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.

(NewsBusters)   88% of FoxNews.com readers support the right for people to carry guns in public...oh, sorry.. I meant MSNBC.com readers   (newsbusters.org) divider line 554
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2619 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-07 11:45:26 AM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Be sure to make some fliers and send some emails to the FFLs, manufacturers, and ATF to tell them that all the rules are gone. Might as well bundle the ATF into the FBI or DEA now.

So, absolutely no more regulations are needed, then?


I don't believe I said that. You were the one who agreed that there was a complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms.

Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.
 
2014-08-07 11:45:27 AM

The Name: Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense


Me too.  When you stated goal is to kill those in one political party, self defense becomes a pretty big issue.
 
2014-08-07 11:46:42 AM

Fart_Machine: So he hired a model to pose with a gun covering her crotch


And people say their only purpose is to kill. Chessmate, libtards.
 
Ehh
2014-08-07 11:47:25 AM

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.


Yep. When their seething hatred for Clinton became impossible to ignore, when it became clear that the leadership was taking orders from GOP paymasters, when the crazies outnumbered the sanes....
 
2014-08-07 11:47:47 AM

The Name: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

Careful.  Conservatives will go crying to the mods for comments like that.


Oh no, some random internet person called me a name. My fragile little psyche is damaged. Now I need a good cry. And I so wanted to be bestest friends with bdub77.
 
2014-08-07 11:48:19 AM

redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.


Generally, they have to pretend otherwise to make their oft ignorant comments seem legitimate.
 
2014-08-07 11:48:33 AM

Fark It: What is that, a micro Desert Eagle?


it's a Boberg XR-9S
 
2014-08-07 11:49:14 AM

Flappyhead: Lord_Baull: dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?

The language the more loony wing of the pro-gun side uses can be downright painful sometimes.



Painful to fap to, that's for sure.
 
2014-08-07 11:49:37 AM

redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.


And they make such a huge difference, don't they?


HeadLever: The Name: Yeah, well, let's just say I support the right to self-defense

Me too.  When you stated goal is to kill those in one political party, self defense becomes a pretty big issue.


Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.  Don't give me this crap like liberals are all of a sudden turning on innocent conservatives.
 
2014-08-07 11:50:06 AM

HeadLever: LucklessWonder: Is that reasonable?

If you could keep all the other poison pills away from this type of legislation, it may pass one of these days.  However, the 'shoulder thing that goes up' crowd has a really hard time not interjecting very dumb things into these bills that end any chance of them passing.


I wasn't really even talking about legislation, but yeah, I'd prefer to avoid "poison pills" in just about all bills.
 
2014-08-07 11:50:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

I'm a liberal gun-owner, have been for over 10 years and I support gun control. I will never, EVER join or give the NRA a single penny.


Facepalm
 
2014-08-07 11:52:17 AM

kortex: Facepalm



??
 
2014-08-07 11:53:12 AM

The Name: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?


[www.data360.org image 850x515]

Uh . . . Cletus, did you get a good look at the names of the countries at the top of that list?  Is that REALLY the chart you want to use to argue that the US doesn't have a problem with gun violence?


First, my name's not Cletus.  It's Janet.  Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.

And if you want to get picky, did you see that tiny little footnote the Washington Post chart where they excluded Mexico, even though it was in the dataset they pulled from?  Hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be....

Also, I was using that chart to point out that the first one was intentionally lying through omission, making it seem like the United States has a higher homicide rate than, for example, Poland, which is actually incorrect:  The US does have a higher *FIREARM* homicide rate than Poland, but my point was that Poland has a higher total homicide rate than the US.

It's in fact a given that reducing the number of firearms in circulation will lower the *FIREARM* homicide rate, but it's not clear that doing so will lower the *TOTAL* homicide rate, which should be the goal.  And in fact, I pointed out that Poland (which is in both graphs) is a perfect example of a country that has fewer firearms per capita but has a higher homicide rate.  And Poland is a modern industrialized nation.  It's not some Central American backwater.

