Skip to content
 
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.

(The Hill)   The gun lobby's perfect grip on the GOP might, MIGHT, be starting to uNRAvel   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, New York, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Rep. Chris Jacobs, Gun, favor of an assault weapons ban, United States, Assault weapon, Rifle  
•       •       •

2848 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2022 at 7:05 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-29 3:12:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-29 4:04:00 AM  
meh, he also knows that House votes currently mean about jack and shiate.
 
2022-05-29 6:53:18 AM  
I'll believe it when I see it.
 
2022-05-29 7:05:33 AM  
Bullshiat.
 
2022-05-29 7:09:36 AM  
How many dead kids is enough?
 
2022-05-29 7:12:00 AM  

RasIanI: How many dead kids is enough?


Well a million COVID deaths hasn't moved the needle, so I wouldn't hold your breath...
 
2022-05-29 7:14:31 AM  
"Jacobs said there is not currently a bill to ban assault weapons in the House and he does not expect Democrats to have the political will to introduce one, but he would support it if it were introduced."

There it is.
 
2022-05-29 7:19:02 AM  
Here is a campaign contribution, Mr. Senator, how about now - love, NRA
 
2022-05-29 7:19:34 AM  
Those rubles running out? It's a shame. A shame, really.
 
2022-05-29 7:20:37 AM  
Difficulty: New England-adjacent conservative
 
2022-05-29 7:22:19 AM  
Any day now.
 
2022-05-29 7:24:59 AM  
Ha Ha.
No
 
2022-05-29 7:30:36 AM  

JK8Fan: Here is a campaign contribution, Mr. Senator, how about now - love, NRA


They might be a little hesitant, since they're not funneling Russian cash right now. LaPierre and his buddies do cut themselves some decent sized checks, and contributions DO sort of drain petty cash that can rent nice suites and hookers for donors.
 
2022-05-29 7:31:55 AM  
Well regulated = anarchy.
 
2022-05-29 7:32:54 AM  
media1.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-29 7:38:02 AM  
Fark ought to take a stand on this one.  Why are we having to waste our time arguing with these children killing gun humpers here?  If we can ban openly racist and misogynist and homophobic jackholes, we can draw a line on this one too.

The venn diagram on it is a circle anyway.
 
2022-05-29 7:38:47 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Well regulated = anarchy.


It's depressing to me how people who memorize and shout the last four words of that amendment always forget the first four.

... Oh, and how they deflect and distract from the murder of children so they can keep their penis toys.
 
2022-05-29 7:40:20 AM  
Here's the deflection:

"He also said he plans to introduce a bill to ban the sale of body armor to individuals who are not in law enforcement, security or "fields that it makes sense." The gunman at the Buffalo supermarket earlier this month wore body armor, apparently protecting him from a security guard's fire."

As a direct result of the Republican policy of toadying to the NRA, we are now living in a society where it "makes sense" for people in the following fields to wear body armor on a daily basis:

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Teachers,
Students,
Co-workers,
Commuters,
Retail Clerks,
Shoppers,
Church-goers,
Concert-goers.

That's pretty much Everybody.

Dude's planning to introduce legislation banning passively defending yourself from an active shooter, rather than banning the offensive weapon used by the shooter.

The body-armor lobby ought to pay him a visit, he's obviously fishing for a bribe campaign contribution.
 
2022-05-29 7:47:52 AM  
He would support a ban, but he doesn't have the guts to introduce one.
 
2022-05-29 7:47:56 AM  

firsttiger: "Jacobs said there is not currently a bill to ban assault weapons in the House and he does not expect Democrats to have the political will to introduce one, but he would support it if it were introduced."

There it is.


Yeah, he doesn't expect that he'll actually have anything to support so why not give a worthless sound bite?
 
2022-05-29 7:47:58 AM  
I think the Democrats would be better off pursuing age restrictions on them than an outright ban. Is this GOP Congressman doing it in good faith, or trying to goad the Democrats to go right to banning so they play into the right wing "gun grabbing" narrative. It's not like Republicans have not negotiated in bad faith before. Allowing an 18 year old kid to have an AR-15 is as stupid as giving a 16 year old a Ferrari as their first car. Pass age restrictions and universal background checks, then gaslight the GOP on their warnings of gun banning. Use the gas lighting to get other common sense reforms passed.

Personally I feel nothing will happen. Republicans are giving lip service, but that is because elections are drawing near. It's all about negotiating in bad faith to run out the clock.
 
