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  
•       •       •

2636 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (20 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 12:22:20 PM  

BMulligan: I assume it was in his rig.


So, you assume based on his shirt that he actually did purchase an AK for no reason other that to piss you off, and not only that, but said gun must be near at hand in his vehicle...  And based on that clearly factual and incontrovertible evidence of this persons lack of adult mental facilities, you think his right should be stripped from him?

Ooookay then...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-07 12:22:43 PM  

Farkage: 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?


I'm not the one moving the goalposts.  I've been pretty consistent.
 
2014-08-07 12:23:17 PM  

Clever Neologism: 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)?


Probably not. Hunting takes about 5 day of my time (weekends mostly) and saves me about $2,000 over the course of a year.  I can't hunt more because 1) I don't need any more meat 2) deer/elk/moose tags are not unlimited 3) I tend to avoid poaching.  In addition, this hunting also doubles as recreation/exercise/time away from work, family, cell phone.  For many, the money saved is only one aspect of the true benefit of this activity.
 
2014-08-07 12:23:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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.


Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?
 
2014-08-07 12:24:01 PM  

enry: 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.


I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.
 
2014-08-07 12:24:02 PM  

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

Yes.  That's the point.


So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?
 
2014-08-07 12:24:35 PM  

Publikwerks: 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/


Meanwhile, Bloomberg alone pledged $50 million to anti-fun groups
 
2014-08-07 12:24:45 PM  

dittybopper: 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 ...


Poland is far closer socio-economically to "some Central American backwater" than it is to Western European and Scandinavian countries. It's a poor example for what you're trying to argue.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:14 PM  

Clever Neologism: <1% of active outdoorsmen come out with a food profit from their hobbies.


citation needed for that, please.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:22 PM  

Farkage: enry: 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.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.


Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.
 
2014-08-07 12:25:30 PM  

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?


Probably not. I'd be annoying and I'd be against it but I could live with it. Wouldn't be the end of the world.
 
2014-08-07 12:28:41 PM  

Publikwerks: 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/


No. More than half of the $250 million yearly budget is derived *directly* from membership dues. A lot of the remainder comes from donations. That article says that the industry donated about 40 million between 2005 and 2011. I wasn't a math major in college, but I feel as if the yearly percentage of the industry contributions is negligible compared to the members and random donors.
 
2014-08-07 12:30:30 PM  

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


Did you read the article?  It flat out says that half the NRAs income comes from member dues.  You can't have a majority of your income from corporate sponsors if half comes from members dues... unless you don't understand what a majority means.  The article clearly states that of the $228 million the NRA makes per year, up to $71 million (not a majority) comes from donations, which may include corporations, but also includes private donations.  So not even that $71 Million (1/3 is not a majority) isn't entirely corporate.
 
2014-08-07 12:30:55 PM  
hell yeah I'm a moderate

I get to piss off BOTH sides

the best thing in life is pissing off a majority of people

I am a toddler

catch ya on the flip side!


i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 12:31:54 PM  

enry: Farkage: enry: 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.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.


Well now aren't you cute!  Everything you posted got blatantly shot down and disproved.  I'll leave you all on your own now.
 
2014-08-07 12:32:32 PM  

born_yesterday: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.

Thank God they don't collect and store any personal information when they do background checks!


You must really have been born yesterday if you believe that.

Between the NSA's domestic spying operations and various "firearm tracing" databases that the federal government maintains, most if not all retail sales of firearms from licensed dealers are effectively registered by the government, illegally.
 
2014-08-07 12:32:43 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: When can we start denying government assistance to people that spend money on guns and ammo?

It's clear that they have plenty of money.


I agree with you.  I think I'm about to have a heart attack.
 
2014-08-07 12:34:10 PM  

leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


When I get home, photoshop baby.
 
2014-08-07 12:36:17 PM  

Frank N Stein: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

Probably not. I'd be annoying and I'd be against it but I could live with it. Wouldn't be the end of the world.


It would probably be more up to how they handled the licensure part.  If it creates a national database, then that would probably be opposed by most gun owners.  If they could find a way to get around that part while keeping it cheap and easy to obtain, many would probably be partially open to it.
 
