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.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic paradise of Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation, which means that the 1400 armed robberies that took place there last year are, like, totally a figment of your imagination   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 446
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

857 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-05 06:45:23 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.


You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?
 
2014-01-05 06:46:26 PM

The Name: Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.


Bingo.
 
2014-01-05 06:57:12 PM

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?


How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.
 
2014-01-05 07:01:47 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.


Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?
 
2014-01-05 07:03:10 PM

The Name: redmid17: If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?

Probably not.  But you're really flying off into fantasy land if you think reducing gun ownership wouldn't have any place in the ideal crime-reduction program.  You're basically banking on the hope that no Responsible Gun Owners will ever get angry and snap or decide to rob a convenience store.

redmid17: The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others.

Yup.  And today most of those nations enjoy a higher quality of life and even greater freedom than Americans (not arguing causality, just saying you don't need your guns).

redmid17: I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not clamoring for them to amend that one either.

It's kind of creepy that you put that much thought into it, and it doesn't help your image as a gun enthusiast, either.


Put that much thought into it? It was off the top of my head and ironically learned during a few Fark threads on capital punishment, and you're projecting.

Firing squads are allowable but most states have banned the practice. The armed forces use lethal injection. A few states still allow/use electric chairs.
 
2014-01-05 07:04:53 PM

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?


Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.
 
2014-01-05 07:05:14 PM
So a single city, which is part of a larger country and therefore unable to set up border checkpoints, has found its gun laws unable to stem the flow of guns?  This clearly means that a large country which controls its own borders will be unable to do the same with strict gun laws.

/Cities and states which ban guns don't get much use out of the laws
//Nations which ban guns, however, are often able to make gun crime drop as a result
 
2014-01-05 07:05:36 PM

ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.


Low crime like Pax Romana?
 
2014-01-05 07:06:01 PM

The Name: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.


lol
 
KIA
2014-01-05 07:06:17 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):


There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of  First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

And, of course, none of that goes as far as I'd like to go with you, but, you know, the law is the law and all.


clambam: I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation.


Try being sensible.
 
2014-01-05 07:14:03 PM

The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?


Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
 
2014-01-05 07:16:27 PM

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.


Sweet mother of God! This X 1000!!!

I'd be more sympathetic to the pro-gun people's cause if they didn't act like a bunch of self-righteous douchebags all the goddamn time.
 
2014-01-05 07:19:39 PM

Chummer45: udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.


I didn't know reasonable people like you existed.

Seriously, I understand the right to own a gun, a lot of my family hunts and I understand the need to protect your property. But I also understand the need to regulate who can own a gun to minimize the chances that it will fall into the wrong hands.

Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?
 
2014-01-05 07:24:34 PM
So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?
 
2014-01-05 07:30:31 PM

KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.


Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.
 
2014-01-05 07:31:21 PM
Not bothering to read thread, just skipping straight to telling any idiot that hasn't figured it out yet that it's a very short trip with no border controls from Virginia, where there are much looser gun laws, to DC. This is a demonstration that small territories can't ban things on their own than that gun laws don't work.
 
2014-01-05 07:33:13 PM

poot_rootbeer: The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?


Are you for real making this argument?
 
2014-01-05 07:33:33 PM

StoPPeRmobile: ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.

Low crime like Pax Romana?


You tell me. Ancient Rome still had poverty, and the government did distribute quite a lot of food to the poor in those times.
 
2014-01-05 07:38:54 PM

ex-nuke: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There is ONE dealer with a FFL in DC who does a handful of sales per year by appointment only. There are NO felons who can legally buy a gun in DC (or the rest of the country). I'd wager that there has never been a crime committed in DC that was committed by a gun without a criminal attached. 

There are no car manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the cars used in car crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO distillerys in DC.  I'd wager most of the booze used in drunk driving crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO legal growers in DC. I'd wager most of the pot used in pot crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO Computer manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the computers used in computer crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are almost zero shark attacks in the middle of the Sahara Desert so it must be SAFER to live there than the Australian Coast.


Funny thing, there is at least one distillery in DC

http://greenhatgin.com/
 
2014-01-05 07:46:00 PM

Frank N Stein: poot_rootbeer: The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?

Are you for real making this argument?


Clarence Thomas argued against race-based affirmative action.

#thinkaboutit
 
2014-01-05 07:50:19 PM

Turbo Cojones: We already have more people in prison that China and Russia combined.  The incarceration cubbard is bare $ wise.


I don't remember mentioning incarceration.
 
2014-01-05 07:55:02 PM

super_grass: So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?


They aren't. There's no correlation. The problem isn't guns, or gun laws.

The problem is America: It's full of total shiatbags.
 
2014-01-05 07:56:08 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?

Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.


This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.
 
2014-01-05 07:58:28 PM

udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.


Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.
 
2014-01-05 08:00:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?


Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.
 
2014-01-05 08:00:36 PM

Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.
 
2014-01-05 08:02:05 PM

Doom MD: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?

Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.

This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


TuteTibiImperes actually advocates eliminating all concealed weapons permit systems, revoking all existing permits and completely prohibiting the carrying of firearms by civilians, despite any evidence that such a policy would in any way reduce rates of violent crime.
 
2014-01-05 08:03:50 PM

The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.


Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.
 
2014-01-05 08:07:00 PM

Dimensio: Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?

Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.


