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 (38 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 11:32:22 AM

Ivandrago: 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.


Here's a comparison that might interest you. If you were a military pilot, you have a huge shortcut to receive a civilian pilot's license - you just take one written exam, and you get a bunch of read across certificates based on what you flew. It's assumed you know what you're doing based on what you did, and just need to show you understand the differences in procedure.

Since the level of regulation to own a firearm would be significantly lower than the level of regulation to fly a plane, there's extant precedent for allowing a read across.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:29 AM

IrateShadow: 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.


Well, here's the problem:

Dittybopper has stated that a *majority* of gun owners are the type to flip their shiat at this.

So that means that a lot of gun owners are liable to blow up over minor things.

Which kind of destroys the whole "Most gun owners are reasonable, responsible people!" argument.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:56 AM

asquian: 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>


magazine issue just came out, so it will probably take a quarter or two to judge subscriptions (moreso if they're done in increments of a year).  And the importance of the article is that even middle of the edge moderate positions on guns which do not ban a single farking type of gun, RPG, BFG or rail gun are taken as a real life Red Dawn whacking fantasy by gun nuts.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:23 AM
pueblonative

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?

What makes you think requiring proficiency testing would correct your morals?
 
2013-11-07 11:33:23 AM
Lol.... this is what the rest of us have been talking about. You make it an all or nothing situation.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:39 AM

bdub77: I don't know I've ever understood this argument. Where I live you are required to register your firearm with the town. It's not like they don't have a f*cking list anyway.


I think they pretty much figured out I had a gun, or was going to have a gun, when they did the background check.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:59 AM

sprawl15: Ivandrago: 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.

Here's a comparison that might interest you. If you were a military pilot, you have a huge shortcut to receive a civilian pilot's license - you just take one written exam, and you get a bunch of read across certificates based on what you flew. It's assumed you know what you're doing based on what you did, and just need to show you understand the differences in procedure.

Since the level of regulation to own a firearm would be significantly lower than the level of regulation to fly a plane, there's extant precedent for allowing a read across.


I'm totally okay with that. Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics. I spent two weeks mopping floors and cleaning toilets because I accidentally left my rifle on "semi" instead of "safe."

/I also had to carry a 2x2 with "Bic Pen" written on it. You can guess why I had to do that.
 
2013-11-07 11:38:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: 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?


Not at all. Gun training should be required. I'm just saying it won't solve every gun related problem. But people get lazy about securing their weapons. And there's almost an article a week about unloaded guns going off, even by people teaching gun safety.
 
2013-11-07 11:39:48 AM

RedPhoenix122: 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.


Why? It wasn't an issue for the Founders:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

"That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States."
 
2013-11-07 11:41:16 AM

icallhimgamblor: I don't see how these clowns can say there are no limits on the Second Amendment when there are clearly limits on the First. there are already limits on the 2nd.

 
2013-11-07 11:41:35 AM

sprawl15: And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.


You are correct; the fact that such confiscation efforts have demonstrably occurred "makes it farking plausible".
 
2013-11-07 11:41:49 AM
"I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how farking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?"
 
2013-11-07 11:43:41 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

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?

What makes you think requiring proficiency testing would correct your morals?


On the basis that those that do the testing and training have a high enough respect and love for their profession that they would seek to impart some of it to their students and would identify the idiots who have no business being around anything that can perforate something only stronger than paper.

But, let's go to your original idea.  I get a gun "strictly for home use" per your proposal, so I don't have any training in the weapon.  I'm just scared.  Midnight and I hear a noise in my room.  I pull out my gun and fire at the noise.  Only thing is I aim wildly so the bullet goes through the window and hits my neighbor just getting back home from a party, instantly killing him.  Exactly how did the for home use no training work out for my neighbor there?  I didn't leave my property.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:50 AM
Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsibly." Although ironically, I do hear some of this from anti-gun folks who think "warning shots" are a good alternative to correct use of force.

So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:59 AM

pueblonative: 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 image 257x387]

Extra credit, what medical procedure did Dr. Roland perform?  Go on, guess. . .


