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.

(Talking Points Memo)   "It was... a good thing that [the Aurora shooter] had a 100-round magazine... If he had instead had... 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up." This is what the GOP actually believes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 453
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 04:19:36 PM  

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines? If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...


It is a specific type of magazine. A drum magazine. They are rare and very different than the straight or 'banana' magazines that are used 99% of the time.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:11 PM  

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines?


Like a jacked-up truck with neon underlights they are obnoxious, impractical, and sometimes fun as hell.

If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?

Because they are big and scary and so many bullets in one magazine means an entire school will be killed at once! (Ignoring that one can swap magazines in a second or two.)

If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...

Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?

55.


[citationneeded.jpg]
 
2014-02-13 04:20:32 PM  

give me doughnuts: sprawl15: Great_Milenko: If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

That way you think you're really a bad-ass, when all you really are is a dumdass with a .223 that has a flashlight on it.


that is one ugly forward grip.
 
2014-02-13 04:21:10 PM  

serial_crusher: Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines

I'm not a gun expert, but coudl the argument be made that clearing the occasional jam is less time consuming than refilling a 15 round magazine 7 times, during your responsible trip to the shooting range?

Also, read the post right above yours...


No.
 
2014-02-13 04:23:28 PM  
hillbillypharmacist:

You don't?  And the Constitution doesn't guarantee you a certain number of rounds?

Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!

Rights are inexorably tied to the mechanisms of their exercise.
 
2014-02-13 04:23:40 PM  
So, the main safety feature of a 100-round is that it jams after three or four shots? I wonder why anyone wants a 100-round magazine.
 
2014-02-13 04:26:00 PM  

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...



The obvious solution is to only sell high-capacity magazines that automatically jam.
 
2014-02-13 04:27:13 PM  
The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?
 
2014-02-13 04:27:18 PM  
Maybe he was using that shiatty, steel-cased Russian ammo.
 
2014-02-13 04:29:23 PM  

Frank N Stein: Also, lol
[img.fark.net image 850x309]


That is the winner of all winners. A pity you don't actually win anything, but still... maybe subscriptions to 100 magazines of your choice? Except they'll screw up your order after the first twenty, so better move the amputee donkey porn right to the top of the list.
 
2014-02-13 04:29:56 PM  

Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?


I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.
 
2014-02-13 04:32:01 PM  

BayouOtter: Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!


That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard.  Rights are tied to the mechanisms of their exercise, but that doesn't mean that any and all mechanisms must be legal.
 
2014-02-13 04:34:28 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.


Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?
 
2014-02-13 04:34:56 PM  

Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.


Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?
 
2014-02-13 04:36:40 PM  

sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?


Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.
 
2014-02-13 04:37:47 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


BUT THAT ONE TOWN!!!
 
2014-02-13 04:38:07 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement
 
2014-02-13 04:38:54 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I'm more of a suspicious guy with a gun.  I'm like the guy with a gun in the rated R movie, you know, the guy with a gun you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from.


I am the one who knocks.
 
2014-02-13 04:39:11 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Sort of like it doesn't guarantee me a certain number of books, bibles, or printers, right? I mean if tomorrow the government said they were going to ban all ink then my right to a free press wouldn't be infringed at all, right? I mean I'm not guaranteed access to a certain amount of ink!

That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard.  Rights are tied to the mechanisms of their exercise, but that doesn't mean that any and all mechanisms must be legal.


Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms
, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego
 
2014-02-13 04:39:38 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement


Maybe so, definitely not in the armed society=polite society sense, though.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:37 PM  

macadamnut: [woodgatesview.files.wordpress.com image 512x450]


You know, if that was true, there would be *no* farking regulations.

Try again with your hyperbolic self.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:42 PM  
Same old derp.
 
2014-02-13 04:40:59 PM  
 
2014-02-13 04:42:24 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

given a long enough timeframe, it could be a true statement

Maybe so, definitely not in the armed society=polite society sense, though.


a society on the losing side of a famine is a polite society doesn't quite fit on bumper stickers
 
2014-02-13 04:42:56 PM  
You gun grabbers are really an obsessed lot, aren't you?
 
2014-02-13 04:42:57 PM  

justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.


So, why do cops have guns, then?
 
2014-02-13 04:43:09 PM  
So if this Senator stood next to the IL Senator there would be a Herpin and a Durbin
 
2014-02-13 04:43:14 PM  

BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego


And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?
 
2014-02-13 04:43:22 PM  

BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them.
Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.


