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 56
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-07 09:13:16 AM
5 votes:
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?
2013-11-07 11:19:54 AM
4 votes:

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 10:52:23 AM
4 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 09:24:34 AM
4 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 12:34:49 PM
3 votes:
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 11:14:53 AM
3 votes:
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 11:11:32 AM
3 votes:
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 11:00:23 AM
3 votes:
Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....
2013-11-07 09:22:10 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 02:33:07 PM
2 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


You are statist trash.  His wife was murdered while holding onto a child because the government didn't tell him they changed his court date.  He was found not guilty.  The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.  His family was targeted because he refused to become an informant.
2013-11-07 02:23:02 PM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: 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.

It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.


Had a meeting I had to attend, so unfortunately I didn't get to put in a reply to either of you. Still gonna do it late though.

First: on hobby status. Gun ownership is not a hobby. It's a constitutional right. We have civics courses to teach why voting and democratic governance are important and how they work. We have history courses to teach why the 14th amendment is important. We should have the same for guns.

Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution, and guns are everywhere - not only in movies and TV but literally, physically, everywhere in society. Teaching responsibility at a young age is a good way to deal with that fact, and a good way to help prevent accidental firearms deaths.

Second: funding such a program is easy. Take the costs of the program an multiply by 3 for a grand total. 1/3 of the grand total actually funds the program. 2/3 of the grand total goes into general education. Conservatives love it because it teaches the principles of gun ownership early; liberals love it because schools get more money. Supplies can be solicited through buy-back programs and donations to keep costs down; I'm sure the gun manufacturers would be all over it for the PR.

As I said, though, gun control advocates would never, ever support such responsible legislation. Such an educational program would demystify the gun from a totemic object of abstract societal horror and turn it into what it actually is: a rather prosaic inanimate object that is only as "good" or as "bad" as the person holding it.
2013-11-07 10:32:38 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.


Driving death rates have been falling consistently because of safety regulations over the years.  Driving in the 60s was perilously dangerous and the cars themselves made it much more so.  Cars nowadays are vastly safer and thus people survive even unhurt accidents that would have killed them.  I wonder what drove the safety culture?

Of course, violent crime has dropped over the past 20 years and with it gun murders which is more and more thought to be tied to the rise and fall of environmental lead exposure to children from the 50s through the late 70s.  Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.
2013-11-07 09:33:12 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 04:53:23 PM
1 votes:
My philosophy is pretty selfish. I have a large collection of penis extensions, but fully favor extensive gun control, because 1--criminals will never steal and use them as soon as they become more controlled, and 2--you're all f*cking insane. The States are full of mentally unbalanced idiots, and most of you should be superglued to your disabled Go-Go Ultra X 3-Wheel Travel Mobility scooters. The mental disorder situation here is only going to get worse, since apparently winning partisan wars and treating symptoms are far more important than solving problems.

I used to make a big deal about how I was a "responsible gun enthusiast" in response to the label "gun nut", but really, I want what you disingenuous, intellectually dishonest morons (Hi Jon Stewart!) want, as long as mine aren't taken away.
2013-11-07 04:36:37 PM
1 votes:

Facetious_Speciest: Nina_Hartley's_Ass

Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.

What do you imagine you're trying to say, here? The only policy anyone wants out of Ruby Ridge is "hey, maybe government officials shouldn't be abusive dicks." Guess what? Most government officials who opined on the matter agree.

So what, exactly, are you trying to say?


Is Nina_Hartley's_Ass not merely attempting to express irrational disdain and contempt for all firearm owners, as is the case in every discussion?
2013-11-07 04:20:22 PM
1 votes:
Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.
2013-11-07 03:09:19 PM
1 votes:
demaL-demaL-yeH

No, it's not a lie. You know very little about the event we're discussing. You didn't even know the government tried to blackmail him beforehand. Your idea that his son and wife should "pay in blood" is disgusting.

You are a bad person, and should feel bad.
2013-11-07 02:44:02 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: Fark It: The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.

Actaully, to be accurate here, the Goverment settled for millions.  The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV.  They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.


When the plaintiffs force a settlement, especially against the government, I count that as a W.  Especially given that federal agents were killed in self-defense, and the Justice Department said that there was "no way" they were going to give money to people who shot federal agents.
2013-11-07 02:32:40 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary


Yep, because when you have been blackmailed by the ATF, court date moved without any notification, and harassed by jack booted thugs working for the goverment because you didn't want to deal with them, you are going to put all your faith into the court system.