Blepharoplasty?
 
2013-11-07 11:44:25 AM

cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....


It's almost like one involves the use of deadly weapons and the others don't.
 
2013-11-07 11:45:13 AM

new_york_monty: 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?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.


Why not though? There are mental health lists they want to enact instead. As a pilot I'm on about 10 lists for that alone. What makes these gun nutters think they're so special? They think they're going to rise up against the full force of even a tenth of the US Military and win? They don't offer a logical argument against background checks either.

Kind of like magazine size, they use an illogical argument. Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important. That's the logic they use, and it's completely baffling to me how their heads don't asplode from the logic fail.
 
2013-11-07 11:46:15 AM

MithrandirBooga: "I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how farking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?"


WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!?
 
2013-11-07 11:46:54 AM

Ivandrago: Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics.


Absolutely. I mean, the only thing that I think might possibly be relevant would be a refresher on the civilian gun laws, especially the state regs like where you can carry, if open carry is allowed, etc. Which at worst would be a pamphlet and a one page T/F questionnaire.

Dimensio: You are correct; the fact that such confiscation efforts have demonstrably occurred "makes it farking plausible".


(P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P)
 
2013-11-07 11:46:56 AM

Tomahawk513: The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  yada yada more bullshiat.


Oh, look. It's this bullshiat again.
Back to the  Founders:
"That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779,* shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."


*Title: Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/In other words, you lie.
 
2013-11-07 11:47:44 AM

Ivandrago: I'm totally okay with that. Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics. I spent two weeks mopping floors and cleaning toilets because I accidentally left my rifle on "semi" instead of "safe."


The topic the op-ed was addressing was mostly toward 16 hours of training for concealed carry permits as not being excessive. These laws can change and vary by state so there is no way to know if your military training covered what is necessary. There is also training on things like home safety and firearms with children, and other topics that may not be covered in combat firearms safety.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:18 AM

skozlaw: 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.


I'm not against that at all.

skozlaw: No, we don't. There is no "basketball" class as part of any school's curriculum anywhere in this country.


Basketball is part of physical education curricula, as could be shooting sports.  I'm not saying "go to gun class every other day for a semester," I'm saying that it could integrate into phys ed just like every other sport we teach.

Also: it would get conservatives to loosen up the purse strings a bit on education, which based on their politician's statements they hate with a burning passion.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:25 AM
pueblonative

On the basis that those that do the testing and training have a high enough respect and love for their profession that they would seek to impart some of it to their students and would identify the idiots who have no business being around anything that can perforate something only stronger than paper.

A nice thought, I suppose, but it's already illegal for you to get drunk and shoot up your neighbor's house. You know that, right? This has nothing at all to do with the idea of testing for those who wish to regularly use arms around other people.

But, let's go to your original idea. I get a gun "strictly for home use" per your proposal, so I don't have any training in the weapon. I'm just scared. Midnight and I hear a noise in my room. I pull out my gun and fire at the noise. Only thing is I aim wildly so the bullet goes through the window and hits my neighbor just getting back home from a party, instantly killing him. Exactly how did the for home use no training work out for my neighbor there? I didn't leave my property.

It sounds like you shouldn't have a weapon. Unfortunately for your neighbor, you have a right to until you do something retarded that demonstrates you shouldn't. Is that really where your problem lies?
 
2013-11-07 11:49:00 AM

Skeptos: 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.


The real Irony, is that their purity, "you're exactly like us or you're the enemy" nature of the right wing gun crowd, mixed with their farked up appeal to authority means they will likely be the ones voting any tyrant into office.
 
2013-11-07 11:52:10 AM
In RE "Fudds," I recently read a discussion of the word "nimrod" as a description of a loser or fool. The Biblical Nimrod was a king and mighty hunter and the term "nimrod" was traditionally used as a synonym for "hunter."