So, since you seem to fancy yourself to be smarter than me, based upon your attempt to insult my intelligence, would you care to answer my criticism of your post, Einstein McBrainiac*?

*That's sarcasm, btw.  Normally I wouldn't explicitly point it out because it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but since you seem to have trouble grasping even relatively simple concepts, I thought it best to remove any ambiguity.
 
2014-08-07 11:53:48 AM

sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 11:54:35 AM

The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?


From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.
 
2014-08-07 11:55:08 AM

The Name: Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.


1) citation needed
2) If so, then you are exactly like Limbaugh (but on the other side)?  That is something I probably would not be bragging about if I were you.
 
2014-08-07 11:57:00 AM
The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare arms. It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.
 
2014-08-07 11:58:46 AM

Lord_Baull: thamike: Lord_Baull: It's almost as if MSNBC readers, let's refer to them as 'liberals' for the point of this discussion, aren't willing to take away all your guns.

It's almost as if the right wing always proves their own detractors' points for them.


It's almost as if the right wing is laughable, and can't make a salient, honest talking point to save their lives.


Their enthusiasm about rape is fairly consistent...
 
2014-08-07 11:59:15 AM

Click Click D'oh: The Name: HeadLever: The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

This this the same 'common sense' that comes from a person that advocates killing of Republicans in the Bundy threads?

If so, I'll pass thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, whatever, Cletus.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 400x234]


[pavlovianobeisance.com image 505x394]


Hmmm... GIS for context. One result, showing it as a direct response to the Liberal Hunting permit. Almost as if they were poking fun at the original.
 
2014-08-07 11:59:47 AM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare arms. It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.


th05.deviantart.net


Misused bare arms.
 
2014-08-07 12:00:24 PM

jaybeezey: As i have been assured by Farkers that gun ownership equates to small penises.

All this poll does is show how many small penises there are in the liberal community.


The liberals in the Bushmaster marketing department also seem to think their customers have a tiny bit of insecurity in the endowment department. I'm guessing they know their customer base fairly well.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-08-07 12:00:38 PM

HeadLever: The Name: Limbaugh has been joking on-air about killing liberals for decades.

1) citation needed
2) If so, then you are exactly like Limbaugh (but on the other side)?  That is something I probably would not be bragging about if I were you.


I'm sure there are many examples, but is Rush really someone you want to defend?

"I tell people, 'Don't kill all the liberals.' Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we we'll never forget what these people stood for."
-Rush Limbaugh

I think Limbaugh is selling a persona and probably doesn't believe half (or more) of what he says, but I guarantee you he's joked about it more than once.
 
2014-08-07 12:01:53 PM

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: [l.wigflip.com image 640x513]

[i.imgur.com image 400x602]


"got you in a stranglehold baby"
 
2014-08-07 12:02:09 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 12:02:13 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?

From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.


But all of that is irrelevant to the bigger picture of gun policy around the developed world.  No matter what fluctuations have taken place in the US over the past few decades, we've ALWAYS had many orders of magnitude more firearm deaths than other developed nations.  To use an analogy, if water were firearm violence, Western Europe would be Lake Constance and the US would be the Atlantic Ocean, and you're making a big deal out of the fact that we've managed to remove a few gallons of water from the Atlantic over the past few decades.
 
2014-08-07 12:02:40 PM
I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.
 
2014-08-07 12:02:51 PM

PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.

Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.
 
2014-08-07 12:03:39 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.


That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.
 
2014-08-07 12:06:30 PM

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Just so we're both clear on this, there are actually consumer and safety regulations on firearms, on many different jurisdictional levels.

And they make such a huge difference, don't they?

From a consumer standpoint, one would think so given that the accidental death and injury rate has been steadily dropping for something like 50+ years now.

From a societal perspective, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Crime rates were much lower in the 1950s than the 1970s and 1980s but the laws were much stricter (and arbitrarily enforced). Now the firearms law has been opening up -- I'd think most would agree -- over the last 10 years or so, and crime is still dropping from the highs in the early 90s. It's almost like the laws don't really affect much on a macro level.