2014-08-07 12:36:17 PM  

Farkage: enry: Farkage: enry: 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.

I joined in late, but out of the (well over) 100 posts I read, you got it handed to you in the vast majority of them.
Thanks for trying though.

Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.  And explain the big words.

Well now aren't you cute!  Everything you posted got blatantly shot down and disproved.  I'll leave you all on your own now.


But you cared enough to say you think I got pwn3d.  Aren't you precious.
 
2014-08-07 12:38:57 PM  

leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.



Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.
 
2014-08-07 12:40:32 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


Does it matter?

/fap
 
2014-08-07 12:40:53 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


More importantly...


content7.flixster.com

"Can they be used as deadly weapons?"
 
2014-08-07 12:41:34 PM  
Guess I'm just to lazy. I don't want to pack the stupid thing around.
 
2014-08-07 12:48:13 PM  

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?


May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.
 
2014-08-07 12:49:54 PM  

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

Did you read the article?  It flat out says that half the NRAs income comes from member dues.  You can't have a majority of your income from corporate sponsors if half comes from members dues... unless you don't understand what a majority means.  The article clearly states that of the $228 million the NRA makes per year, up to $71 million (not a majority) comes from donations, which may include corporations, but also includes private donations.  So not even that $71 Million (1/3 is not a majority) isn't entirely corporate.


First off, $106 mil  isn't half of $228 mil either. And I don't know if they included the advertising dollars spent in the NRA magazines with that figure(which was like $20 mil)

But without getting too far into the numbers, because if you look into it, it's a complicated mess.
I mean, there is the NRA, the NRA-ILA, the NRA Pac, ect....

There are lots of places for people/companies looking to fight gun control to dump their money.
 
2014-08-07 12:51:27 PM  

HeadLever: dittybopper: Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.

Yep, same here.   The rural folks will be the first to turn you in for poaching except for if they know that you only do this to keep your family fed.  Just be discreet and only use it when you need it.

The ones that poach and waste are the ones we really love to hate.


Careful with the poaching, you may get exiled, or worse.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 12:51:43 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.


You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.
 
2014-08-07 12:51:48 PM  

Lord_Baull: leonel: I support the right for people to carry horse dildos around in public but that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.


Please clarify. Dildos for horses, or horse-shaped/sized dildos? I have to know how to fap accordingly.


Do you think I'm some sort of weird freak, of course horse-shaped/sized dildos!
 
2014-08-07 12:55:18 PM  

FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.


To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.
 
2014-08-07 12:55:28 PM  

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

Yes.  That's the point.

So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?


Well, for one thing, we can change the "tenably legal" part.  How is this point not coming through?  Do you really not understand a word I am saying?
 
2014-08-07 12:57:13 PM  

YouAreIncorrect: 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.

You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.


You seem awfully angry about something.
 
2014-08-07 12:58:44 PM  

Fark It: The NRA gets a small chunk of its money from industry groups, including the firearms industry, as well as other sporting goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances


That link you listed actually says:
"Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry."

And just FYI, those "contributions" are all from the gun industry. Taurus even buys an NRA membership for everybody who buys one of their guns, so even their membership rates and dues are industry inflated.
 
2014-08-07 01:01:22 PM  
I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.
 
2014-08-07 01:01:48 PM  

thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.


I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.
 
2014-08-07 01:02:50 PM  

Tomahawk513: Fark It: Sergeant Grumbles: I think you'll find most Americans don't mind people carrying guns so long as they A) have sufficient reason to and B) aren't obnoxious or dangerous about it.

A hunter, during hunting season, possibly even wearing hunter's orange, has his rifle with him when he gets gas or grabs some McDonald's so no one swipes it out of the back of his truck? Most people would fail to see an issue.
Waltzing into the downtown Chipotle of a metropolitan area dressed like you're ready to hit the bars, making a spectacle of yourself by brandishing the weapon, all because MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Conceal carry? Keep your pistol on you for whatever reason you feel, but don't advertise it and don't intentionally escalate any conflict? I doubt most people would take offense.
Wear your pistol on your hip so everyone can see you're packing, and strut around like this is the Wild West, because you're that afraid you need a visible deterrent to crime, or again, MAH RIGHTS? Is it any surprise people who don't see an issue are branded guns nuts?

