Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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 548
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2675 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-07 09:11:29 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.


Yeah, start targetting their familes. That will win their support.
 
2014-08-07 09:13:04 PM  

theprinceofwands: The moment a government deploys heavy against citizens the rest of the population (and in fact the entire world) turn against that government. It collapses the nation almost overnight. It would turn that handful of active resistance into an unbeatable army (which, let's remember, is compromised not just of neophytes and hippies but military, law enforcement, genius chemists, etc.


You sure about that?
www.serendipity.li

Cause most people I know don't give a shiat about what happened in Waco.
 
2014-08-07 09:42:05 PM  

Publikwerks: 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.


In order for the test to be effective to ferret out violent mental illness, the LEO would have to sign a confidentiality agreement at the very least.  I see a byzantine snakepit of dubious paperwork, irresponsible LEOs, mixed communication, and lawsuits emerging out of that.

Now if the Sheriff's Dept. hired a civilian psychological professional to administer these tests, score them, then seal the record--allowing the LEOs to only see the Pass/Fail result, that might be doable.

I think having the LEOs or Sheriffs construct and run such a program is a distracting, unnecessary, and heavy workload for everyone involved.
 
2014-08-07 09:45:09 PM  

Publikwerks: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.

Yeah, start targetting their familes. That will win their support.


because, once the military starts blowing up US citizens, trying to win the support of the people doing the blowing up is gonna be a priority.
 
2014-08-07 10:02:11 PM  

thamike: Publikwerks: 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.

In order for the test to be effective to ferret out violent mental illness, the LEO would have to sign a confidentiality agreement at the very least.  I see a byzantine snakepit of dubious paperwork, irresponsible LEOs, mixed communication, and lawsuits emerging out of that.

Now if the Sheriff's Dept. hired a civilian psychological professional to administer these tests, score them, then seal the record--allowing the LEOs to only see the Pass/Fail result, that might be doable.

I think having the LEOs or Sheriffs construct and run such a program is a distracting, unnecessary, and heavy workload for everyone involved.


I know in Maine the concealed carry permitting handled by local sheriffs or the stae police. So, I would see it almost as an extension of that. Now, they could have a trained councilor, but really, I want to keep people from permit shopping.
 
2014-08-07 10:03:33 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Publikwerks: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.

Yeah, start targetting their familes. That will win their support.

because, once the military starts blowing up US citizens, trying to win the support of the people doing the blowing up is gonna be a priority.


But that's the thing - I never said they would shoot first. If they are smart, they bide their time, just like they are doing with Clive Bundy. His ass is going to jail, just probably after November elections.
 
2014-08-07 10:11:09 PM  
Keep in mind that Oregon is radically right (along with the rest of the west coast), open carry is legal without a permit pretty much everywhere but schools, churches, mass transit and government buildings (and not exactly enforced on mass transit), and what better way to pretend you're leftist than secretly seeth at MSNBC while you openly appear to enjoy the opinions expressed?

Not horribly surprised by this poll.
 
2014-08-07 10:16:18 PM  

Publikwerks: I know in Maine the concealed carry permitting handled by local sheriffs or the stae police. So, I would see it almost as an extension of that. Now, they could have a trained councilor, but really, I want to keep people from permit shopping.


I wasn't talking about concealed carry, I was talking about purchase.  Maine doesn't require a permit to purchase (but they do have a shall issue law for concealed carry that includes a psychiatric assessment.  The mental illness test would be a requirement for purchase in the hypothetical situation I was referring to.
 
2014-08-07 10:18:50 PM  

Publikwerks: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Publikwerks: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.

Yeah, start targetting their familes. That will win their support.

because, once the military starts blowing up US citizens, trying to win the support of the people doing the blowing up is gonna be a priority.

But that's the thing - I never said they would shoot first. If they are smart, they bide their time, just like they are doing with Clive Bundy. His ass is going to jail, just probably after November elections.


counting on the federal government doing the smart thing is generally a losing bet.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:22 PM  

theprinceofwands: Correct. It's either for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, or it's for nothing...or at least not for those things which are guaranteed (such as firearms).

I personally have a moral opposition to insurance of any kind, and refuse to participate in it. This forced me to sell my car and live without one, which I believe to be a violation of my basic rights. But since there is no enumerated guarantee to a vehicle or travel I have no legal standing to sue. The same is not true of firearms.

