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.

(The Raw Story)   'Guns & Ammo' magazine publishes a thoughtful, well-researched editorial in favor of firearms safety legislation. Which is, of course, an unjustified assault on OUR FREEDOMS and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED   (rawstory.com) divider line 335
    More: Obvious, Guns & Ammo, legislation, firearms, Language interpretation, editorials, safety  
•       •       •

2464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 10:43 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 11:01:05 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Their entire argument relies on paranoia.


Paranoia keeps the sheep and LIVs in line. Makes them bleat when the masters want them to.
 
2013-11-07 11:01:40 AM

RexTalionis: The kicker is that once the conservatives started bellyaching, Guns & Ammo immediately fired Metcalf and begged for forgiveness.


That's disappointing.
One of their guys writes a completely reasonable piece advocating gun safety and he gets canned.
From their page:
In publishing Metcalf's column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine - nor, most important, "Guns & Ammo"'s. It is very clear to me that they don't reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with "Guns & Ammo" has officially ended.


So the head editor KNEW what the story was about. He approved the damn thing even though he doesn't agree with it. And then fires the guy who wrote the article? Talk about a a classless coward.
 
2013-11-07 11:01:41 AM
dittybopper:

That's how they get stuff like that approved.  Make it easy, so it's not much of a burden.  Then, they can make it increasingly harder and more expensive.  That's what they did in NYC, and in the UK.

Funny, this is the exact same tactic red states are using against abortion.
 
2013-11-07 11:02:47 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


i4.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 11:03:33 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.


Now now.... among OECD countries Mexico is still worse for gun deaths. Say what you will about gun owners in this country, but be sure to remember that they're slightly less violent than bloodthirsty drug cartels embroiled in open war with one another and the military...
 
2013-11-07 11:03:58 AM

dittybopper: There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block.  There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

a.  Smith and Wesson.  Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products.  Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes.  So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo.  Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it.  Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c.  The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.  This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year.  Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's.  People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up.  Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out.   The show had to be cancelled.

You don't fark with gun owners like that if your business caters to those very same gun owners.   The Fudds are too few in number, and dying out, to carry you forward.


So, a majority of gun owners are paranoid and vindictive. got it.

RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP YEEEEHAAAAWWW!!!!
 
2013-11-07 11:04:00 AM
Vacation Bible School:

Dude(ette), I know it's not related to the thread, but I love that handle.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:46 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Take a trip to Chicago or Detroit and see if your strawman makes it out alive. You know, for research.


To which strawman are you referring?  Exposing children to lead diminishes the development of the prefrontal cortex, the center of the brain that tempers the "go crazy" in people normally.

skozlaw: Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".


We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies."  There is nothing inherently wrong, dangerous, nor anti-educational to include firearms instruction in schools.  People are injured and killed because they don't know sh*t about firearms and, especially in the case of kids, pick them up and play with them.  Learning how to use a firearm doesn't make you violent nor predispose you to gun crime... I should know I taught hundreds of kids firearms safety and marksmanship, spent years in the military and I don't even own any firearms.

There are firearms in a very large portion of US households.  A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.

Trail of Dead: You need to rewatch Red Dawn.


I used to think that was a random 80s movie until I learned how many people watch it in awe to this day.  Or at least it seems that way on the 'tubes.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:59 AM

cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....


death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.
 
2013-11-07 11:06:02 AM
Man, why does it feel like some of the Night Vale hypothetical NRA slogans are starting to become plausible?
 
2013-11-07 11:06:42 AM
All things can be and are regulated, including guns.  Anyone who wants a society where everyone, and I mean everyone can get firearms without any limitation at all is deeply suicidal.

Louisiana passed a state constitutional amendment making gun ownership a fundamental right of all people.  Now the felons are suing the state for full access to guns.

There is an insanity about this current generation of gun people which leads to irrational results.  Their inability to consider the consequences of their actions leads to death.  And literally, it leads to death.
 
2013-11-07 11:07:46 AM
That's why they're called gun nuts.
 
2013-11-07 11:08:03 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.


Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your enemies, why not create a few new ones?
 
2013-11-07 11:09:15 AM

Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.


What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:34 AM
"OK, so that's $1600 for the Bushmaster PX45, $875 for 5 jumbo-sized boxes of ammunition, $500 for the holographic sights, $50 each for the two extended quick-change mag, $400 for the reinforced adjustable stock, $30 for the shoulder sling, $300 for the hardsided, cloth-lined case, $100 for the cleaning kit, $200 for the polymer handguard, $50 for the custom over-sized rubber grip, $35 for the flashlight mount kit, $100 for the quick-collapsible tripod, and....the Rat-L-Trap....that comes to....$4,364.76 with tax."

"Excellent, please put it on my Discover Card!"

"Oh, and there's also a $50 training course fee if you have not already taken it."

"TYRANNY!"
 
2013-11-07 11:11:17 AM

busy chillin': What are the replies to that statement?


I think I'm the only person who points out that the 9th makes any debate about the 2nd's exact meaning irrelevant.
 