Open carriers are the bronies of the gun rights world.  Sure, you can do it, but people are going to shield their kids from you and keep an eye on you until you leave the area.

 That's about the best analogy I've heard so far.


You would think so. Most people don't even notice open carriers.
 
2014-08-07 01:03:24 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: 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.


He's mad because he got a timeout for name calling and making death threats awhile back.
 
2014-08-07 01:05:19 PM  

mschwenk: Most people don't even notice open carriers.


Now I'm curious.  How does one even qualify that statement?
 
2014-08-07 01:05:49 PM  

YouAreIncorrect: 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.

You're an idiot.  So if the manufacturers directed the NRA on what to do, the NRA would then not be representing gun manufacturers?  farking dumbass.


It's not my fault you can't understand this.  Who is calling the shots doesn't matter.  The NRA is acting as the face and de facto representation of the gun manufacturers.  There's plenty of links in this thread with actual proof of it.  If the manufacturers call the shots, if the customers call the shots, if the ghost of Charlton Heston came down with a herd of angels and called the shots it doesn't change the fact that the NRA is the face of gun manufacturers and representing them.
 
2014-08-07 01:07:49 PM  
There are a lot of people in this thread that have a hard time grasping the concept of humor.
 
2014-08-07 01:08:18 PM  

Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: 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.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.


Why do you think some of these people stock so many guns?  Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.
 
2014-08-07 01:08:45 PM  

firefly212: Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine


Because they are required by law to hold certain annual meetings and are unable to change the dates and times of those meetings without an extended period of notice, the only way they could have canceled those legally required functions in Denver that particular year would have been to violate the laws governing their charter.

They did, however, cancel every function that year they were not bound by law to hold.

But don't let the facts get in your way or anything.
 
2014-08-07 01:12:14 PM  

enry: Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.


Oddly enough, those people annoy me less than the people who inexplicably hoard perishables during heavy storms.
 
2014-08-07 01:14:42 PM  

thamike: enry: Sure they might be held up in the street or shot at in the grocery store, but it's because they want to be protected in case a cop/fed shows up with a no-knock warrant and wants in.

Oddly enough, those people annoy me less than the people who inexplicably hoard perishables during heavy storms.


You're not the cop/fed that wants in.

/honestly tho, I'd probably be fine with LEO handling it.  IIRC, that's how it's handled in MA
 
2014-08-07 01:15:47 PM  

Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.



Cut out the redundant bit for you.  You're welcome.
 
2014-08-07 01:19:07 PM  

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

Yes.  That's the point.

So if the US is in a unique situation, one that the rest of the world has never found it in, and the mechanisms used to attempt a repeat of those efforts are tenably legal at best, where are you going with this?

Well, for one thing, we can change the "tenably legal" part.  How is this point not coming through?  Do you really not understand a word I am saying?


You can try to change the tenably legal part with a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon, imo.

The firearm laws like banning handguns would probably do the most "good" but wouldn't fly.

You'd be better off dropping the war on drugs, bigger incentives for states and counties to contribute medical and criminal records to the NICS (probably punitive measures too), single payer healthcare, and an emphasis on mental health checks.

The only country in per capita ownership that can be really compared to the US is Switzerland. While they do have mandatory conscription, they don't hinge gun ownership on participation in the military. A surprising % of the population opts for civil service or is actually unfit for service due to health reasons. Their level of crime isn't low because of the militia service, though that has its part. It's low because of their high standard of living and good healthcare.
 
2014-08-07 01:19:46 PM  

Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.


This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.
 
2014-08-07 01:21:26 PM  

Callous: There are a lot of people in this thread that have a hard time grasping the concept of humor.



What conservative humor might look like:
i13.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-07 01:21:59 PM  
I for one support returning to the days of the wild west.  We already have the stereotype of being a bunch of gunslinging sociopaths, why not just roll with it.  However, in the interests of preventing Fark Liberals from wetting their pants at the thought of everyone packing heat, we'll say that the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and bombs are off limits.  I know this will disappoint some of the more avid gun nuts out there.  However, we can't go around wiping out major portions of the human population on the planet.  In the interest of throwing said avid gun nuts a bone, we will allow the use of orbital kinetic weapons should some enterprising individual launch a satellite with that capability.