Having a guaranteed right to firearms (at both the state and federal level) no law can exclude me from this right, including those which would economically or religiously (now determined by SCOTUS to include any deeply held belief, such as mine) disenfranchise me.

Therefore the ONLY way such an idea is supportable is if the entire cost of participation be taken by the nation itself...ie socialized national insurance fully subsidized by taxes and covering every us citizen equally.

Anything else and its war. Period.


Hoooly shiat. You're exactly the kind of loony tunes that pushes me towards being anti-gun.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:27 PM  

stonicus: redmid17: Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: 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.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.

My biggest beef with the insurance is that your driver's license is good across the US without even owning car insurance. You are, of course, on the hook for damages to the car and others, but you don't need car insurance to have a license.

In North Carolina you do...


Untrue.

From  http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/examples/default.html#insurance

Even if you do not own or drive a currently registered vehicle you may still apply for a license, but a restriction will be placed on your driver license. This restriction limits you to only driving "fleet vehicles." To remove this restriction you'll have to pay the Liability Insurance Restriction Removal, Fee: $10.00 .
 
2014-08-07 11:29:10 PM  
Publikwerks: No, thats BS. You don't have to have insurance. You can "Self Insure". I mean, you may not be able to afford it, but that's on you. And SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd isn't absolute. Hence why you can't own a machine gun. If you commit a felony, you can't own a gun. It isn't absolute.


Untrue. It is perfectly legal for most people to own a fully automatic firearm. There are laws and taxes, but it is legal to do so.
 
2014-08-08 12:06:20 AM  
For those of you who think some portion of the military would jump in on your side, I wouldn't count on support from that front. They've sworn an oath to defend the country from foreign and domestic enemies. You're suddenly that enemy at one point.  While I've had friends in the military tell me they'd engage civilians engaged in hostilities against the federal government, I don't think it's that likely.  I think the military would be most likely to let the FBI/ATF/etc. fight out with the population.  I could see some additional equipment being loaned but I don't think they'd be crewed by US armed forces.  Granted my evidence is ancillary at best, so take it for what it's worth.
 
2014-08-08 12:09:11 AM  

Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I can assure you that it won't be Jeb, nor will it be Mitt, nor will it be Christie.  Jeb doesn't really want to run, Mitt wants to but knows he can't win now, and Christie is too moderate for conservative states.  There are some very good conservatives out there who do not want to run but might get into the ring.  It is also impossible to predict what the socioeconomic climate is going to be like in 2016.  Anything, literally, could happen.  Ask me this time in 2016 who is going to win and I might be able to give you a better prediction.

2nd, how many gun control laws are on the books now and how effective are they?  Is a new law really going to solve the problem.  There are already laws on the books to deal with class III firearms, and they are working fine.  What you need to do is to change social attitudes about how people should act in society.  Lets say you change the law to ban all guns.  If you do nothing else, you'll have drive-by crossbowings instead of shootings.  Or harpoonings.  It also won't stop criminals from getting guns.  It will sufficiently agitate some of the states to arrest federal officers who attempt to enforce it and get thrown out as unconstitutional.  This isn't a gun problem, its a societal attitude problem.

Lastly, people really ought to think before cramming any more laws down someone's throat.  Look at how well our current President has done in uniting the people with ACA.  Try it with gun control, and we're one step closer to people reacting poorly towards said lawmakers and their supporters.  It could be the tipping point.  Possibly.  That being said, there needs to be concessions on both sides.  Right now, one side is not making concessions, and has not negotiated in good faith.  It doesn't matter if you think its conservatives or liberals.  That what each side believes right now.  If your version of work with us is "agree to what we want or else" then you're not going to get cooperation.  That's the problem we have right now.  Conservatives believe that we have already compromised way too much for nothing in return.  Liberals say they haven't compromised enough.  The conservative base...strongly disagrees.  That's probably an understatement.  And this time, the conservatives aren't going to budge until they see some evidence that liberals are willing to compromise.

First off, Hillary's gonna win, and barring some sort of mega fark up, will win.

Secondly, there isn't shiat on the books for gun control anymore. Brady bill is gone. I mean, what gun laws are out there other than the regs on Class III?

Third - I don't want to ram laws down your throat. I want both sides to work together to make laws that prevent those with tendencies to violence from getting guns, be it insanity, domestic abuse or whatnot.

