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 (42 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 12:34:38 PM

sprawl15: Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.

it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"


so "shall not be infringed" means that we can't have FABULOUS guns?

/buncha commies....
 
2013-11-07 12:34:49 PM
I think a lot of posters are missing a larger point. I hear an absurd amount of lamenting about the media, but I seldom hear how the right demands that the media toe the line. Guns and Ammo will face a huge backlash, at least for them anyway. The right is known for throwing disproportionate fits when a media outlet they have influence over even tries to cover a topic they consider taboo. This combined with plenty of encouragement from the power brokers has poisoned the discourse at every level that matters. The number fanatics we have in America has reached epidemic levels, and the psychological unhealthy conditions that have helped foster them are only getting worse for many. I'm not expecting the whole country to just boil over, but I believe we have (tens of?) millions of very damaged people that will need to be addressed. Oh, and those people are armed, angry and irrational also they hate your guts. Good luck with that.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:39 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.


Taking your statement at face value:
If there was no freedom, they wouldn't need to fight and there would be no need for donations ad dues.  Hence, they care deeply about this freedom.  Your point makes no sense.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:50 PM

sprawl15: Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.

it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"


"I regret that I have but 1 'Funny' to give"
-Rand Paul
 
2013-11-07 12:37:50 PM

brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.


That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:00 PM
This traitor will pay for double-crossing The People of the Gun!
 
2013-11-07 12:41:04 PM

sprawl15: 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.


Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:49 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


And those limitations are on how we can use those rights, not on the rights themselves. We ban yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, not the word 'fire.'
 
2013-11-07 12:42:43 PM

inglixthemad: Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important.


Who says it is unimportant?  That argument is what I hear from the gun control side more than the gun rights side.

Overall, it provides a convienience that you don't have to reload as much. It also has drawbacks and you rifle sometimes is not as easy to shoot off of a rest or bench.  It has its pros and cons, but I don't hear many gun-rights folks saying that it is unimportant.
 
2013-11-07 12:44:11 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


Personally, I wish they were more skewed towards the absolute and unbending side, rather than the free speech zones, eminent domain grabs, Patriot Acts, exigent circumstances and no knock warrants crap we have today.
 
2013-11-07 12:45:57 PM

odinsposse: sprawl15: 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.

Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.


As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:56 PM

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.


Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.
 
2013-11-07 12:47:35 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


What are you implying ?   You think people should 'bend' on womens rights or on the issue of slavery ?

Would you tell a person who is gay they can't get married or have a job because no ones rights are absolute ?    Sorry sir,  you are black,  we can't serve you any food....   ?

No,  I don't think we want that.
 
2013-11-07 12:48:59 PM

blastoh: 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.


It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?
 
2013-11-07 12:50:37 PM

Tomahawk513: Hey man, if I'm wrong that's awesome! I'm ALL FOR regulations! Also, dude, read the rest of my post.


Stop lying.
"Well regulated" has meant "well regulated" since Geoffrey farking Chaucer was writing about gap-toothed widows.
The argument that well regulated did not mean well regulated in 1789 is a lie: It's self-serving bullshiat.
 
2013-11-07 12:50:45 PM

NeverDrunk23: Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.


I think you are correct.
 
2013-11-07 12:51:55 PM

NeverDrunk23: 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.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.


That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers
 
2013-11-07 12:55:11 PM
I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:14 PM

Dimensio: As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.


Right. As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s. There may be others but those are the most modern ones.

I just can't tell what  sprawl is arguing for since making something that was once legal illegal happens constantly without violating Ex Post Facto.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:20 PM

Farker Soze: Gubmint: we want to take your guns!


WTF?
 
2013-11-07 12:55:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: 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.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


Your argument may hold water if the fat guy brigade had Apaches and Abrams.
 
2013-11-07 12:57:02 PM

Farker Soze: NeverDrunk23: 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.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.

That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers


Sounds to me like he's an enemy of The People of The Gun.
 
2013-11-07 12:57:18 PM
the MA AWB has a grandfather clause for high capacity magazines

TMYK
===*
 
2013-11-07 12:57:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: WTF?


Are you that unfamiliar with the Gun Control movement?
 
2013-11-07 12:59:19 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: 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.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.
 
2013-11-07 12:59:39 PM

Jackson Herring: the MA AWB has a grandfather clause for high capacity magazines

TMYK
===*


Again, most grandfather clauses are there to help win support for the bill and help them with the sticky problem of getting folks to turn them in.
 
2013-11-07 01:01:59 PM
As far as I can tell, GUN NUTS think "well regulated" just means Ex-Lax for breakfast.
 
2013-11-07 01:01:59 PM

Rapmaster2000: Farker Soze: NeverDrunk23: 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.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.

That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers

Sounds to me like he's an enemy of The People of The Gun.


Heh, I bet that catches on almost as well as BOB has.  But keep with it.
 
2013-11-07 01:02:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And "tyrannical"?


*The Ghost of Vici Weaver  waves at you*
 
2013-11-07 01:02:35 PM
Holy shiat! I just put FARK's resident NRA fellatio expert on ignore and now there are 3 posts in this thread.
 