Things to remember about the open carry argument:
1. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.  If a certain Florida resident had thought about that, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.  Yes, in some states I can carry around a Ma Deuce in the event that I'm attacked by a pack of rabid and starving wolverines.  That doesn't mean its a good idea.  Sure, carry your AR-15s around.  When there's a NEED to carry them.  A regular handgun will do just fine until the apocalypse occurs.  In some cases, carrying a handgun would be rather crass.  I'm not going to carry a handgun into a police station, for example.  The police might not react well to said handgun.  A bar might not be the best place to carry, especially if you're drinking.  However, Darwin is at work there because the stupid ones are likely to try and draw a pistol while drunk and get shot in the process, so we'll allow it.  If you feel that your neighborhood is so unsafe that carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle is needed, then consider moving.

2. For you anti-gun nuts, I'll point out that there are essentially free-fire zones already in some cities and what you see is the result of criminals using weapons obtained illegally.  Note that criminals aren't worried about following the law because they're, well, criminals.  It doesn't matter how many gun laws you pass because the criminals have no intention of following the law.  See the definition of criminal in a dictionary if you're confused.  All gun laws do is inhibit the rights of a vast majority of individuals who are law abiding, will be law abiding, and have zero intention of using a gun in a criminal act...ever.

3. A gun is a tool.  Like any tool, the intent of the person using said tool is what matters.  If a person is intent on killing another person, they will attempt to kill that person.  I won't disagree that a gun does make that easier.  I will point out that gun laws won't prevent violent crime from occurring to those enterprising individuals who think outside the box:
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/man-attacked-with-medievil-weapon-in-patte r son-park/27315922#!bx4rEs
See said video as an example.  So next, according to gun control logic, you'll ban all metal spheres, chains, wood products, and metal spikes.  Individual was intent on causing someone harm.  Said person could have easily died.  Getting hit by a mace on the head is just as deadly as a bullet to the head.  This problem of murder has been going on for as long as people have been around.  We're just very, very, efficient at how we can do it now.  Banning guns will not prevent all murders, nor will it prevent all mass murders.

4. Lastly, its a constitutional right.  Courts or state legislatures or congress can't change the constitution by themselves.  If you want to limit guns in some way, you will need to convince people that it should be done in a way that would bring about support for a constitutional amendment.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so the more whining you do about the 2nd amendment, the less likely people are going to listen to you.  Try presenting your arguments in a rational manner instead of "think of the children".  Lanza killed his own mother to get her gun.  Nobody could have seen that one coming.  I feel very bad for the families.  I've lost children- my wife miscarried twins at 17 weeks.  It still hits me today, 4 years later.  I don't blame Lanza, I blame his mother.  If his mother had actually been responsible, she would have gotten those guns out of the house when she started to notice he was becoming more unstable.  We're just lucky Lanza wasn't smart enough or had the materials and internet on hand to build, say, a car bomb.  We could have lost most of the school.  It was a tragedy.  Treat it as such and learn from the mother's mistake: if your child is going bonzo, move your guns or get rid of them while you're child is in treatment.  If you know of a person who's not firing on all cylinders and has access to weapons, tell somebody who can do something.  That's the real lesson from that tragedy, not a need for further restrictions that will do absolutely no good and only affect law abiding citizens and, in addition, violate their constitutional right.
 
2014-08-07 01:23:57 PM  

Frank N Stein: Bilgewater: I'm a liberal living is a liberal state (Massachusetts) and I think they make it way too hard to get a gun here. I mean before you can by a gun you have to take a gun safety course. You have to prove that you can handle it safely and demonstrate that you know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
When I want a gun to shoot something I want in NOW!. Why should I have to prove to anybody that I know how to handle it? It's not like I'm driving a car or anything.
farking fascists.

This was a really cringeworthy attempt at humor.


So you're in favor of those requirements?
 
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 »
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