But the gun advocates seem to think they can wait out any gun control push, and that strategy will work for now, but it may not work in 2-4 years. At which point, you're SOL. Just like with ObamaCare. Clinton tried to get heath care reform through congress, and they dragged their feet and stalled until Bush. Then when they were in charge, they ignored the problem completely. But then, when the Dems came to power, they had a solution rammed down their throat.

Learn from that.


The Brady bill is gone? Since when? I just recently purchased a firearm and went through the same 4473/NICS check I always have to go through at an FFL.
 
2014-08-08 01:17:51 AM  

Semi-Semetic: For those of you who think some portion of the military would jump in on your side, I wouldn't count on support from that front. They've sworn an oath to defend the country from foreign and domestic enemies.


The oath is to defend the Constitution. Not the country or the bureaucrats. So yes, the military will defend the Constitution from domestic enemies, including bureaucrats.
 
2014-08-08 01:46:44 AM  
Publikwerks:  My reasoning on Hobby Lobby being dumb - There are lots of times when the government makes people pay for things they find repugnant. Pacifists hate war, yet must pay for the DoD. Crisitan Scientists find modern medicine to be a sin, yet, they have to help fund the Department of Health. Or the Amish - to live and work in the community, they have to deal with compromises. And they do, they just try and keep it out of their personal lives. Anyway.

Here's another view on it: SCOTUS says individuals must get insurance, unless they're part of these couple religious sects. The SCOTUS says businesses don't have to abide the rules of the law if it violates ANY belief. However individuals do not receive the same rights. So only our corporate overlords have actual rights, citizens are required to do exactly as they're told.

I agree with you that the ACA was the wrong way to go. Should have expanded Medicaid. Just increase the Medicare tax, and then funnel the money to the states, and allow them to expand their medcaid systems to cover everyone. The states could then work it out how they wanted to deal with it.

I like letting the states handle those type of things.


No argument. Like I said, socialize it, nationalize it, whatever it takes. DO NOT say that the government can require payment into private/for-profit industry, regardless of need, beliefs, or alternative options. The law did very little to address health care, what it did was hand the US Mint to the insurance industry.

Now, I don't agree that the right to bear arms is sacred. I post earlier how it was, in my opinion, a hedge against the Feds banning slavery. They wanted to make sure they would have guns to fight the civil war(if it came to that...which it did).

Except that there is NO historic support for that view (I say this as someone with a degree in History btw) It also ignores the 40-something state Constitutional inclusions, often worded closer to the original US drafts.

Now, I like civil debate, so I going to throw a flag(watching preseason football) on you're post. Enacting gun controls is a far cry from being sent to a death camp and exterminated. So 10 yards for Godwining. First down.

Godwin is the refuge of the debate loser. It has no value.

However, to address your point, we don't even need to talk about Jews or the camps. The night of the long knives they were following orders. Invading peaceful nations they were following orders. Executing dissenters they were following orders. In ANY military or government sponsored action the soldiers/agents are just following orders. Stalin, Mao, Kermit, native american extermination, ludlow massacre, I could list about five hundred examples if you'd like. Point being 'following orders' and 'doing my job' excuses nothing, which is why it didn't work at Neuremberg.
 
2014-08-08 01:52:38 AM  

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: The moment a government deploys heavy against citizens the rest of the population (and in fact the entire world) turn against that government. It collapses the nation almost overnight. It would turn that handful of active resistance into an unbeatable army (which, let's remember, is compromised not just of neophytes and hippies but military, law enforcement, genius chemists, etc.

You sure about that?
[www.serendipity.li image 316x238]

Cause most people I know don't give a shiat about what happened in Waco.


And most of the people I know are outraged by it, even though it had some valid aspect of need. In fact, there is evidence that trust/popular support of government (or at least fbi/atf) declined as a direct result of the incident, which supports my statement.
 
2014-08-08 04:04:24 AM  
Only so much should be made of a single poll, but the thing is that even among straight ticket (D) voters - myself included - the whole so called "common sense" gun regulation movement is far from a majority.  That movement may well fare better when it comes to the positions of actual national level elected officials and certainly much higher in my home state(IL) but you are not a majority overall.  Your movement is very vocal and very passionate, but as far as this issue is concerned you are basically our version (+40 IQ points) of the Tea Party.

You don't even have the majority of Democrats, and have almost no one outside of Democrats (neither Independents or Rethuglicans) so you simply DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS.  You are loosing this battle in the court of public opinion more and more as time passes.  Much like the Jebus freaks regarding equality (be it LGBT/women/religions minorities/racial minorities/whatever I failed to mention)... you don't have to like it... but sooner or later reality needs to smack you in the face and you just have to accept it.

