Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Politico)   Left-wing idol-of-the-month Wendy Davis supports Texas open-carry gun law, becomes right-wing idol-of-the-month   (politico.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1452 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 12:43:42 PM  

HeadLever: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

Even with that, his biggest issue that he cannot explain is who gets to decide if a reason is good enough or if a specific threat is either specific or threatening enough.

Seriously, if he cannot even answer these questions - his entire proposal is bunk.


Am I the 'he' in that sentence?
 
2014-02-06 12:43:50 PM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


That's easy enough to solve. Require that all people who conceal a firearm go without pants. There are few social situations that going without pants can't improve immeasurably.
 
2014-02-06 12:45:18 PM  

Wooly Bully: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

You know that's not true, and even if it was, it wouldn't justify your original generalization.


I can still go to New York and buy soda.
 
2014-02-06 12:48:42 PM  

DamnYankees: Am I the 'he' in that sentence?


No.  not unless you are an alt of  demaL-demaL-yeHor think that no one should be carry a firearm unless they are subject to a specific threat.
 
2014-02-06 12:49:14 PM  
Nice concern trolling.  Who, exactly, is outraged about this?
 
2014-02-06 12:49:28 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?


There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.
 
2014-02-06 12:52:19 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Great_Milenko: I prefer open carry to concealed carry. Makes it easier to spot the big swinging dicks.

And if somebody is starting to cause a ruckus, and I see they have some chromium confidence strapped to them, I know to get the fark out of there asap.

You do realize that like 99% of the open carry movement is about just not worrying about it, right?  It's about people not panicking or there being any particular connotation to seeing a gun being carried around, beyond a general impression that now you know something about the person's hobbies.

Being strapped for the purposes of intimidating people is and always will be in the "still illegal" category.

// Open carry used to be legal basically everywhere, and you only got in trouble if you tried to conceal your piece.  The logic being that people have guns, deal with it, you pussy, but if they were trying to hide it they were likely up to no good.  Current law is weirdly backward.


Agreed, a big part of it for me is the paranoia that my gun might print or someone might catch a glimpse while I reach for my wallet or adjust my shirt
 
2014-02-06 12:52:20 PM  
So in a thread where every liberal chiming in basically says "meh, who cares?" the gun, um, enthusiasts are so desperate for some argument, some sort of conflict, that they are either attacking strawmen or trying to threadjack to the standard tired gun arguments.

I guess one shouldn't be surprised that people obsessed with weapons are also desperately looking to create conflict where none yet exists.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:36 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

How many of these would happen without firearms?
Or these?
Or these?
Or these?

Really? What will you want next, evidence that water is wet?


Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.

You'll have to do better than that.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:51 PM  
Good.  Anyone who aces a political purity test is unfit for office.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:55 PM  

soporific: Feeling safe and being safe are often two different things. That's why we have the TSA at the airports. What they do is theater. It makes people feel safe, but it doesn't actually make us safer. Actual safety measures are often unseen, happing behind the curtain. But that's not good enough, people want to feel safe, so they tolerate the scanners, pat downs, and other needless "security."

Remember, people who don't vaccinate their children also do it to "feel safe."


There's definitely a substantive argument on a case by case basis as to whether any given policy actually achieves the goal of increasing safety and the feeling of safety. But that doesn't mean safety is not a worthy goal.
 
2014-02-06 12:56:21 PM  

DamnYankees: HeadLever: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

Even with that, his biggest issue that he cannot explain is who gets to decide if a reason is good enough or if a specific threat is either specific or threatening enough.

Seriously, if he cannot even answer these questions - his entire proposal is bunk.

Am I the 'he' in that sentence?


No, that was directed at me because drooling morons can't process a modal when they see it.
 
2014-02-06 12:56:50 PM  

Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range


How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?
 
2014-02-06 12:57:49 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.
........


No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.


You mean like the government granting me permission to vote only if I have one of the difficult to obtain voter ID's they approve of that has my middle initial in exactly the same form as my voter registration which might spell out my middle name?
 
2014-02-06 12:58:45 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.


