, such an effect may be entirely conjectural.)


Consider the twin data points of Mexico (which has very strict gun control laws) and Japan (which also has very strict gun control laws) and the drastically different gun crime rate between the two. The effect of culture/environment on the results of strict gun control laws is pretty much self-evident.
 
2013-09-26 09:12:21 AM  

dittybopper: EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.

Congratulations, gun controllers, you've won in some places.  Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Solid point, armed people never die in a war.
 
2013-09-26 09:13:05 AM  

ginandbacon: I don't have any friends who own guns who oppose the Brady Bill. Are they nuts?


Either you don't have any friends, or you do have friends but they don't own guns, or you do have friends and they do own guns and they don't oppose the Brady bill, in which case they might be nuts, sure.

Or you're just imagining your friends and you're nuts.
 
2013-09-26 09:13:21 AM  

Jackson Herring: so what you are saying is that Manchin-Toomey established a national gun registry?


it also made wearing an american flag illegal because it was not culturally sensitive to the feelings of illegal immigrants
 
2013-09-26 09:14:02 AM  

Dimensio: Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.

People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.


How else would you describe people who feel the need to carry a concealed firearm on their person at all times, and lobby for legislation that would allow them to carry in even more places (churches, libraries, schools, statehouses, stores, bars, etc.), all in the name of "safety."

Certainly seems pretty paranoid to me.
 
2013-09-26 09:14:16 AM  
I was all ready to support gun control candidates in the next round of elections.  Then, I re-read a Fark thread from a couple days ago..  You know, the one where all the have-nots were going to get all guillotine-ee and murderous whilst taking all the haves stuff.

Or were you guys just kidding?  Cause if you were, just tell me, and I'll be all  yeah!  for disarmament.
 
2013-09-26 09:15:31 AM  
This is one of those issues that divides leftists IMO, I personally don't support gun grabby kinda laws and think overall so far so good with where our violent crime rate is headed. Almost everything else I'm on board with.
 
2013-09-26 09:15:50 AM  
I see they removed "funny" from the posting rules.
 
2013-09-26 09:16:22 AM  

vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.


Yeah, but when the pro 2nd Amendment people said the same thing following Sandy Hook, they were accused of "deflecting".
 
2013-09-26 09:17:35 AM  

EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.


Well, you missed the point in a completely predictable way. Congratulations yourself...
 
2013-09-26 09:18:24 AM  

Mikey1969: EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.

Well, you missed the point in a completely predictable way. Congratulations yourself...


Oh, you delicate flower, you.
 
2013-09-26 09:20:44 AM  

Mikey1969: vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Yeah, but when the pro 2nd Amendment people said the same thing blamed video games following Sandy Hook, they were accused of "deflecting".


FTFY.

/oh, and the "pro 2nd Amendment" crowd came out vehemently against expanding background checks and keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people
//but why should I expect anything from the right except revisionism?  It's all they have left.
 
2013-09-26 09:21:59 AM  

dittybopper: TFA is simplistic, but makes some decent points.


His general argument, that we should address mental illness, makes perfect sense.  We could create a system that would effectively keep the dangerously mentally ill from buying firearms.

We could have some kind of protective services department that could (a) field phone calls from concerned coworkers, family, friends, clasmates, (b) visit and evaluate people, serving as a guide for treatment etc, and (c) temporarily block a dangerous or suicidal person from purchasing or owning a firearm, pending further evaluation.

Such a system could have prevented this shooting, along with Aurora, Tuscon, Binghamton and Virgina Tech.  In all of these cases, someone knew the shooter was crazy and could have said something; mass shooters often show warning signs before going off.  

The problem is, however, that a lot of people throw out the "let's address mental illness" line but they don't sincerely want to address mental illness; they just want people to stop focusing on guns.
 
2013-09-26 09:22:21 AM  

sprawl15: abb3w: (Though I admit, such an effect may be entirely conjectural.)

Consider the twin data points of Mexico (which has very strict gun control laws) and Japan (which also has very strict gun control laws) and the drastically different gun crime rate between the two. The effect of culture/environment on the results of strict gun control laws is pretty much self-evident.


Japan doesn't have a country next to it with loose gun laws that smuggles guns to it in order to protect drug traffickers?
 
2013-09-26 09:22:36 AM  

dittybopper: EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.

Congratulations, gun controllers, you've won in some places.  Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


And exactly what does Cambodia have to do with gun control? Is it just part of your juvenile fantasy of "guns make me invincible even to ruthless military dictators?"

Dimensio: Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.

People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.


My dad didn't give a shiat about gun ownership until Obama was re-elected, partly because my late mother, the real brains of that relationship, wouldn't allow guns in the house. He and his new wife did it because they were convinced that black rape gangs were going to roam the country or some other half-baked terror existing only in their own minds. Being from the heart of Kansas, I have a lot of familiarity with gun purchasers, and you can follow them by the wet trails they leave behind them. Heck, I don't even need it; I can prove they are whiny little cowards by the screams of persecution and inevitable invasion of commu-islamo-nazi dicators coming to eat their children if you so much as mention if their obsession with instruments of death might be a little unhealthy.
 
2013-09-26 09:23:13 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Dimensio: Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.

People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.

How else would you describe people who feel the need to carry a concealed firearm on their person at all times, and lobby for legislation that would allow them to carry in even more places (churches, libraries, schools, statehouses, stores, bars, etc.), all in the name of "safety."

Certainly seems pretty paranoid to me.


I think those that would completely ban concealed carry and are OK with banning purses and bags at NFL stadiums are the frightened paranoid ones.
 
2013-09-26 09:23:28 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Dimensio: Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.

People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.