Passionate and emotional on this issue as you are, I also think you are dead wrong.  Most the regulation you support is anything but "common sense."  It is regulation that jives with your worldview and nothing more.  Aside from restricting those with diagnosed mental disorders from owning weapons... none of these proposed limits nor even registration is "obviously a good idea" except to YOU who hold those views.

Lets put aside the issue itself and consider this logically.  If you position is completely sound and logically unassailable then you are talking something that can be referred to as "common sense."  But "gun control" can EASILY be challenged with logical arguments from many directions.  Granted you will probably reject the best of logical fact-based arguments due to a subconscious bias against information that contradicts your preexisting beliefs (I believe the scientific term is "motivated leaning").  All the same your beliefs are not "common sense."  Your beliefs are exactly that... beliefs.  They are glorified OPINIONS.

Those so called "pro-life" @ssholes think that cr@p like requiring hospital admitting privileges, forcing the women to view ultrasounds of their so called "baby," and reading false propaganda on the subject (yet "pro-life" people believe these things therefore not propaganda to them) - they consider this all quite reasonable and "common sense" steps to the goal they feel is "obviously" noble.  They're wrong.  Only so are you(about guns).

The "gun control" movement really is the left's version of the "pro-life" movement.  The following could be said of both.
1.  Quite emotionally charged.  In fact the arguments are purely emotional not scientific.
2.  Little use for facts/statistics.
3.  When statistics can't be ignored/marginalized then they must be cherry-picked/selectively used completely out of context.
4.  Fail that then attack the messenger.  In fact this may come higher on the list with some.
5.  Those who disagree are probably bloodthirsty monsters.  Also "extreme (left/right) wingers" (when back in reality... the opposite is probably true).
6.  Giant emotionally-charged exaggerations everywhere.
7.  Fark other people's rights.  We have a never-ending tragedy here.  "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

At least we aren't all sucked into this nonsense.  But all the same that list could apply to both the "pro-life" and "gun-control" movements.  Actually it could apply to most everything the right wing believes in, but on the issue of "gun control" it is actually a particular faction of the left wing that lives in an emotionally charged logical fallacy land.

Given all the crazy paranoid conspiracy BS they spew on the subject, I seriously hesitate to say the right wing is any more logical/sane regarding 2nd Amendment related issues than the "gun control" crowd, but at least on this issue they are CORRECT policy-wise.  It is one of those crazy scenarios where someone took all the wrong turns and yet still managed to end up at the right destination despite it all.  Or if you prefer... broken clocks are right twice a day.
 
2014-08-08 04:12:37 AM  

theprinceofwands: The moment a government deploys heavy against citizens the rest of the population (and in fact the entire world) turn against that government. It collapses the nation almost overnight. It would turn that handful of active resistance into an unbeatable army (which, let's remember, is compromised not just of neophytes and hippies but military, law enforcement, genius chemists, etc.


graphics8.nytimes.com 
I'm sorry you where saying something?


In fact would you like a list of regimes that prove you dead wrong?  It would be quite a long list and would take considerable time to compile if I want to be fully comprehensive.
 
2014-08-08 04:27:04 AM  

dittybopper: 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.

Man, that's some cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.

"The NRA represents gun manufacturers, even though the NRA calls all the shots, but it's *TOTALLY* a puppet of the gun industry".

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.   The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.


Whose board of directors aren't nominated by their membership but instead are selected by a committee selected from industry and not surprisingly matches the lobbying agenda of the NSSF.
 
2014-08-08 04:31:51 AM  

AngryDragon: bdub77: AngryDragon: You have lost.  Get over it.

[jpfo.org image 500x377]

One of the great things about our country is that we can change laws. And the world is ever so slowly moving away from violence as a means to an end.

So. Get over it.

Constitutionally guaranteed individual right.  SCOTUS says so.  You OK with passing a law to eliminate abortion?  How about universal sufferage?  The civil rights act?  Those are now interpreted as the law of the land, yet idiots keep trying to pass laws to challenge and restrict law abiding citizens from exercising these rights.

Gun grabbers are doing the same thing.  You are railing against majority opinion and SCOTUS precedent.  All the while firearms laws get more liberal (ironically).  Pretty soon you will all need tin foil hats.


Read Part III of Scalia's majority opinion in D.C v Heller and stop embarrassing yourself with the claim that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry concealed weapons.
 
