CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Gun Control thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gun Control thread - Page 3

post #101 of 2754
post #102 of 2754
Thoughts on Biden's "Buy a shotgun"?

I found it hilarious and charming, but then if he read aloud from the Necronomicon I would also find it hilarious and charming, so.
post #103 of 2754

I honestly wonder if Biden realizes what he's saying sometimes and how out of context it could be taken.

 

I did notice something amusing on a motorcycle forum I frequent; some of the resident gun nuts seemingly wanted to criticize his comments but couldn't quite articulate it as he was being somewhat of a proponent for gun ownership.

They couldn't really refer to him as "crazy" because by doing so, they would, in a roundabout way, end up pointing the crazy finger at themselves. 

post #104 of 2754

Nah, Joe's got a point. The only thing these semi-automatic rifles do better than a simple shotgun/pistol combo is kill (lots of) people. And target shooting. Neither of which is protected by the second amendment, so you get these weird arguments about actually constitutes an 'assault weapon' and how an AR-15 is no different than a candy cane, if you really think about it.

post #105 of 2754
The first paragraph in today's LA Times tells us that this weeks OC shooter was a 'gamer'.

Yeah, but what if it was just Minecraft?
post #106 of 2754
Thing is, not every gamer goes on a shooting rampage, but everyone who goes on a shooting rampage uses a gun.
post #107 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post

The first paragraph in today's LA Times tells us that this weeks OC shooter was a 'gamer'.

Yeah, but what if it was just Minecraft?


He must have had his XBL area set to  'Crazy Shooter'.

post #108 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post

The first paragraph in today's LA Times tells us that this weeks OC shooter was a 'gamer'.

I saw that coming from a mile away when I first heard about the shooting. Cue Fox News intercutting their coverage with footage of GTA San Andreas.

post #109 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

This just annoys the hell out of me as the previous posts showed. AR 15's are no more dangerous or safe than any other rifle. It's a weapon. End of story.

 

And that asshole in Newtown... he wasn't qualified to hold a licence. He *couldn't* legally buy *any* gun. By the looks of things it doesn't look like he ever get a licence. Just because his mother was a total dipshit allowed him to get a gun. There is NO gun control law that could prevent this from happening. But the hand wringing continues.

 

You know what?  You are absolutely right, and your implication that we should not do a goddamned thing about it is really progressive.  I guess "Dimwit" is meant to be ironic huh?

post #110 of 2754

Any right-thinking person knows that gun violence is caused not by guns, but by the nanny state. And poor people.

 

To be serious, though - I wonder if maybe 'hysteria' isn't the right word. Statistics show that crime has been pretty steadily declining since the 90's. The world (or at least the country) is actually less dangerous than it's been for a long time. Yet when these high-profile shootings happen, everybody freaks out - because "the government is coming for our guns!" on the one side, and because "gun violence is on the rise!" on the other. I wonder if it's not just become an ideological thing at this point, with BOTH sides eagerly taking advantage of each new tragedy to try and advance their own agenda.

 

Don't get me wrong; I'm staunchly on the pro-gun control side of the debate. Crime is in decline, and most crime victims are, like their victimizers, minorities. Yet you have this whole culture of small-town, lower-to-middle class white men (many of whom, indeed, are not exactly what you'd call fitness nuts) who seem to think that the terrorists/Latin gangs/Obama/etc. are coming to beat down their door at any moment. It's almost surreal.


Edited by TonyB79 - 2/21/13 at 5:32pm
post #111 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

 

You know what?  You are absolutely right, and your implication that we should not do a goddamned thing about it is really progressive.  I guess "Dimwit" is meant to be ironic huh?

Ok, give me a good, effective law that would prevent this. Please.

post #112 of 2754

Some famous shooters obtained their weapons legally. These men were obviously unstable, so deeper background checks (or even psych evaluations) might have prevented them getting their hands on guns in the first place.

 

Apparently people are allowed to 'gift' (transfer ownership) of guns without any oversight. Change that.

 

Prevent illegal weapons of foreign manufacture from entering the country. Make sure legal weapons of ANY nationality are rigidly tracked and accounted for, so they don't fall into the wrong hands - or if they do, the authorities will know about it.