That's it: You are officially an internet dentist because you cannot parse a modal verb.
You could be proud of yourself. Mazal tov!
 
2014-02-06 12:58:48 PM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


That would be a terrific solution actually. Though actually I might suggest bi-yearly refresher courses for driving and gun ownership. Look at how many shiatty drivers there are.
 
2014-02-06 12:59:15 PM  
Doesn't Texas allow open carry in the statehouse?  No need for term limits or even elections.
 
2014-02-06 12:59:56 PM  

Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.


FTFY
 
2014-02-06 01:01:58 PM  

Jormungandr: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

That would be a terrific solution actually. Though actually I might suggest bi-yearly refresher courses for driving and gun ownership. Look at how many shiatty drivers there are.


Yup, and proficiency/qualification to carry/drive in public.
/But they'll tell us that that's infringing and unpossible.
 
2014-02-06 01:02:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.

FTFY


He's probably an Uncle Tom, right?
 
2014-02-06 01:02:47 PM  
Good for her. Just makes he a more winnable candidate in Texas.
 
2014-02-06 01:03:52 PM  

DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?


If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.
 
2014-02-06 01:04:43 PM  

Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.


As a lifelong New Yorker, you wouldn't really know what freedoms people living outside the city have, by your logic.

I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.
 
2014-02-06 01:05:42 PM  
Did anyone else lol at Obamas mere lip service to gun control at the SOTU? He knows it's an election year and pushing hard for gun control all but guarantees the Dems get raped during the elections.
Plus he doesn't want to once again take a strong stance on gun control and cry about it when it doesn't go through.
 
2014-02-06 01:05:47 PM  

soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

How many of these would happen without firearms?
Or these?
Or these?
Or these?

Really? What will you want next, evidence that water is wet?

Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.

You'll have to do better than that.


I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.
 
2014-02-06 01:07:02 PM  

joness0154: I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.


We're well past the point where I said I think the second amendment is a bad idea and should be repealed, and am arguing on that basis. I understand a lot of my ideas are unconstitutional given our existing law on this.
 
2014-02-06 01:09:18 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, that was directed at me because drooling morons can't process a modal when they see it.


And you still can't respond to that direct question can you?  Its gocha stumped, doesn't it?
 
2014-02-06 01:09:31 PM  
I fall pretty damn far towards the 'ban all guns' position, but I'd still support her since I agree with most everything else she represents.

Single issue voters are morans.
 
2014-02-06 01:10:32 PM  

joness0154: DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?

If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.


The traffic laws of wherever you're driving, however, do apply to you.
In Tucson, for example, U-turns yield to right turns. And left arrows follow the green.
/Because it makes better sense for 15% of traffic to wait for 85% of traffic, and not vice-versa.
 
2014-02-06 01:12:13 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.


You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.
 
2014-02-06 01:12:37 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.


Frangible ammo. Next concern?
 
2014-02-06 01:13:08 PM  

Doom MD: I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.


Most of us do enjoy the functional gun ban in a highly dense area, especially as  we are one of the safest big cities in the country.  E-cig bans, like tobacco bans, are going to happen everywhere, and there is not, nor was there ever proposed, a soda ban in NYC.

Having lived here, Alaska, Georgia, Washington, Texas, China, and Germany, the idea that NYC somehow significant is less "free" than other places in US due to some ordinances (or has a lack of freedoms compared to most places in the world) is right wing nonsense. 

shiat, my HOA in Texas was more restrictive than any of shiathead Bloomberg's rules.
 
2014-02-06 01:14:00 PM  

Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?


So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?
 
2014-02-06 01:15:30 PM  

soporific: Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.


You said not wanting to see guns around is the same as not wanting to see gay marriage, an emotional issue.  He said, yeah, but sometimes people get shot on accident, so they're not really the same.  You responded with a crazy wall of text lauding the ability of some gun owners not to shoot people accidentally, then asked for all the data ever which you know doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant to your original position.  I think the only thing you are missing compared to gun arguments in my Facebook feed is links to a half-dozen 45-minute YouTube videos filmed in someone's basement supporting your position.
 
2014-02-06 01:16:12 PM  

soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.