2022-05-29 7:49:02 AM  

RI_Red: Marcus Aurelius: Well regulated = anarchy.

It's depressing to me how people who memorize and shout the last four words of that amendment always forget the first four.

... Oh, and how they deflect and distract from the murder of children so they can keep their penis toys.


Sorry, words that come before a comma aren't part of a sentence when you read in Originalist*.

/*Racist, right-wing Christofacist ideologue
 
2022-05-29 7:49:47 AM  

Psychopompous: Here's the deflection:

"He also said he plans to introduce a bill to ban the sale of body armor to individuals who are not in law enforcement, security or "fields that it makes sense." The gunman at the Buffalo supermarket earlier this month wore body armor, apparently protecting him from a security guard's fire."

As a direct result of the Republican policy of toadying to the NRA, we are now living in a society where it "makes sense" for people in the following fields to wear body armor on a daily basis:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 384x288]

Teachers,
Students,
Co-workers,
Commuters,
Retail Clerks,
Shoppers,
Church-goers,
Concert-goers.

That's pretty much Everybody.

Dude's planning to introduce legislation banning passively defending yourself from an active shooter, rather than banning the offensive weapon used by the shooter.

The body-armor lobby ought to pay him a visit, he's obviously fishing for a bribe campaign contribution.


Can't anyone aim for the head?
 
2022-05-29 7:50:26 AM  
States can do this stuff too. Just sayin'.
 
2022-05-29 7:53:18 AM  
Send in the clownsredheads...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-29 8:00:26 AM  
GQPers are so certain that gun control won't work, that they'll go out of their way to do everything but try the thing they claim won't work. That's like trying to prove someone wrong by doing everything but the thing you're saying they're wrong about.

If it won't work, why not try it, just to see?
 
2022-05-29 8:01:25 AM  

RasIanI: How many dead kids is enough?


Well, since you asked:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-29 8:02:07 AM  

born_yesterday: RI_Red: Marcus Aurelius: Well regulated = anarchy.

It's depressing to me how people who memorize and shout the last four words of that amendment always forget the first four.

... Oh, and how they deflect and distract from the murder of children so they can keep their penis toys.

Sorry, words that come before a comma aren't part of a sentence when you read in Originalist*.

/*Racist, right-wing Christofacist ideologue


e.g. "We, the people," is obviously Commie propaganda to be ignored by good-thinking Party members.
 
2022-05-29 8:03:31 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-29 8:03:41 AM  

question_dj: GQPers are so certain that gun control won't work, that they'll go out of their way to do everything but try the thing they claim won't work. That's like trying to prove someone wrong by doing everything but the thing you're saying they're wrong about.

If it won't work, why not try it, just to see?


You don't know if you don't go.
 
2022-05-29 8:07:48 AM  

mudesi: Fark ought to take a stand on this one.  Why are we having to waste our time arguing with these children killing gun humpers here?  If we can ban openly racist and misogynist and homophobic jackholes, we can draw a line on this one too.

The venn diagram on it is a circle anyway.


If FarkPol isn't already a safe enough space, consider never accessing the internet again.

/gun control
 
2022-05-29 8:14:16 AM  
Alright. Do it. I want to see you do it.
 
2022-05-29 8:15:27 AM  
Wow.  The collective memory of this country gets shorter every day.  After the Stoneman Douglas school shooting, just over 4 years ago, an unprepared and unprompted Trump reflexively said he would immediately act on gun control.  Just 24 hours later, after his handlers had explained exactly how many GOP politicians were fully owned and paid for by the NRA, he walked back everything he said.  Trump was and is the most morally corrupt shiat stain to befoul the office of President for some time, but his actions on gun control are no different to ANY Republican, past, present and future.
 
2022-05-29 8:17:05 AM  

Valter: Alright. Do it. I want to see you do it.


That's the point. He outright said that he doesn't expect the democrats to draw up a bill so he can say whatever he wants with no consequences.
 
2022-05-29 8:19:13 AM  

heavymetal: I think the Democrats would be better off pursuing age restrictions on them than an outright ban. Is this GOP Congressman doing it in good faith, or trying to goad the Democrats to go right to banning so they play into the right wing "gun grabbing" narrative. It's not like Republicans have not negotiated in bad faith before. Allowing an 18 year old kid to have an AR-15 is as stupid as giving a 16 year old a Ferrari as their first car. Pass age restrictions and universal background checks, then gaslight the GOP on their warnings of gun banning. Use the gas lighting to get other common sense reforms passed.