"In 15th-century English, 'Nimrod' had come to mean 'tyrant'. Coined in 20th-century American English, the term is now commonly used to mean 'dimwitted or stupid fellow', a usage first recorded in 1932 and popularized by the cartoon character Bugs Bunny, who sarcastically refers to the hunter Elmer Fudd as 'nimrod',[26][27] possibly as an ironic connection between "mighty hunter" and 'poor little Nimrod', i.e. Fudd." [sic--all misplaced punctuation from the Wikipedia article.]

Now ask me about the etymology of "dude."
 
2013-11-07 11:54:18 AM

aelat: So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.


He's clearly uninformed. He has no background on Constitutional law, never participated in gun law legislation, and has no ties to the indust...oh wait, he DOES have all that? Well, who gave him the right to write his OPINION on the subject?
 
2013-11-07 11:55:37 AM

inglixthemad: Kind of like magazine size, they use an illogical argument. Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important. That's the logic they use, and it's completely baffling to me how their heads don't asplode from the logic fail.


Eh, the problem is often that the regulations make very little sense in terms of practical design. The assault weapon ban's a classic example of something that makes absolutely no goddamned sense. Granted, the idiots respond with even dumber shiat but the lack of really understanding how guns work has been a pretty common thread through regulatory issues. Magazine size limitations wouldn't be a huge factor for saving lives in mass shootings which themselves are a tiny fraction of gun violence, yet they'd annoy the shiat out of millions of gun owners while being either practically unenforceable (if there are grandfather provisions) or unconstitutional (if there aren't).
 
2013-11-07 11:56:33 AM

clambam: In RE "Fudds," I recently read a discussion of the word "nimrod" as a description of a loser or fool. The Biblical Nimrod was a king and mighty hunter and the term "nimrod" was traditionally used as a synonym for "hunter."

"In 15th-century English, 'Nimrod' had come to mean 'tyrant'. Coined in 20th-century American English, the term is now commonly used to mean 'dimwitted or stupid fellow', a usage first recorded in 1932 and popularized by the cartoon character Bugs Bunny, who sarcastically refers to the hunter Elmer Fudd as 'nimrod',[26][27] possibly as an ironic connection between "mighty hunter" and 'poor little Nimrod', i.e. Fudd." [sic--all misplaced punctuation from the Wikipedia article.]

Now ask me about the etymology of "dude."


Also a fantastic piece of music by Elgar.
 
2013-11-07 11:59:18 AM
I was unaware that Elgar wrote any fantastic pieces of music (sorry!). That said, you might enjoy the following link:

http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/
 
2013-11-07 11:59:24 AM

Facetious_Speciest: t sounds like you shouldn't have a weapon. Unfortunately for your neighbor, you have a right to until you do something retarded that demonstrates you shouldn't. Is that really where your problem lies?


So he has to wait to die before he can be protected from me, an obviously unqualified person, owning a gun whose purpose is to kill.  Wasn't there a judge who said something about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?
 
2013-11-07 12:01:27 PM

aelat: Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.


yes, and the NRA and pro gun crowd has fought these restrictions tooth and nail.  And they are still fighting universal back ground checks.   So the argument he put forward is 100% correct.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.


And again, these laws have been fought by the NRA and pro gun crowd.


I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.



So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsibly." Although ironically, I do hear some of this from anti-gun folks who think "warning shots" are a good alternative to correct use of force.



Care to show where he made that claim?  Let me tell you what I have seen first hand over the years.  I have seen several conversations where one person states their possible desire to buy a gun.  almost never I seen a gun owner talk about responsibility.  Its happened a few times, but even when it does, its the shortest part of the conversation.  What does happen every time is this: the conversation immediately goes to "what kind of gun are you going to get,"  or something along the lines of "you should get this because it will blow their head off."

There is a difference between not supporting safety and responsibility and openly advocating for irresponsible and unsafe behavior.

So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.


Are you talking about his column, or your post?  I can not tell.
 
2013-11-07 12:03:40 PM
pueblonative

So he has to wait to die before he can be protected from me, an obviously unqualified person, owning a gun whose purpose is to kill.