I guess that explains why Colorado Democrats banned them last year.
 
2014-02-13 04:45:27 PM  

smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.


So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2014-02-13 04:47:02 PM  

Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.

Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?


Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response. Rifles, as a whole, are used in less than 5% of all homicides in the United States, and the number of drum magazines in use is a tiny fraction of that. Throwing money at an object that is used in less than 5% of homicides is foolish, more so because those homicides would have likely been possible even in the magazine's absence.

Going after even a general class of weapons used in homicides is pretty stupid, because murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability. Ending the drug war, working on our broken and racist policies of poverty control, income inequality and education - these topics would actually address violent crime at the cause, but that would be hard and complicated.

It is so much easier to just 'ban something - for the children!' and call it a day.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:48 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?


Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:49 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.


Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.
 
2014-02-13 04:48:57 PM  

BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.


The irony is that while many gun advocates will echo this sentiment, they'll turn around and say no price is too high policing welfare for the poor and even one lobster and steak dinner is one too many. Then they'll wonder why they're labelled gun nuts when those loony libs say one gun death is one too many. I mean, it's only death, right? Didn't stop Jesus.
 
2014-02-13 04:49:47 PM  

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.


You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.
 
2014-02-13 04:49:55 PM  

LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.



And the existence of other, far more difficult and unlikely scenarios where someone is killed by something other than a gun means guns are actually just fun little balloon animals that just happen to be tools of war and defense against oppressive governments.
 
2014-02-13 04:51:43 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.

You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.


I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.
 
2014-02-13 04:52:21 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.

You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.



Hey, that's way out of line.  Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.
 
2014-02-13 04:52:37 PM  

BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?

Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.


Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?
 
2014-02-13 04:53:02 PM  

LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.


I am generally pro gun, pro concealed-carry, pro Castle Doctrine, and I agree with your statement. I am certain that another person in the Aurora theater with a gun would have likely made the situation worse. A gun does not make you immune to fear, panic, nor does it give you perfect aim. There was the story of the police officers who got into a gunfight in New York City, and about 9 innocent bystanders were shot. All by the officers' bullets.

If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.

The irony is that while many gun advocates will echo this sentiment, they'll turn around and say no price is too high policing welfare for the poor and even one lobster and steak dinner is one too many. Then they'll wonder why they're labelled gun nuts when those loony libs say one gun death is one too many. I mean, it's only death, right? Didn't stop Jesus.


Believe me, I know what you mean. Sometimes its really disturbing to run in these circles for me, as I'm a super-liberal homosexual atheist and sometimes there can be some really weird contradictory opinions on policy. As you noted, enforcement attempts to corral the 2% fraud rates in welfare cases are more expensive than the fraud losses, and its stupid. Who cares if a small percent are skimming if kids get their nutrition? (Though we do need a serious overhaul of the system from the ground up to better provide for the welfare of all.)

My perfect America fantasy is pretty unique in a lot of ways, I think.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:29 PM  
I think a point is missed.

People claim that they need guns for sport/hunting, for target shooting and for home defense.

For all of those purposes large capacity magazines are more than useless, they are in fact something you would definitely NOT want.

The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

Now you can say you have the right to be an infantile psycho with wet dreams of mass killing and to act those out on targets and such if you want.. but I'm not sure that was the INTENT of the second amendment.
 
2014-02-13 04:54:48 PM  

The Name: Hey, that's way out of line.  Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.


Actually, everyone should have cites. Most don't - especially the side that equates owning a gun with having a small penis.
 
2014-02-13 04:55:51 PM  
hillbillypharmacist:
Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?

Yes, actually. Hopefully that will get sorted out in the courts before too long.
 
2014-02-13 04:55:55 PM  

sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.


You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.
 
2014-02-13 04:56:27 PM  
gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.
 
2014-02-13 04:57:15 PM  

sugar_fetus: gaspode:The only reason anyone would want one is to stroke off like an utter wanker and pretend to be a movie soldier.

I'm so glad you know what everyone needs and tell them that.


Liar!
 
2014-02-13 04:57:36 PM  

BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist:
Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?

Yes, actually. Hopefully that will get sorted out in the courts before too long.


Don't hold your breath.

Just because there's not a bright line, it doesn't mean a line can't be drawn.
 
2014-02-13 04:58:30 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?


They did not rule on the number or rounds but given how rights are the governement should need to work around strict scrutiny.  What is the compelling interest and can you show that the ban will achieve that as the minimalist use of the law.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report