Personally I feel nothing will happen. Republicans are giving lip service, but that is because elections are drawing near. It's all about negotiating in bad faith to run out the clock.


No.  Don't back down.  Aim as high as possible because you're not going to get everything you want.  It will get negotiated down.  If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.
 
2022-05-29 8:19:13 AM  
The gun lobby's perfect grip on the GOP might, MIGHT, be starting to uNRAvel

Yeah, but Goober Nation's grip on the NRA is as firm as ever.
 
2022-05-29 8:19:31 AM  
Yeah. I'll believe it when I see it. Pre Tea Party Republicans who actually cared about working across the aisle to accomplish something good for the country have either been driven out or been shouted out by the true believers running the party.

Haven't voted Republican since Richard Lugar lost his primary to Mr. God intended you to be raped, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
 
2022-05-29 8:21:10 AM  

aagrajag: RasIanI: How many dead kids is enough?

Well, since you asked:

[Fark user image 425x559]


Sadly very true. We have posters on this site saying exactly this as recently as yesterday.
 
2022-05-29 8:22:28 AM  

heavymetal: I think the Democrats would be better off pursuing age restrictions on them than an outright ban. Is this GOP Congressman doing it in good faith, or trying to goad the Democrats to go right to banning so they play into the right wing "gun grabbing" narrative. It's not like Republicans have not negotiated in bad faith before. Allowing an 18 year old kid to have an AR-15 is as stupid as giving a 16 year old a Ferrari as their first car. Pass age restrictions and universal background checks, then gaslight the GOP on their warnings of gun banning. Use the gas lighting to get other common sense reforms passed.

Personally I feel nothing will happen. Republicans are giving lip service, but that is because elections are drawing near. It's all about negotiating in bad faith to run out the clock.


That's not a bad idea, but the flaw is as follows:

Whilst the Republican party is pretty united on gun control (i.e no new restrictions, maybe loosen then a bit) the Democratic party ranges from some new restrictions on all guns (background checks, licenses etc) to banning certain types of gun but not others to outright bans for dangerous people (with different criteria for 'dangerous).

So even IF a gun-control bill was in the senate and even IF Sinema and Manchin could be bullied into line, then 48 Democrats would variously:
-Vote for it;
-Not vote for this bill because it's too restrictive (what about law-abiding gun owners?);
-Not vote for it in protest because it doesn't go far enough (only bans guns A, D and F and not guns A-G which are the dangerous ones);
-Not vote for it because it's ineffective (restrictions with lots of loopholes);
-Not vote for it because it's too centrist;
-Not vote for it because it's too progressive;
-Not vote because it was going to fail anyway and I have a tough election coming up;
etc.

The Democrats first need to decide internally what their party policy is specifically, and they need to commit to both supporting it and kicking out members who refuse to support it.

If that doesn't happen you'll just have lots of theoretically good ideas (like yours) that will only ever be theoretical.
 
2022-05-29 8:26:19 AM  

lordjupiter: If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.


I don't see what difference three years would make. Ok, this one particular 18 year old wouldn't have been able to legally buy an assault rifle but that's one kid. And really, he could have killed just as many people with two handguns.
 
2022-05-29 8:28:02 AM  

lordjupiter: heavymetal: I think the Democrats would be better off pursuing age restrictions on them than an outright ban. Is this GOP Congressman doing it in good faith, or trying to goad the Democrats to go right to banning so they play into the right wing "gun grabbing" narrative. It's not like Republicans have not negotiated in bad faith before. Allowing an 18 year old kid to have an AR-15 is as stupid as giving a 16 year old a Ferrari as their first car. Pass age restrictions and universal background checks, then gaslight the GOP on their warnings of gun banning. Use the gas lighting to get other common sense reforms passed.

Personally I feel nothing will happen. Republicans are giving lip service, but that is because elections are drawing near. It's all about negotiating in bad faith to run out the clock.

No.  Don't back down.  Aim as high as possible because you're not going to get everything you want.  It will get negotiated down.  If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.


That's right out of the Trump University course on negotiation, isn't it?

Is that simply hoe it works?  Just ask for everything and eventually it gets negotiated down to what you can live with?  Have you been paying attention to politics AT ALL in the past two decades?
 
2022-05-29 8:28:14 AM  
It may not be much, but I am starting to be more vocal about the influence the NRA has on this government.

I just posted this about 10 minutes ago.

It is time to ban endorsements and donations from the NRA.  It is time to get their influence out of this government.
It is time to not allow the 2nd people to keep screaming at US to deal with with THEY perceive their rights to be.