You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.


Look upthread: I said walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public.
You challenged my statement, demanding evidence.
I gave you evidence.

Now get yourself over to the corner, whining goalpost mover.
 
2014-02-06 01:17:05 PM  

cold_weather_tex: Statistically, accident and death by firearm goes up if there is one or more in the home. Stands to reason, given that side by side between cars and guns, that insurance is the next step. Given how most of you feel about Open Carry, and CCL, how would all of you feel if you had to pay more, or got less on the home, health, and life insurance side of things, if it indeed went that way?


Actually, even that's still a question.

A few years ago, I bought a life insurance policy on myself. They asked me all sorts of questions - my medical history, if I used drugs/alcohol/tobacco, if I rode motorcycles, if I went skydiving, etc, etc.

Never was I asked if I owned a firearm or had access to one in my house. I mentioned my substantial collection to my agent, and she merely offered me a rider on my homeowners policy in case they were stolen. She told me that ownership/possession of a firearm did not change my life-insurance (or any other insurance) premiums at all.

If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.
 
2014-02-06 01:17:37 PM  

Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?


I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.
 
2014-02-06 01:19:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.

That's it: You are officially an internet dentist because you cannot parse a modal verb.
You could be proud of yourself. Mazal tov!


So are you going to explain how one would arbitrate what sufficient need is?
 
2014-02-06 01:21:26 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?


I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.
 
2014-02-06 01:22:04 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.

FTFY


Yeah, like whoopi Goldberg, James Earl Jones, and Karl Malone. Please tell me how they're race traitors.
 
2014-02-06 01:22:45 PM  

Doom MD: So are you going to explain how one would arbitrate what sufficient need is?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Firearms_own er ship_license 

Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.
 
2014-02-06 01:26:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?

If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.

The traffic laws of wherever you're driving, however, do apply to you.
In Tucson, for example, U-turns yield to right turns. And left arrows follow the green.
/B ...


True, but for the most part, traffic code in the US is uniform.  There may be small idiosyncrasies here and there - like your green light example.  Whether or not the green arrow comes before the green light doesn't really matter since we have uniform code across states that says green arrow means X and green light means Y.  Everyone knows what a double yellow line is and everyone knows what a dashed white line is.  Speed limits may differ, but they're posted on signs.  Same with parking provisions, etc.

Imagine if green, yellow and red meant different things in each state.  Or if dashed yellow lines meant different things in each state.  For the most part, that's how gun laws in the states work today.
 
2014-02-06 01:27:37 PM  
Could somebody please explain should and should not to the internet dentist?
 
2014-02-06 01:27:48 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?


NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure. Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.
 
2014-02-06 01:29:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.


You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.
 
2014-02-06 01:29:06 PM  

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.


So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?
 
2014-02-06 01:31:14 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.
 
2014-02-06 01:31:58 PM  

sendtodave: Nabb1: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.

This mentality is why we can't have fun Halloweens any more, or splintery wooden playgrounds with the burning metal slides :'(

Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.

I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.

Yeah, but that gets tricky.  Police arrive:

"Why are you carrying a rifle in the grocery store?"

Average mentally unhinged person:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

Average second amendment champion:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

See?  How to tell the difference?

If the police arrest the former, they're keeping the place safe, but if they arrest the latter, they're trampling someone rights with their jackboots.

Better to either allow or deny everyone.  And we can't deny everyone, because  rights.


Well, bless your poor, little heart, but you do try so very, very hard.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:03 PM  

Doom MD: NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure.


Then your response to my concern did not address my concern. I am aware such ammo exists, that doesn't mean people will use it.

Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.

I never claimed everyone lived in tightly grouped apartments, but it is one of the most densely populated areas in the country and if you are in an apartment you still have shared walls and ceilings, thus making gun ownership a pretty big danger for your neighbors who have to hope that you actually give a fark about them and spend money on proper ammo (or use a shotgun, which you should be using if you are a fearful coward and want to defend your studio apartment from all the scary people out to get you).
 
2014-02-06 01:33:20 PM  

dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?


Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.
 
Displayed 50 of 542 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report