2013-11-07 01:05:13 PM
How does anyone involved with publishing a gun rag not know to not Zumbo yourself?
 
2013-11-07 01:05:59 PM
Looks like Guns and Ammo just made The List
 
2013-11-07 01:06:20 PM

odinsposse: Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed?


ooh which red herring is this going to be i wonder

Dimensio: As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause"


You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.

Dimensio: A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.


Not similar at all. Revocation of FOID cards for mental health issues according to the county's interpretation of federal statute is substantially distinct from either the topic or the NY/NYC AWB.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:46 PM
1) Make training required.
2) Refuse to certify trainers
3) Profit!

Congress has a 12% approval rating and people are begging them to limit people's rights. If you trust the government to only implement reasonable restrictions, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2013-11-07 01:07:14 PM

DayeOfJustice: I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.


The sad part is the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to protect the government in case of a rebellion or invasion but thanks to anti-government extremists it's been corrupted into a national self-destruct button. And the people who believe they are the "well-regulated militia" are the same reason 40 miles outside of any major city the road signs are filled with tiny holes.
 
2013-11-07 01:11:56 PM

odinsposse: As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s.


Which wasn't a confiscation. It was people refusing to get their weapons registered, being lazy and stupid through multiple grace periods until the courts said that people were given more than enough chances to register their weapon as an assault weapon and negated the last round. And there was no meaningful attempt to go and actually confiscate weapons. Which is pretty farking important when you're calling it a 'confiscation'.

odinsposse: I just can't tell what sprawl is arguing for


Yes, laws can be complicated.
 
2013-11-07 01:13:19 PM

sprawl15: You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.


I am referring specifically to a city law passed in 1991, not to the recently enacted state law.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:12 PM

Dimensio: not to the recently enacted state law.


And if you believe Governor Cuomo, confiscation was "on the table" during secret, midnight deliberations on the drafting of the NYSAFE Act.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:35 PM
new_york_monty:

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.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns,  so I wonder how effective it could be.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:56 PM

Dimensio: not to the recently enacted state law.


It's pretty amazing how just in these few words it's obvious you didn't read either the post ("from around the same time") or the link (which specifies grandfathering in 1993).

Dimensio: I am referring specifically to a city law passed in 1991


So cite the text of the law. That's what I'm looking for and specifically asked for.
 
2013-11-07 01:16:12 PM

sprawl15: You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.


I have located the specific text of the law in question. Note that the law includes no "grandfathering" provision, and no compensation is provided to owners who were forced by law to surrender their firearms.
 
2013-11-07 01:16:22 PM

DayeOfJustice: I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.


because blackie ofartbangbus is president and babby jeebuz.  study it out
 
2013-11-07 01:18:57 PM

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


10.8 years for guns they can trace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/10/25/GR201 0 102501384.html


Right now it is next to impossible to bring a case against an individual who knowingly sells a gun to a criminal. Tracking gun sales will make it much more easy, making people less willing to do it, which means it will be harder for criminals to get guns.

Ensuring that you aren't selling to soemoen who has a right to own a gun doesn't seem overlyburdensome to me. IOn fact nto doing it seems downright negligient.
 
2013-11-07 01:19:19 PM

factoryconnection: I'm not against that at all.


Unfortunately, the only people who ever speak up when it comes time to do anything more complicated than answering a phone poll are against it. Because, apparently, holding people accountable for their actions is a violation of some sort of imaginary freedom. And since the lunatics are the only ones who ever talk when it comes time to do anything harder than answer a phone poll, we don't get to have sensible things.

factoryconnection: as could be shooting sports


Shooting "sports" are not a physical activity by any meaningful definition. It's already bad enough that some schools have golf in gym. Let's not further dilute the already watered-down notion of what constitutes physical activity.

If you're going to teach gun safety as part of the curriculum, put it where it makes logical sense: health class. Although, like I said, I'd be a bit surprised if a number of schools don't already do this.
 
2013-11-07 01:24:21 PM

factoryconnection: 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.


This.

I wonder if any of them actually take the time to think about where the criminals get their guns from in the first place. It's not like the magically appear out of thin air. They start as legal guns and things go wrong from there. It's almost like they're afraid of being responsible for their gun, personally.
 
2013-11-07 01:24:54 PM

dustbunnyboo: new_york_monty:

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.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns,  so I wonder how effective it could be.


Honestly, even just hammering the four basic rules of gun handling into their pulpy little brains would be worlds better than what we have now. And you don't even need a gun in the classroom to teach the four rules. I'd prefer comprehensive safety training and some time to actually teach them to shoot, but I know (for the reason you state) that would be a very hard sell. But the four rules need to be universally known.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:13 PM

Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.


Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:54 PM

HeadLever: 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.


We have not seen a salesman like Barry since Willie Horton.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:05 PM
 
2013-11-07 01:28:52 PM

sprawl15: Good lord (d.) is worded badly


It is a gun control law....

I also like how gun control has been re-branded as "gun safety," kind of like what the creationists did with "intelligent design."
 
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