2014-08-08 04:54:36 AM  

heili skrimsli: 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.


BS, there is nothing in law that prevented them from changing the meeting place or time.  You think that a corporation that schedules a stockholders meeting in Miami for date X and learns that a category five hurricane is predicted for that place and time is compelled by law to hold the meeting in Miami on date x anyway?
 
2014-08-08 04:59:39 AM  

bobothemagnificent: 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 tha ...


Then you support gun control because all of the wild west towns of gunfighter fame that irrational gun advocates love to fap to had city ordinances restricting the carrying of firearms. Abeline, Dodge City, Tombstone all banned carrying handguns including open carry within the city limits save for that necessary to turn them into to the town marshall for safekeeping.
 
2014-08-08 05:07:55 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: heili skrimsli: 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.


Internal bylaws are not actual laws, but don't reality get in the way of your wacky rationalization.... also, thanks for editing out the other idiot and indefensible things they've done so you don't have to address them.

THe NRA is a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity and by US law, must hold an annual membership meeting. Thanks for showing us your ignorance and lack of ability to research anything.


And nothing in law requires them to do so on any particular day or at any particular place without the ability to change meeting date or place.
 
2014-08-08 05:09:55 AM  

Publikwerks: Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.


For a number of practical reasons... they really can't turn our volunteer army upon us.  What they CAN do is turn the increasingly militarized police forces upon us.  That is proven reality.

capitalismisover.com
Put this together if you can.
1.  The police have long been conditioned to serve THE LAW before everything else (even as they themselves are largely above it).  No matter how immoral THE LAW is or the how immoral means in which they need to employ to serve THE LAW.
2.  The police have long been conditioned to completely ignore people's rights and to have no respect for The Constitution - especially the protections guaranteed within.  The War on Drugs would not be possible otherwise.
3.  The Law is nothing more than the edicts of politicians.  No matter what politicians pass into law (or simply order in many cases), the police are the enforcers.
4.  Thanks to blatant bribery "political contributions" the politicians are owned by the 1%(really the 0.01%) and serve their will.
5.  Thus the 99% can suck on the business end of a cops black boot... if they're lucky to get off so easy.

If things actually do get really bad, then we won't have to contend with our military.  We WILL have to contend with our police forces.

Let me simplify this further with more pictures

1.bp.blogspot.com
If things progress badly enough that THESE ^^ need to come back into fashion...

upload.wikimedia.org
You're gonna need THESE^^ too or the object above won't amount to anymore than a watermelon cutter.

Unfortunate as it is, sometimes you need more than poster board.

This isn't what I want, and I AM NOT calling for any armed revolution.  I would like nothing more than for all weapons to be useless and unnecessary paper weights.  I would like them to be forgotten relics of times long past never to return.  Only that isn't reality.  For humanity with our inherent flaws... that will probably never be reality.

If the 99% ever truly become serious about fixing this nation, the 0.01% will use every tool at their disposal to stop us.  It just so happens their toolbox is filled with hammers and us commoners happen to strongly resemble nails.  It isn't hard to see what they will do.  They'll do what they have always done.

If that happens then clearly we will need to defend ourselves.  That is reality.  That is what always happens throughout history and many times even in recent history.  What happened to the Occupy protesters... that was only a warmup.
 
2014-08-08 05:13:11 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Publikwerks: OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.

Go right ahead. Be my guest.

Having served in the military during a war let me assure you: YOU DO NOT WANT THAT ON YOUR STREETS.

No matter how careful people tried to be civilian damage would be astronomical. It's a type of terror and sickness you don't even want to imagine.

Believe me when I tell you not to push people over the line that forces them to that.

First off, I don't want Iraq, but I don't think it goes that far. You'll end up with A TON of protesters, but actual violence would be limited.
Because only a very small minority would take up weapons. The pro-business side of the GOP/ Fox News would decry the bans, make fun of whoever passed it, but it would not endorse civil disobedience because that's bad for the bottom line. So they'll channel that rage/whatever at protests and donations to PACs, ect. They'll use it to their advantage.

So when I say Bring it on, it because I think the threat of it is overblown.

But, if it did happen, that would suck. But then the gloves would come off. Let me ask you this: Do people remeber what McVeigh's beef was?
NOPE. They cheered when he died.

 You kill innocent people, you lose.

Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.

There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.


You think that Americans haven't  been bombed by other Americans or that women and kids haven't been machine gunned by government agencies before?  You need to read more history and start with miner's strikes.
 