Are you that dumb, or just play one on the internet?
2013-11-07 02:31:11 PM
1 votes:
demaL-demaL-yeH

Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Well, ok. I guess you're not joking.

Which day was his day in court, again?

Your callous disregard of the murder of a woman holding a child is disgusting. Just...wow. What ideology have you sold yourself to that says such action is acceptable? What is fundamentally wrong with you as a person that you think this was ok?
2013-11-07 02:29:12 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


Did you miss the part where they moved his court date and never told him?  Or are you just being obtuse for some other reason.
2013-11-07 02:04:38 PM
1 votes:

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


What state or federal law forced horseless carriage owners to surrender their property?
2013-11-07 02:02:20 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.


You are saying, then, that a federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not qualify as a confiscation measure, because owners could move those firearms out of the country?
2013-11-07 01:58:41 PM
1 votes:

Darth Macho: You get safer gun owners and greater public acceptability with your hobby. Your community gets a back on the back and a spot on the moral high ground. We'll even throw in one free "get out of blame for the next mass shooting" coupon.


We already have NRA courses, hunter safety courses, concealed carry courses.  If they're a requirement for the "privilege" of owning a gun do we get credit for past courses?  Do we get tax credits for these courses?

Wildly irresponsible gun handling has been a major problem in this country since we shifted towards urbanization.

I am in no way, shape, or form for irresponsible and criminal gun users in America's ghettos.

Frankly, the pro-gun side has racked up a debt on the social contract. Safety courses are a good first payment on that debt.

So, this is a punitive measure, and only the beginning.  And you call us paranoid....

This isn't a negotiation; this a chance to politely pay the overdue bill before the repo man shows up.

Thanks for tipping your hand and being honest about your true intentions.
2013-11-07 01:44:21 PM
1 votes:

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


I was talking about a gun ban without a grandfather clause.  And using public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Gun control advocates want mandatory safety training (with a fee of some kind, I presume).  What are they willing to put on the table for gun owners who already train and are knowledgeable when it comes to gun safety, who already have guns?  What do we get for the increased cost and hassle?  Easing up on NFA restrictions?  Repeal of the Hughes Amendment?
2013-11-07 01:37:56 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: but still not an example of what you're talking about:


He was talking about this law having no grandfather clause.  Besides your obvious deflection, It is exactly what he was talking about.
2013-11-07 01:32:55 PM
1 votes:

CtrlAltDestroy: 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.


Should we go ask Brian Terry's mother about this?
2013-11-07 01:28:52 PM
1 votes:

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."
2013-11-07 12:55:11 PM
1 votes:
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 12:47:35 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:56 PM
1 votes:

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 12:44:11 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:04 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:13 PM
1 votes:

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 12:21:04 PM
1 votes:
As someone who likes guns, and likes shooting guns:
imokwiththis.jpg
2013-11-07 12:16:44 PM
1 votes:
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 12:03:40 PM
1 votes:
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 11:49:00 AM
1 votes:

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 11:44:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:15 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 11:25:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:18:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:48 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:34 AM
1 votes:
"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 11:06:42 AM
1 votes:
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 11:04:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:58 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:41 AM
1 votes:
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 11:01:40 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:49 AM
1 votes:

Jackson Herring: yes, firearms safety training requirements are exactly like a poll tax

jesus unbelievable fark


Having to buy a gun at all is an affront to the Constitution. They should be given out for free to everyone.
2013-11-07 10:53:59 AM
1 votes:

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.


It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.
2013-11-07 10:37:44 AM
1 votes:
The kicker is that once the conservatives started bellyaching, Guns & Ammo immediately fired Metcalf and begged for forgiveness.
2013-11-07 09:59:57 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 09:36:20 AM
1 votes:
The same sh*t happens whenever Car and Driver says anything nice about electric cars or greenhouse gas emissions.

Although Car and Driver has been doing so for a while, while this is a novel first for G&A.

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?


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.

But it isn't a quick fix, and with patchwork laws there are workarounds.  See: armed gangs in DC and NYC.
2013-11-07 09:24:01 AM
1 votes:

dletter: There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia


The NRA grassroots base is much scarier than any gun you will ever see.
2013-11-07 09:23:16 AM
1 votes:

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.


I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating the arguments I've actually heard about this shiat.
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report