But all of that is irrelevant to the bigger picture of gun policy around the developed world.  No matter what fluctuations have taken place in the US over the past few decades, we've ALWAYS had many orders of magnitude more firearm deaths than other developed nations.  To use an analogy, if water were firearm violence, Western Europe would be Lake Constance and the US would be the Atlantic Ocean, and you're making a big deal out of the fact that we've managed to remove a few gallons of water from the Atlantic over the past few decades.


The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go. It has been for decades now.
 
2014-08-07 12:07:35 PM

HeadLever: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.

That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.


Where does shooting government representatives fit?

/ok, now I'm snarky
 
2014-08-07 12:07:39 PM

redmid17: I'm sure there are many examples, but is Rush really someone you want to defend?


No, that is why #2 is there.  Maybe The Name wants to defend him since they seem to be of the same general mind, albeit on different sides.
 
2014-08-07 12:07:56 PM

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.
Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.


True. Anti-fun (sic) is not a synonym for liberal. However, those who are anti-gun tend to be liberal.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:45 PM
enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:47 PM

enry: HeadLever: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It says nothing about you being allowed to use them.

That is a decent way at looking at it.

Allowed: Use in hunting, self-defense, target shooting, predator/varmint control, etc.
Not Allowed: use in a murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault, rape, etc.

Where does shooting government representatives fit?

/ok, now I'm snarky


Either murder or self-defense, according to the actions of the government official.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:47 PM

Ker_Thwap: I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.


The problem for gun is the same as abortion - one side believes they are trying to save innocent lives. Pro lifers are fighting to save babies, gun control advocates are fighting to save kids from the next Newtown shooting.

So people can get heated.
 
2014-08-07 12:08:52 PM

redmid17: The US is in a bit of a unique situation as far as firearms go.


Yes.  That's the point.
 
2014-08-07 12:09:35 PM

Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.


Read the rest of the thread.
 
2014-08-07 12:10:31 PM

Farkage: enry:

And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

Based on what info?  Please include citations.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors
 
2014-08-07 12:11:33 PM

Click Click D'oh: BMulligan: Exactly. Serious tools should be kept away from children and the mentally infirm.

So, did he actually have his AK that he purchased just to piss you off with him, or are you just basing your evaluation of his mental state and facilities entirely on a shirt?


I assume it was in his rig. This was Idaho, after all - I'm pretty sure that mine was the only car in the lot without a rifle rack in the back window. And for the most part, I'm okay with that. I grew up around there, and I'm used to it. Most folks have guns, and the vast majority cause no problems. Which makes the actual crazy, unbalanced gun nuts in the area even more weird and scary. They're preaching to the choir - there is pretty much nobody within a 500-mile radius who has any kind of problem with firearms - so why are those veins on their foreheads throbbing so hard as they scream?
 
2014-08-07 12:11:46 PM

enry: Where does shooting government representatives fit?


Depends upon circumstances:
Is it self-defense like at Ruby-Ridge? Or is it murder like what Jerad and Amanda Miller allegedly committed?
 
2014-08-07 12:12:03 PM
Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.
 
2014-08-07 12:12:10 PM

Ker_Thwap: I've long believed that liberals have no problem with owning guns, they just don't want scary people to own them.  They also want to be the ones to define and redefine scary, based on current events.

I've also suspected that only 10% of them actually care enough about the issue to never shut up about it at any given moment.  Apparently that figure is 12% if this article is to be believed.

I also believe that these same percentages apply to conservatives.  It's only 10% who are incapable of shutting up about it.

It's nice to be a moderate, so I can piss off both sides equally.


If by 'scary' you mean 'mentally ill', 'have a history of domestic violence' or 'untrained' then yeah maybe I'll agree with you.
 
2014-08-07 12:13:49 PM

Frank N Stein: However, those who are anti-gun tend to be liberal.


As the meme goes:
Not anti-gun, just #1 with anti-gun activist.
 