Well, he doesn't have to die, but yes, you can't be denied a right because someone imagines you might misuse it someday, as a general thing. You actually have to compromise yourself in some way before we take away your ability to legally vote, own a weapon, etc. It's crazy like that, the whole liberty thing.
 
2013-11-07 12:04:52 PM

dittybopper: dletter: 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.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

Because they can't possibly go house to house just seizing guns, and general warrants are illegal and the kind of "shoot the bastards" type of warning sign.  No legitimate entity under the US Constitution can just search a whole area under a general warrant.  Ever.

But if you have a central list of all gun owners, and the types of guns they own, you now have "probable cause" to support a search warrant if a certain type or caliber of gun is banned.  Plus, they don't have to expend the actual effort to go from house to house.  They already know where they are.

So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing, and easier to do under existing US laws relating to search and seizures and the requirement for a particularized warrant supported by probable cause.

*THAT* is why there is opposition to that sort of thing.


dittybopper: factoryconnection: I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts.  They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior.  The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers.  That is the most common way that criminals get armed.  The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

1.  The "time to crime" for guns actually averages over 10 years, according to the ATF.

2. The real reason that there is massive opposition to that sort of control over guns is that it supplies the government with probable cause if they ever decide that any particular model, type, or caliber of gun should now be banned.

That's the real problem.  A comprehensive registry of guns and gun owners is relatively benign in a democracy, right up until the time that there is some event that causes people to look to banning a certain type of gun.  Then it becomes an effective method to collect all of them.  That is what happened in the UK in the late 1990s:  All guns had to be registered there, and handguns especially were subject to relatively strict controls.  But after the mass shooting in Dunblane, they banned all modern handguns, and they had the means to effectively collect them all from the legal owners.

If there is no central registry, though, you can't effectively ban them.  You can't collect them because you don't know who has them.  You can talk to the original purchasers, but they may have subsequently sold them, or (my personal favorite), "it fell out of the canoe into the lake when we capsized it while I was fishing about 5 years ago".

Another thing that isn't really talked about is that the extra hassle ...


sprawl15: dittybopper: you now have "probable cause"

no, you don't

dittybopper: So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing

And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.

You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns, while ignoring everything from the acceptance of guns on both sides of the aisle including among those who have no desire to own guns, the utter impracticality of a gun ban making the legislation impossible even if people tried to comply with it, the requirement of a farking constitutional amendment to allow such a thing to happen, and the groundswell of resistance that would occur between gun owners and the 'grabbers'.

Your boohoo about a boogeyman does more to undermine the pro-gun position than anything else on the farking planet. Grow up, take the night light out, and act like a farking adult.


In addition to what sprawl15 said, there's also the small matter of a certain distinction between the UK and the USA ― namely, our Constitution. Never mind the Second Amendment for now. Take a gander at Article I §9 ¶3 for the Federal Government, and Article I §10 ¶1 for the States. Probable cause can only exist if there is suspicion of a crime, and both the Feds and the States are strictly forbidden from making any action a crime retroactively (Ex Post Facto). So, if you bought a gun that was subsequently banned, you committed no crime and thus there is no probable cause. This is why "grandfather clauses" exist.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:18 PM
I've decided that I'm going to start referring to the Second Amendment as a "technicality." That's what people call the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when they're inconvenient, and the rubes mostly eat it up.
 
2013-11-07 12:09:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tomahawk513: The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  yada yada more bullshiat.

Oh, look. It's this bullshiat again.
Back to the  Founders:
"That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779,* shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."


*Title: Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/In other words, you lie.


Hey man, if I'm wrong that's awesome! I'm ALL FOR regulations! Also, dude, read the rest of my post.
 
2013-11-07 12:10:03 PM
Yeah, they call it 'Firearms Safety' but we all know what really happens.

You pull your Dodge Ram "duely" into parking lot at the gun range and...

BOOM!

Next thing you know your on one of Fartbamao's trains to San Francisco to be forcibly gay married and assigned to a mosque.