2014-08-08 05:18:44 AM  

bk3k: Publikwerks: Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.

For a number of practical reasons... they really can't turn our volunteer army upon us.  What they CAN do is turn the increasingly militarized police forces upon us.  That is proven reality.

[capitalismisover.com image 700x467]
Put this together if you can.
1.  The police have long been conditioned to serve THE LAW before everything else (even as they themselves are largely above it).  No matter how immoral THE LAW is or the how immoral means in which they need to employ to serve THE LAW.
2.  The police have long been conditioned to completely ignore people's rights and to have no respect for The Constitution - especially the protections guaranteed within.  The War on Drugs would not be possible otherwise.
3.  The Law is nothing more than the edicts of politicians.  No matter what politicians pass into law (or simply order in many cases), the police are the enforcers.
4.  Thanks to blatant bribery "political contributions" the politicians are owned by the 1%(really the 0.01%) and serve their will.
5.  Thus the 99% can suck on the business end of a cops black boot... if they're lucky to get off so easy.

If things actually do get really bad, then we won't have to contend with our military.  We WILL have to contend with our police forces.

Let me simplify this further with more pictures

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x439]
If things progress badly enough that THESE ^^ need to come back into fashion...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x390]
You're gonna need THESE^^ too or the object above won't amount to anymore than a watermelon cutter.

Unfortunate as it is, sometimes you need more than poster board.

This isn't what I want, and I AM NOT calling for any armed revolution.  I would like nothing more than for all weapons to be useless and unnecessary paper wei ...


Read up on the Bonus Army and who burned their camp before you get too confident that the military would oppose police forces.
 
2014-08-08 05:19:45 AM  

stan unusual: You think that Americans haven't been bombed by other Americans or that women and kids haven't been machine gunned by government agencies before? You need to read more history and start with miner's strikes.


Yep.  You have people who firmly believe in the altruistic nature of humanity, and you have people who study history(or really... current events).  There is no overlap.
 
2014-08-08 05:26:01 AM  

stan unusual: Read up on the Bonus Army and who burned their camp before you get too confident that the military would oppose police forces.


I don't believe I stated that our military forces would oppose our police forces.  Neither do I believe that they would.  I think you missed the theme of that post by about a mile.

I did say that our government would not use our military against us...  but that is only because they would use the police instead.  The police are a better tool for the job in every way.
 
2014-08-08 05:32:13 AM  

bk3k: I did say that our government would not use our military against us... but that is only because they would use the police instead. The police are a better tool for the job in every way.


...and I need to add to this.  The difference between then (the Bonus Army incident) and now is the considerable difference between the police then and now.

www.noisyroom.net
 
2014-08-08 07:21:36 AM  

bk3k: bk3k: I did say that our government would not use our military against us... but that is only because they would use the police instead. The police are a better tool for the job in every way.

...and I need to add to this.  The difference between then (the Bonus Army incident) and now is the considerable difference between the police then and now.

[www.noisyroom.net image 500x313]


"This" became "this" when more and more people came to the mindset that the law applied to everyone except for him/her. It's our own fault.
 
2014-08-08 09:32:41 AM  

thamike: Publikwerks: I know in Maine the concealed carry permitting handled by local sheriffs or the stae police. So, I would see it almost as an extension of that. Now, they could have a trained councilor, but really, I want to keep people from permit shopping.

I wasn't talking about concealed carry, I was talking about purchase.  Maine doesn't require a permit to purchase (but they do have a shall issue law for concealed carry that includes a psychiatric assessment.  The mental illness test would be a requirement for purchase in the hypothetical situation I was referring to.


But I think the easiest solution would be an expansion of the CCW permitting process to all firearm ownership.
 
2014-08-08 09:34:45 AM  

sugar_fetus: Publikwerks: No, thats BS. You don't have to have insurance. You can "Self Insure". I mean, you may not be able to afford it, but that's on you. And SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd isn't absolute. Hence why you can't own a machine gun. If you commit a felony, you can't own a gun. It isn't absolute.


Untrue. It is perfectly legal for most people to own a fully automatic firearm. There are laws and taxes, but it is legal to do so.


I meant a machinegun made after 86.
 
2014-08-08 09:36:26 AM  

RINO: The Brady bill is gone? Since when? I just recently purchased a firearm and went through the same 4473/NICS check I always have to go through at an FFL.