2013-11-07 11:11:32 AM
The NRA is a lobbying group for the gun manufacturing industry. While what they  should be doing is encouraging safe and responsible gun ownership, they've realized over the last few decades that if they instead concentrate their efforts into "ZOMG Big Gumbint iz coming for yur gunz!", it leads to their funders (gun makers) making more money.
 
2013-11-07 11:11:34 AM
Wild, knee-jerk, reactionary commentary on Facebook about a political wedge issue that many people get the entirety of their "knowledge" about through forwarded emails and misleading internet infographics? Say it ain't so! Next they'll be saying that the president was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who is determined to destroy this country, or that the government is putting chemicals in jet exhaust to exert mind control over the population, or that Obama is controlling the weather with HAARP, or that natural disasters are God's wrath over gay marriage.

This just in: There are some really, REALLY stupid, loud and ignorant people out there. They like to bleat their stupid, loud and ignorant opinions on the internet. Film at 11.
 
2013-11-07 11:12:48 AM

factoryconnection: We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies."


No, we don't. There is no "basketball" class as part of any school's curriculum anywhere in this country. If you want to try and convince people that gun safety should be part of a class aimed at teaching good physical activity habits along side those things be my guest, but don't make stupid shiat up in the interim.

factoryconnection: There is nothing inherently wrong


Yes, there is, it's a goddamn hobby and hobbies aren't curricular. There is no debate about this. No hobby has been, is or should be given status alongside core curriculum, your hobby, no matter what it is, is not an exception.

factoryconnection: A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.


So offer it as part of health, though I'd be surprised if a number of schools don't already.

Or, you know... change the law so that idiots who leave their guns laying around in a living room full of children can't own guns anymore.

But no... no... can't do that.. much better to put the responsibility on third graders than the adults... or.. you know.. I don't... do both... nah... that makes waaaay too much sense and we all know that means its dead in the water from the gun "advocates" side.
 
2013-11-07 11:12:52 AM

skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.


Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive.  You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.
 
2013-11-07 11:13:15 AM
It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government.  As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.
 
2013-11-07 11:14:53 AM
I am completely fine with requiring proficiency training/testing for anyone who wants to carry/utilise a firearm off their own property.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:20 AM

busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.


The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:28 AM

dittybopper: There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block.  There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

a.  Smith and Wesson.  Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products.  Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes.  So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo.  Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it.  Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c.  The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.  This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year.  Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's.  People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up.  Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out.   The show had to be cancelled.


d. Recoil Magazine. While reviewing a new, full-auto capable something-or-other awhile back, the then-editor dared to utter "No one needs this gun" somewhere in the article. That was it. What came next was truly horrifying. The nuts came out in force, threatening to boycott not only the magazine but their advertisers as well. At my last stunned count, some 40-50% of advertisers had pulled out. The offending editor was subsequently canned, and waves of apologies followed.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:34 AM

Facetious_Speciest: I am completely fine with requiring proficiency training/testing for anyone who wants to carry/utilise a firearm off their own property.


And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?  I'm down with that.
 
2013-11-07 11:17:01 AM
I want the job of prying guns from the cold, dead hands of formerly lawful gun owners.

Obama has let me down.
 
2013-11-07 11:18:11 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


The paranoia of the hard core gun owners is truly something to see
 
2013-11-07 11:18:18 AM

Devo: skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive.  You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.


And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths. Just because you pass a drivers test doesn't mean you will drive safely. And the same would apply to gun training.
 
2013-11-07 11:18:59 AM

pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.


Funny you would choose the phrase "death machines" to defend abortion clinics.
 
2013-11-07 11:19:18 AM
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):Liberals Link
Democrats Link
Socialists Link
Community Organizers Link
Geologists Link
Biologists Link
Meteorologists Link
Climatologists Link
Atheists Link
Muslims Link
Jews Link
Satan Link
ABC Link
NBC Link
CNN Link
CBS Link
PBS Link
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions Link
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers) Link
Professors
ACORN Link
Planned Parenthood Link
National Endowment for the Arts Link
Fashion Industry Link
Gays
Judges Link
NPR Link
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires Link
The Honolulu Advertiser Link
The Star Bulletin Link
Teletubbies Link
Sponge Bob and Patrick Link
Nobel Prize Committee Link
US Census Bureau Link
NOAA Link
Sesame Street Link
Comic Books Link
Little Green Footballs Link
Video Games Link
The Bible Link
CBO Link
Bruce Springsteen Link
Pennies Link
The Theory of Relativity Link
Comedy Central Link
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is Link
Small Business Owners Link
Math Link
CPAC Link
Navy SEALs Link
The Economist
The Muppets Link
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets Link
Breast Cancer Screenings Link
Chrysler Link
Clint Eastwood. Link
Robert Deniro Link
Tom Hanks Link
Glenn Frey Link
Norman Rockwell Link
James Cameron Link
Dr. Seus
Nuns Link
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Link
Jonathan Krohn at age 17 Link
Fact Checkers Link
Australia Link
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics Link
Paul Ryan Link
Debate moderators Link
Ben Stein Link
Soup kitchens Link
Chris Christie Link
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) Link
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes Link
Susan Collins Link
Lisa Murkowski Link
Dean Heller Link
Mark Kirk Link
Lindsey Graham Link
Governor Bobby Jindal Link
General Petreaus Link
Saxby Chambliss Link
God Link
Girl Scouts Link
Boston Tea Party Link
Vegetables Link
American Indians Link
Stephen King, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, Alan Simpson, John McCain Link
John Boehner Link
Rainbows Link
SimCity Link
Bono Link
Bono Impersonators Link
Brookings Institution Link
Tax Policy Centre Link
Dogs Link
Pollsters Link
Matt Drudge Link
Mitch McConnel Link
Juan Williams Link
Ted Cruz Link
Twitter Link
Anne Coulter Link
Google Cache Link
Guns & Ammo Magazine Link
 