Heh.  I like how the representatives of gun control here are a Senator and a Rep, and the pro-gun representative is a pants-shiatting lunatic draft-dodger.
 
2014-01-05 08:07:33 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]


Login:Elvis Presleys Death Throne    (What's
Fark account number:830200
Account created:2012-12-20 07:46:53 (1 year ago)
 
2014-01-05 08:08:26 PM
WHY CAN'T I CARRY A BAZOOKA ONTO A JETLINER IS ALL I WANT TO KNOW
 
2014-01-05 08:09:17 PM

Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.


Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.
 
2014-01-05 08:11:22 PM

The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.


No they probably would. Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon. It wouldn't give Obama a complete pass on gun rights but it would certainly help while being a complete 180 on his state and federal voting record and platforms.

Obama's "expansion" of gun rights was something he was strong-armed into AFTER his administration declined to appeal the court injunction against Bush's rule. He's also actively pushed new gun laws, which ended up failing on the federal level.
 
2014-01-05 08:11:49 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?

Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.

Heh.  I like how the representatives of gun control here are a Senator and a Rep, and the pro-gun representative is a pants-shiatting lunatic draft-dodger.


That would suggest that the firearm regulation advocates are more dangerous, as they are actually in a position to push forth their irrational agenda, while Mr. Nugent is able only to further show off his incontinence.
 
2014-01-05 08:12:00 PM

The Name: Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.

Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.


You brought up Obama as a distraction and it wasn't even a correct statement. Obama would've had more success if he offered a legit compromise rather than make demands followed by an embarassing hissy fit when his efforts fell flat on its face.
 
2014-01-05 08:12:52 PM

The Name: Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.

Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.


Said no one in this thread but you
 
2014-01-05 08:13:35 PM

redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.


Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.
 
2014-01-05 08:14:16 PM
The District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Mr. Paul Quander, explains that being a victim who suffers injury when confronted with an armed robber is preferable to being an armed citizen who engages in self-defense, and also predicts that legally armed citizens will ultimately cause injury to other bystanders, a claim which he backs up through absolutely no examples in any other states where citizen carry is allowed.
Unfortunately, Chicago has just lost this battle and must soon confront the horror of a small minority of citizens being legally permitted to carry concealed firearms.
 
2014-01-05 08:17:22 PM

TuteTibiImperes: He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.


You know that Randy Weaver is still alive and a free man, right?

/Vicki Weaver on the other hand.....
 
2014-01-05 08:17:36 PM

Doom MD: Obama would've had more success if he offered a legit compromise rather than make demands followed by an embarassing hissy fit when his efforts fell flat on its face.


Said every Republican every time Obama has offered a legitimate compromise on anything.

Dimensio: That would suggest that the firearm regulation advocates are more dangerous, as they are actually in a position to push forth their irrational agenda, while Mr. Nugent is able only to further show off his incontinence.


"Dangerous" and "effective" are two different things, and you're not even correct about which is which.
 
2014-01-05 08:18:47 PM

Doom MD: This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


Ah yes, when the goal is to reduce the body counts of spree killings, the problem is the lack of availability of fully automatic weapons.

I'm also not too keen on forcing major cities to abide by rules that may work fine for more rural areas.  In terms of gun laws, a little localization is probably good for everybody. Letting places like NYC, Chicago and DC set their own limits is a big part of why more comprehensive nationwide legislation has not been put forward.  Besides, 99% of the people who biatch about the municipal gun restrictions of major cities are people who don't live there.
 
2014-01-05 08:19:45 PM
DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

www.slate.com

We're all gonna make it brah.
 
2014-01-05 08:20:01 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not saying the government didn't make some mistakes handling his case, but those are things he should have brought to the attention of his lawyer and handled through due process in the courts.


You mean the same 'due process' that gave Lon the orders to shoot any armed male on sight?  Why should you respect due process when the other side has orders to kill you on sight?
 
2014-01-05 08:20:18 PM

udhq: Ah yes, when the goal is to reduce the body counts of spree killings, the problem is the lack of availability of fully automatic weapons.


"Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.
 
2014-01-05 08:21:19 PM

super_grass: DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

[www.slate.com image 659x410]

We're all gonna make it brah.


That chart is inaccurate, as it does not document the substantial increase in homicides that must have occurred in the city following the overturning of the city's ban on civilian firearm ownership in 2008.
 
2014-01-05 08:21:28 PM

Chummer45: Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.


It was not meant to.  it was there to allow the folks to rebuff said system instead of become slaves.
 
2014-01-05 08:22:53 PM

HeadLever: Chummer45: Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.

It was not meant to.  it was there to allow the folks to rebuff said system instead of become slaves.


I have a cat.  I do not have a cat.
 
2014-01-05 08:23:21 PM

Dimensio: super_grass: DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

[www.slate.com image 659x410]

We're all gonna make it brah.

That chart is inaccurate, as it does not document the substantial increase in homicides that must have occurred in the city following the overturning of the city's ban on civilian firearm ownership in 2008.


That dip after '08 is actually represents the waterfall of virgin toddler blood on the capital steps after the overturned gun ban.
 
2014-01-05 08:30:52 PM

The Name: redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."

But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.


What specific limitations do you propose? How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?
 
2014-01-05 08:33:18 PM

The Name: I have a cat that ran away.  I do not have a cat.

would have been a better response.


Having the ability to rebuff the bad to maintain the good is not a mutually exclusive concept.
 
Displayed 50 of 446 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report