It is also long since time to revisit the 2nd amendment and write something up that reflects TODAY, and not 200 years ago.
 
2022-05-29 8:29:42 AM  

Mugato: lordjupiter: If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.

I don't see what difference three years would make. Ok, this one particular 18 year old wouldn't have been able to legally buy an assault rifle but that's one kid. And really, he could have killed just as many people with two handguns.


Certainly with the kind of lead the cops were willing to spot the shooter
 
2022-05-29 8:30:46 AM  
Are people allowed to buy/own RPGs or bazookas?  It would seem those would do much more damage from a safer distance.  Yet no one ever seems to use those except military.  Isthis a thing civilians can own?
 
2022-05-29 8:32:15 AM  

GoldSpider: Mugato: lordjupiter: If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.

I don't see what difference three years would make. Ok, this one particular 18 year old wouldn't have been able to legally buy an assault rifle but that's one kid. And really, he could have killed just as many people with two handguns.

Certainly with the kind of lead the cops were willing to spot the shooter


Yeah, he was there for an hour, which I'll never understand (some sources say 40 minutes but either way).
 
2022-05-29 8:35:12 AM  

Mugato: GoldSpider: Mugato: lordjupiter: If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.

I don't see what difference three years would make. Ok, this one particular 18 year old wouldn't have been able to legally buy an assault rifle but that's one kid. And really, he could have killed just as many people with two handguns.

Certainly with the kind of lead the cops were willing to spot the shooter

Yeah, he was there for an hour, which I'll never understand (some sources say 40 minutes but either way).


I imagine Real Texans aren't going to be impressed with these particular Heroes in Blue after the final report comes out. Being Texas, the worst that will happen is they'll get a budget increase.
 
2022-05-29 8:53:06 AM  

skin rash_oklahoma: Are people allowed to buy/own RPGs or bazookas?  It would seem those would do much more damage from a safer distance.  Yet no one ever seems to use those except military.  Isthis a thing civilians can own?


You can only keep and bear arms that don't represent a substantial threat to the government. I thought that was obvious from the language of the Second Amendment.

Seriously, though...weapons of war would have been secured in an armory back in the day, and the militia would train with them.

It would take quite a while to kill 30 children with a Brown Bess.
 
2022-05-29 8:53:15 AM  

skin rash_oklahoma: Are people allowed to buy/own RPGs or bazookas?  It would seem those would do much more damage from a safer distance.  Yet no one ever seems to use those except military.  Isthis a thing civilians can own?


IANAL. I guess these would be considered "destructive devices." That means background checks and a very stiff tax. Each shell is also a destructive device.

That's Federal law. States may ban civilian ownership outright.
 
2022-05-29 8:54:40 AM  

GoldSpider: lordjupiter: heavymetal: I think the Democrats would be better off pursuing age restrictions on them than an outright ban. Is this GOP Congressman doing it in good faith, or trying to goad the Democrats to go right to banning so they play into the right wing "gun grabbing" narrative. It's not like Republicans have not negotiated in bad faith before. Allowing an 18 year old kid to have an AR-15 is as stupid as giving a 16 year old a Ferrari as their first car. Pass age restrictions and universal background checks, then gaslight the GOP on their warnings of gun banning. Use the gas lighting to get other common sense reforms passed.

Personally I feel nothing will happen. Republicans are giving lip service, but that is because elections are drawing near. It's all about negotiating in bad faith to run out the clock.

No.  Don't back down.  Aim as high as possible because you're not going to get everything you want.  It will get negotiated down.  If you start with age restrictions you'll be lucky to even get expanded background checks.

That's right out of the Trump University course on negotiation, isn't it?

Is that simply hoe it works?  Just ask for everything and eventually it gets negotiated down to what you can live with?  Have you been paying attention to politics AT ALL in the past two decades?



Trump didn't invent high anchoring or priming or any other well-documented psychological phenomenon that affects negotiation and human interaction.
 
2022-05-29 8:55:06 AM  

The Reverend Sam Hill: skin rash_oklahoma: Are people allowed to buy/own RPGs or bazookas?  It would seem those would do much more damage from a safer distance.  Yet no one ever seems to use those except military.  Isthis a thing civilians can own?

IANAL. I guess these would be considered "destructive devices." That means background checks and a very stiff tax. Each shell is also a destructive device.

That's Federal law. States may ban civilian ownership outright.


Let me introduce you to something called "the supremacy clause".
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.