2013-11-07 11:19:54 AM

simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.


one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves
 
2013-11-07 11:20:17 AM

pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.


Your responding to a hit and run troll there
 
2013-11-07 11:21:21 AM

cchris_39: pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.

Funny you would choose the phrase "death machines" to defend abortion clinics.


Since when did people use guns in medical procedures?  Oh, there was this guy. . .


upload.wikimedia.org

Extra credit, what medical procedure did Dr. Roland perform?  Go on, guess. . .
 
2013-11-07 11:21:47 AM
pueblonative

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.
 
2013-11-07 11:22:12 AM

Peter von Nostrand: pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.

Your responding to a hit and run troll there


but enough about his drinking and driving habits...
 
2013-11-07 11:23:17 AM

sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves


Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.
 
2013-11-07 11:23:36 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.


In other words, legal to the end of your property without a license.  I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:40 AM

pueblonative: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your any enemies, why not create a few new ones?


FTFY.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:41 AM
Two points: As a politically liberal gun owner, the comments on articles like that make me hate many other gun owners.
Secondly, I was an Infantryman in the Army, do non-gun owners believe that combat arms veterans such as myself should be exempt from compulsory firearms training laws? As I've already been trained by the government in proper gun safety.
Just curious as to what others think about that.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:50 AM
pueblonative

I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Random thought: don't shoot up your own property in ways that endanger others. That's already the way it is.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:09 AM

skozlaw: Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!



Did anyone ever think these people were reasonable?  By and large these are the same people who flipped shiat in the 90s when the government started mandating all guns be sold with trigger locks.  The friggin things cost under $5 and didn't alter the use or construction of the weapons in any way.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:10 AM

simplicimus: sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.


is this where i need to call an adult because you're trying to waggle your statisticals around in public
 
2013-11-07 11:26:11 AM

sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves


[Total participants in automobile-related transportation] and [total time spent engaged in activity throughout lifetime] and [total deaths related to automobiles] compared to [total participants in fire-arm usage and ownership] and [total amount of time spent using firearm] and [deaths as a result of firearm]

That would be the end-all be-all statistic for that comparison.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:53 AM

Ashyukun: pueblonative: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your any enemies, why not create a few new ones?

FTFY.


+1 sir.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:29 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
 
2013-11-07 11:28:42 AM

simplicimus: sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.


Are you really suggesting that requiring driving licenses is ok but gun training is tyranny?
 
2013-11-07 11:29:23 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Random thought: don't shoot up your own property in ways that endanger others. That's already the way it is.


Oh I won't shoot up my own property. . . .

now, if I just so happen to be near the edge of my property and see a couple of elk I'd like to plug for SKGs, or if I drink a little too much Kentucky Bourbon and mistake that owl on my neighbor's roof for an alien, well, I'm still on my property but I ain't shooting it up, now, am I?
 
2013-11-07 11:29:26 AM
Quick, reasonable question. Were the complaints well reasoned, and en masse? Did their FB page lose a million likes that day? Did their subscribership drop by a notable amount?

If so, that's kinda scary, actually. If not, <OMG Who the hell cares?.jpg>
 
2013-11-07 11:30:35 AM

Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.


I wasn't attacking the second amendment. I love the second amendment. Just curious about the "well regulated" angle. I guess the 9th covers it.
 
2013-11-07 11:31:15 AM
I just finished reading Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence and there's a lot in there about Washington's trouble with the militias.  Its based on letters between the actual participants, and its clear from his writing that Washington had trouble with his regular army: they were the bottom rung of society, people with no skills and no prospects.  But, as bad as they were, the militias were much worse, and Washington put them in combat only as a last resort because 1: they'd just run away at the first sign of a fight, and 2: a large percentage of them showed up without any weapons.

The idea that some local farmers and tradesmen armed with just muskets bested the British army is a fabrication easily debunked by reading accounts of those actually involved, and nothing but political spin started by the newspapers eager to promote independence.   So, when Washington wrote letters to congress about the militia, its pretty clear he is instructing congress to make sure that the resolutions being sent to the states asking for troops includes the requirement that they bring along their own guns and not spears.

Its not a far stretch from that to the 2nd ammendment.
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report