2014-08-07 12:14:26 PM

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


Opportunity cost is a biatch.  What could you have been doing other than hunting or fishing, and could you have made more money than you saved by hunting by working (or doing anything else those hours)?  My guess is no.  Otherwise you'd work part time and hunt on Fridays or something, because you are "making more profit" by hunting/fishing as opposed to working.

That being said, if you live in a place where you can easily set trot lines and the like, you can eat *real* cheap, so long as you like fish.  <1% of active outdoorsmen come out with a food profit from their hobbies.
 
2014-08-07 12:16:49 PM

Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors


From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "
 
2014-08-07 12:17:05 PM

Lord_Baull: dittybopper: The Name: redmid17: Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.

Indeed, it is.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Right, because only *GUN* homicides in developed countries are bad.  The non-gun homicides in Poland that push them to a higher total homicide rate than the US don't count, right?
[www.data360.org image 850x515]


You must have ignored the part that shows how the countries with strict gun control have almost no homicides due to guns and haven't completely degenerated into anarchy, despite what right wing propaganda tell us.


My point was that's not the same thing as having almost no homicides.

Poland has almost no homicides due to guns, yet as I pointed out, it has a total homicide rate greater than that of the United States.

If you want to make the argument that more guns = more homicides, in order to be intellectually honest, you have to make that argument using the total number of homicides, not just *GUN* homicide.

But arguing against gun homicides, as if they were somehow morally worse than other methods, simply doesn't say what you think it does.  It's a circular argument:  More guns = more gun homicides.  Well, OK, duh.  But does more gun = more homicides?

If that second case isn't true, then the facade of reasoning that we need to restrict guns to save lives just falls apart.

Let's take a hypothetical case.  Let's say we ban hard spirits, fortified wines, and malt liquors because it's just too easy to get drunk from them, causing a high toll of highway deaths.  Let's call them "high capacity intoxicants", or HCI's for short.

Let's say we then track the number of deaths caused by people who had been drinking HCI's, and we find that it falls to a large degree.  Sure, there is some because there will always be smuggling and people making their own, but it drops to a fraction of it's former self.  Success, right?

But wait a minute, the overall highway deaths didn't drop at all.   In fact, the number of drunk driving deaths didn't drop either.  Why?  Because people substituted other means to get drunk.  A person who might have only had a couple Long Island Iced Teas before getting behind the wheel now has several glasses of wine, or a six-pack of beer instead.

That's not a perfect analogy, because there is no "protective effect" from drinking and driving like there unquestionably is with firearms ownership*, but as a general illustration of the fallacy you're committing by only looking at the firearms homicide data instead of the total homicide data it works.


*There is debate as to the magnitude of the effect, but not to the existence of it
 
2014-08-07 12:19:07 PM

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: It's a common delusion among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun.
Done in--wherever I stopped reading yet another gun thread.


It's also a common delusion among liberals that liberals are anti-gun, so you can't blame the conservatives for holding the same viewpoint.
 
2014-08-07 12:19:31 PM
I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.
 
2014-08-07 12:19:56 PM

enry: dittybopper: enry: And the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents gun manufacturers.

False.

The NSSF represents gun manufacturers.  The NRA represents gun owners.

But don't take it from me, take it from that well-known right-wing mouthpiece NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/15/174383213/how-close-are-the-nra-and-gu nm akers-really

It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.

Now, the gun industry most certainly does benefit from the NRA, but the idea that the gun manufacturers call the shots and the NRA dances to their tune is exactly the opposite of the real relationship.

Again, I never made the claim of who calls the shots or who got funding from where.  I merely said that the NRA represents gun manufacturers.  And the NPR article merely serves to prove that statement since the gun manufacturers are following the lead of the NRA.


Backpedal much?
 
2014-08-07 12:21:57 PM

Click Click D'oh: Publikwerks: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-d on ors

From your link:

"The majority of NRA donors are individuals. "


Yes, because there are alot of members. But a majority of the $$$ donated is from corporate sponsors:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nr a- really-speak-for/266373/
 
Displayed 50 of 554 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report