The NICS check was part of Brady? My bad. I just always looked at Brady as the assault weapons ban(which I thought was dumb)
 
2014-08-08 09:45:20 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: theprinceofwands: Correct. It's either for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, or it's for nothing...or at least not for those things which are guaranteed (such as firearms).

I personally have a moral opposition to insurance of any kind, and refuse to participate in it. This forced me to sell my car and live without one, which I believe to be a violation of my basic rights. But since there is no enumerated guarantee to a vehicle or travel I have no legal standing to sue. The same is not true of firearms.

Having a guaranteed right to firearms (at both the state and federal level) no law can exclude me from this right, including those which would economically or religiously (now determined by SCOTUS to include any deeply held belief, such as mine) disenfranchise me.

Therefore the ONLY way such an idea is supportable is if the entire cost of participation be taken by the nation itself...ie socialized national insurance fully subsidized by taxes and covering every us citizen equally.

Anything else and its war. Period.

Hoooly shiat. You're exactly the kind of loony tunes that pushes me towards being anti-gun.


I've got him tagged with "Red Dawn is porn" for a reason.
 
2014-08-08 10:11:28 AM  

theprinceofwands: Godwin is the refuge of the debate loser. It has no value.

However, to address your point, we don't even need to talk about Jews or the camps. The night of the long knives they were following orders. Invading peaceful nations they were following orders. Executing dissenters they were following orders. In ANY military or government sponsored action the soldiers/agents are just following orders. Stalin, Mao, Kermit, native american extermination, ludlow massacre, I could list about five hundred examples if you'd like. Point being 'following orders' and 'doing my job' excuses nothing, which is why it didn't work at Neuremberg.


And you're missing my point. Being forced to take classes and get a gun license like you have to with a driver's license is in a different galaxy that all of the examples you mentioned above. Hell, a complete gun ban would be in a different galaxy than above. No one is dying. The government isn't sending you to fema death camps. The UN isn't exterminating gun owners. So it's a false equivalency.
 
2014-08-08 10:15:26 AM  

theprinceofwands: And most of the people I know are outraged by it, even though it had some valid aspect of need. In fact, there is evidence that trust/popular support of government (or at least fbi/atf) declined as a direct result of the incident, which supports my statement.


I haven't seen anything like that. Citation?
 
2014-08-08 10:57:13 AM  

Publikwerks: thamike: Publikwerks: I know in Maine the concealed carry permitting handled by local sheriffs or the stae police. So, I would see it almost as an extension of that. Now, they could have a trained councilor, but really, I want to keep people from permit shopping.

I wasn't talking about concealed carry, I was talking about purchase.  Maine doesn't require a permit to purchase (but they do have a shall issue law for concealed carry that includes a psychiatric assessment.  The mental illness test would be a requirement for purchase in the hypothetical situation I was referring to.

But I think the easiest solution would be an expansion of the CCW permitting process to all firearm ownership.


I agree with that.
 
2014-08-08 11:42:39 AM  

bk3k: bk3k: I did say that our government would not use our military against us... but that is only because they would use the police instead. The police are a better tool for the job in every way.

...and I need to add to this.  The difference between then (the Bonus Army incident) and now is the considerable difference between the police then and now.

[www.noisyroom.net image 500x313]


Gonna go out on a limb and guess the guys on the right are a SWAT team or the local departments equivalent.
 
2014-08-08 11:43:38 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: heili skrimsli: 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.


Internal bylaws are not actual laws, but don't reality get in the way of your wacky rationalization.... also, thanks for editing out the other idiot and indefensible things they've done so you don't have to address them.

THe NRA is a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity and by US law, must hold an annual membership meeting. Thanks for showing us your ignorance and lack of ability to research anything.


You're right, there are clear laws that prevent them from rescheduling thing or holding them in different places, and I'm sure you're gonna cite those any day now... .right after you get around to explaining why you edited out that I'm also mad at them for coming to CO and fighting against mental health restrictions and background checks. But keep on thinking your fighting the good fight while artificially inflating your membership numbers by pretending people who have disavowed any relationship with the NRA are still lifetime members. I mean hell, I'm a gun owner, and you can't even get me on your damned side because you're so farking out there... but please, keep telling yourself how farking awesome you are.
 
2014-08-08 01:13:25 PM  

enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.


HOLY shiat!!! The NRA accepts advertising from companies relevant to the contents of their magazines????


You've got to be kidding me!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

Man, good thing you're here to blow this story, you really cracked the case!!!
 