Fool me once...
 
2013-11-07 12:13:53 PM

blastoh: aelat: Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.

yes, and the NRA and pro gun crowd has fought these restrictions tooth and nail.  And they are still fighting universal back ground checks.   So the argument he put forward is 100% correct.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.

And again, these laws have been fought by the NRA and pro gun crowd.


I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.


So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsi ...


The author said that it is the position of "many" that ANY restriction on gun ownership is an infringement on the right to own guns. This is a position that neither the NRA nor most gun owners advocate. Bringing up the NRA's fight against expanding background checks is changing the goalposts as they are NOT advocating removing all regulations on firearm ownership. The gun-owning population as a whole as well as the NRA does agree with varying degrees of regulation. Some want more, some want less, but most people want some degree of regulation. To argue otherwise is to be deliberately disingenuous.

So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I made no argument whatsoever about owning a firearm being a right that could not be regulated. I don't know how you could have possibly inferred that from what I wrote. I do believe that there should be limitations on firearm ownership. But for a guy with a supposed background in Constitutional law, the author seems to have no appreciation for the differences between a right that is Constitutionally protected, and one that is not. Saying "the basic principle is the same" is laughable.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:57 PM

COMALite J: In addition to what sprawl15 said, there's also the small matter of a certain distinction between the UK and the USA ― namely, our Constitution. Never mind the Second Amendment for now. Take a gander at Article I §9 ¶3 for the Federal Government, and Article I §10 ¶1 for the States. Probable cause can only exist if there is suspicion of a crime, and both the Feds and the States are strictly forbidden from making any action a crime retroactively (Ex Post Facto). So, if you bought a gun that was subsequently banned, you committed no crime and thus there is no probable cause. This is why "grandfather clauses" exist.


Prohibiting "ex post facto" laws means only that the federal government cannot enact legislation holding owners of a prohibited class of firearms criminally liable for possessing those firearms prior to the effective date of the legislation. The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

"Grandfather" clauses exist in proposed firearm bans as a means of attempting to attain wider support and due to the recognition that collecting and confiscating all currently owned firearms of a particular class is impractical due to an inability for the government to account for them.
 
2013-11-07 12:16:44 PM
The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.
 
2013-11-07 12:18:30 PM

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?


Sure.  We could also require training to vote in a proper manner.  Maybe have a literacy test to make sure you're capable.

/yes, the main concern is de facto gun control.  The other concern is that it's an enumerated right (one of the top two even) and you're expecting me to jump through hoops to exercise a right?  Yeah, screw you buddy.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:56 PM

Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:04 PM
As someone who likes guns, and likes shooting guns:
imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-11-07 12:25:13 PM

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

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.


I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.
 
2013-11-07 12:25:39 PM

Tomahawk513: 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.


So what you're claiming is that, from a Constitutional standpoint, we're required to have the government pay for guns for whomever wants them just in case they're ever required to take up arms against the US government and each individual person gets to decide if it's time to hold a revolt.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:09 PM

LarryDan43: The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.


Not to mention the organization really appears to be more geared towards gun manufacturers than gun owners.
 
2013-11-07 12:28:38 PM

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.


If you use Justice Scalia's official copy of Webster's Dictionary from the 1780's, well-regulated means 'in good working order, like a clock'

For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.
And how that definition doesn't apply, but well-regulated's does.
 
2013-11-07 12:29:15 PM
GUN NUTS just can't stand free expression, proto-fascists every one.
 
2013-11-07 12:29:35 PM

Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.


it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"
 
2013-11-07 12:31:05 PM

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.


Too much effort. The government already has a list of potentially violent right-wing gun owners: any internet comment thread regarding sensible gun safety regulations.
 
2013-11-07 12:31:13 PM

monoski: Not to mention the organization really appears to be more geared towards gun manufacturers than gun owners.


Nah, you are thinking about Obama. He was just dubbed the "US Firearms Salesman of the Year" for the 5th straigh year.  Hard to compete against that.
 
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