How else would you describe people who feel the need to carry a concealed firearm on their person at all times, and lobby for legislation that would allow them to carry in even more places (churches, libraries, schools, statehouses, stores, bars, etc.), all in the name of "safety."

Certainly seems pretty paranoid to me.


Even if I accepted that such a label was applicable to such individuals -- which I do not -- you have changed the subject from "people who purchase firearms" to "people who carry firearms in public", which are two different groups. Such a change is intellectually dishonest.

Is your position so devoid of merit that you are unable to argue it honestly?
 
2013-09-26 09:24:00 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Mikey1969: vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Yeah, but when the pro 2nd Amendment people said the same thing blamed video games following Sandy Hook, they were accused of "deflecting".

FTFY.

/oh, and the "pro 2nd Amendment" crowd came out vehemently against expanding background checks and keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people
//but why should I expect anything from the right except revisionism?  It's all they have left.


FACT: Asking a potential gun buyer to submit to a background check or wait 24 hours is exactly the same as when we interred Japanese people during the 2nd World War.
 
2013-09-26 09:24:13 AM  

vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.


You're not.

But how do you define mentally unstable? I think we can both agree on some of the most recent attacks, Navy Yard, New Town, CO theater... But where's the cut off? Is it forever?

I don't disagree with you. I'm asking how we figure out what the cut off is.
 
2013-09-26 09:25:03 AM  
Honestly, I can see both sides of this issue evenly.

The pro-gun side thinks it's unfair to punish everyone for the actions of a few, and that is a valid point. They lose public support from that angle by their harried, pants peeing opposition to things like expanded background checks or anything else, no matter how minor, They rant like paranoid addicts that budging even an inch is a totalitarian take over or the first step on a "slippery slope" to disarm the public so that the government can enslave them because "an unarmed populace is easier to control". They boldly proclaim that the 2nd Amendment means there can be no laws whatsoever that even remotely resemble "gun control" and even have people in legislative positions pushing the envelope further and further with expanded concealed carry permits and arming blind people.

The anti-gun side bases everything on emotion, which is also a valid point. They make videos of still frame shots of gun violence victims with sad music underneath and are seen as essentially exploiting tragedy to advance their agenda. They are seen as wanting to disarm private citizens who have the right to own guns to protect their homes and families.

What neither side fails to realize that attempting to regulate gun ownership is futile. There are two ways to get gun control advanced;

1) Regulate the manufacturing end of it, because the 2nd Amendment only covers private ownership, not the manufacturing industry. Grandfather in existing weapons and over time, the supply will eventually dissipate through attrition.

2) Encourage black people to start stockpiling weapons and buy them from white owned gun stores in predominantly white rural areas. Once those long beard crackers start seeing that black folks are taking up arms, word will get around fast.
 
2013-09-26 09:26:02 AM  

LoneWolf343: dittybopper: EyeballKid: [rollingout.com image 636x382]
Congratulations, gun industry, you won. Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies.

Congratulations, gun controllers, you've won in some places.  Take a victory lap, and look at some of your trophies:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

And exactly what does Cambodia have to do with gun control? Is it just part of your juvenile fantasy of "guns make me invincible even to ruthless military dictators?"

Dimensio: Muta: People who buy guns are inherently pant-pissing scared of everything else they wouldn't be buying guns.  So nothing makes pant-pissing gun owners piss their pants more than a rumor that his guns might be taken away.

People who accuse firearm purchasers of being "pants pissers" are closet pedophiles.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to issue, but ultimately they prove nothing.

My dad didn't give a shiat about gun ownership until Obama was re-elected, partly because my late mother, the real brains of that relationship, wouldn't allow guns in the house. He and his new wife did it because they were convinced that black rape gangs were going to roam the country or some other half-baked terror existing only in their own minds. Being from the heart of Kansas, I have a lot of familiarity with gun purchasers, and you can follow them by the wet trails they leave behind them. Heck, I don't even need it; I can prove they are whiny little cowards by the screams of persecution and inevitable invasion of commu-islamo-nazi dicators coming to eat their children if you so much as mention if their obsession with instruments of death might be a little unhealthy.


You are confusing "anecdotes" with "data". Such confusion is common, however, amongst dishonest individuals.
 
2013-09-26 09:26:04 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Mikey1969: vernonFL: I don't think that I am a "gun control nut" or "anti Second Amendment" because I want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Yeah, but when the pro 2nd Amendment people said the same thing blamed video games following Sandy Hook, they were accused of "deflecting".

FTFY.

/oh, and the "pro 2nd Amendment" crowd came out vehemently against expanding background checks and keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people
//but why should I expect anything from the right except revisionism?  It's all they have left.


I don't know, don't ask me. Despite your skill at ASSuming things, I am NOT on the Right. Not on the Left either, but it's just as fun to get accused of that as well. The video game thing was, and is, stupid, but for anyone to act like the Republicans didn't suddenly decide to care about mental health, and the Left didn't turn around and accuse them of deflecting, is revisionism of the highest degree. But hey, that comes natural when you jump to assumptions like a kangaroo on meth, doesn't it?
 
2013-09-26 09:26:27 AM  
TFA was surprisingly reasonable considering it was written by Rich Lowry. He's right. Better, more accessible mental health care is a key part of the solution.

I wonder how he feels about the Affordable Care Act.
 
2013-09-26 09:27:10 AM  

LoneWolf343: And exactly what does Cambodia have to do with gun control?


Well, if someone is looking to violently act upon a populace, they would want to disarm the populace. And as any first year logician at Oral Roberts University would be able to tell you, (P → Q) = (Q → P).
 
2013-09-26 09:27:37 AM  
If we weren't supposed to have unrestricted access to firearms Jesus wouldn't have put the second amendment in the Bible.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report