2014-08-08 01:58:38 PM  

firefly212: You're right, there are clear laws that prevent them from rescheduling thing or holding them in different places,


The shooting was 11 days before the members meeting. The New York statute under which the 501(c)(4) NRA is chartered required at least ten days notice to all the voting membership to change the annual meeting date. As it was in 1999, with six weeks left in the NRA's year (which runs June through May), it really wasn't possible within the laws of NY to reschedule.
 
2014-08-08 02:03:08 PM  

Ontos: enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

HOLY shiat!!! The NRA accepts advertising from companies relevant to the contents of their magazines????


You've got to be kidding me!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

Man, good thing you're here to blow this story, you really cracked the case!!!


Someone was claiming that this was not in fact the case, so the response was warranted.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to be.
 
2014-08-08 02:48:38 PM  

thamike: Ontos: enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

HOLY shiat!!! The NRA accepts advertising from companies relevant to the contents of their magazines????


You've got to be kidding me!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

Man, good thing you're here to blow this story, you really cracked the case!!!

Someone was claiming that this was not in fact the case, so the response was warranted.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to be.


You clearly didn't follow the conversation very well...
 
2014-08-08 02:56:11 PM  

redmid17: thamike: Ontos: enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

HOLY shiat!!! The NRA accepts advertising from companies relevant to the contents of their magazines????


You've got to be kidding me!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

Man, good thing you're here to blow this story, you really cracked the case!!!

Someone was claiming that this was not in fact the case, so the response was warranted.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to be.

You clearly didn't follow the conversation very well...


Yeah, that CAPSLOCK guy's got the gist.  What was I thinking?
 
2014-08-08 04:28:58 PM  

thamike: redmid17: thamike: Ontos: enry: Fark It: How much does the "firearms industry" give to the NRA?  How much of that is in the form of the NRA's "round-up" campaign through retailers, which in reality is from individual customers?

FTF Huff Po (bold by me):

While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA's annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads.

HOLY shiat!!! The NRA accepts advertising from companies relevant to the contents of their magazines????


You've got to be kidding me!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

Man, good thing you're here to blow this story, you really cracked the case!!!

Someone was claiming that this was not in fact the case, so the response was warranted.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to be.

You clearly didn't follow the conversation very well...

Yeah, that CAPSLOCK guy's got the gist.  What was I thinking?


When I make nonsensical posts, I'm usually hammered drunk or trolling.
 
2014-08-08 05:49:04 PM  

bk3k: theprinceofwands: The moment a government deploys heavy against citizens the rest of the population (and in fact the entire world) turn against that government. It collapses the nation almost overnight. It would turn that handful of active resistance into an unbeatable army (which, let's remember, is compromised not just of neophytes and hippies but military, law enforcement, genius chemists, etc.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x350] 
I'm sorry you where saying something?
In fact would you like a list of regimes that prove you dead wrong?  It would be quite a long list and would take considerable time to compile if I want to be fully comprehensive.


You mean like

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Godwin is the refuge of the debate loser. It has no value.

However, to address your point, we don't even need to talk about Jews or the camps. The night of the long knives they were following orders. Invading peaceful nations they were following orders. Executing dissenters they were following orders. In ANY military or government sponsored action the soldiers/agents are just following orders. Stalin, Mao, Kermit, native american extermination, ludlow massacre, I could list about five hundred examples if you'd like. Point being 'following orders' and 'doing my job' excuses nothing, which is why it didn't work at Neuremberg.

And you're missing my point. Being forced to take classes and get a gun license like you have to with a driver's license is in a different galaxy that all of the examples you mentioned above. Hell, a complete gun ban would be in a different galaxy than above. No one is dying. The government isn't sending you to fema death camps. The UN isn't exterminating gun owners. So it's a false equivalency.


Actually in a gun ban people would be dying (even ignoring the ensuing civil war), since there are at least hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses every year. What's more many people find freedom to be as essential as life itself, if not more so. After all, most slaves weren't killed, so it must not have been a big deal...right? It was just lack of liberty that they suffered.

I know personally if you offer me a choice between the painful, terrible deaths of myself and everyone I love, or living without basic freedoms (including the right to self-defense), I'll vote death every time. Not a joke, life simply doesn't matter without liberty. Period.
 
2014-08-08 05:50:08 PM  
Sry for above weirdness, not sure what was up with the multiquote chaos.
 
Displayed 48 of 548 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report