 

Impose harsher penalties for illegally owning or carrying a firearm. This might result in fewer guns "on the street," as small-time criminals will elect not to carry them (a risk/reward thing). Fewer guns on the street equals fewer guns for nutball shooters to potentially buy.

post #113 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

Ok, give me a good, effective law that would prevent this. Please.

 

Again, you are absolutely right.  In fact, you know what?  People steal things even thought it's illegal, so we should make theft legal, why not? We can't prevent it with just some words on a piece of paper.  It happens all the time.

 

Also, you can't prevent murder, rape, arson, tax evasion, any of those things!  What we really need to do is abolish all laws.  Preach on Dimwit!  Lead to that Libertarian Utopia!

 

Fucking Christ, dude.  Stop listening to your idiot crybaby conservative radio hosts and actually think about this stuff for a minute.  If these "legal" weapons weren't legal, Lanza's mom wouldn't have been able to buy them and the fucktard wouldn't have been able to steal them.  It's really not hard to figure out.

post #114 of 2754

Yeah, that's what I've been saying since that Wonka meme started going around last year.  The conservative line that criminals don't follow laws, so what's the point of outlawing guns is a nonsensical argument that essentially states all laws are meaningless.  Because, I guess, good people are good, and bad people are bad, and laws have nothing to do with how people act.

post #115 of 2754

I stupidly waded into a conservative talk show hosts debate. I made the point that, if better gun control saves just one life, isn't it worth it? He responded with (and I shit you not, I really wish I was making this up):

 

"I knew someone would go there: "if it saves one life". You could justify anything and everything that way. How about imprisoning all African-American young men? That might save one life... very, very weak."

 

I was just too flabbergasted to respond. I mean, holy shit racism, Batman. In this man's mind, being locked up because of your race is comparable to....being told you can't have a gun that shoots 1,000 rounds a second? You just can't even....debate with someone who thinks like that. They live in a whole other reality, where even SUGGESTING "Hey, do you really need an AK-47?" is akin to having ACTUAL FUCKING FREEDOMS TAKEN AWAY. 

 

So you know what? Fuck the Second Amendment and everyone who holds that as a right equal to (and more important than) the right to free speech, religion, press, due process...my right NOT to get shot trumps your right to have unfettered access to any and all type of firearm. 

 

Oh, and apparently he talked about me on the air...on his show...where I couldn't possibly respond...I don't have the capacity to even engage someone with that mentality, but if any fellow Chewers would like to take a swing at this guy, feel free to ask and I'll point you in his direction. 

post #116 of 2754
Syd, you're arguing with people who want to have the right to kill someone. Saving lives means fuck all to them.
post #117 of 2754

That's a good point, actually. If you're buying a stockpile of guns "just in case" the day comes when the Government or those Latino gangs come crashing through your door, you've crossed the line from "Always be prepared!" to "I actively am hoping for a day when I get to shoot people." 

post #118 of 2754

Vice President Joe Biden gives his advice on self-defense. Ha I love Biden he is pure stream of consciousness so awesome.

 

 

Reminds me of those Onion pictures mocking him around the 2012 presidential election.

post #119 of 2754

Did you catch the supposed women who asked the question suggesting he was sexist for telling her different?

That's pretty funny.  It was basically a case of there being one answer to the question and if JB doesn't give it, well he's in some kind of trouble.  And she's got the tactics all figured out too  ("criminals" are always basically militarised aren't they?  Funny that)

 

By coincidence I've been watching and reading all of Bruce Schneier's stuff on security lately (most from a tech security standpoint), but he gets very frank and general about the psychology.  Basically people who are trying to protect themselves against outlier occurrences are deluding themselves and its a basic cognitive dissonance to all the risks you ignore or shuffle off as externalities/someone else taking care of it on a moment by moment basis.  All simply because they aren't as personal and scary as the idea of some dude breaking into your house to personally attack you.

Should policy be decided by that sort of thinking?  really?  (of course, it is all the time)

post #120 of 2754

Good news.

 

Quote:

Sweeping gun-control legislation proposed by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) advanced in the state Senate late Wednesday, with lawmakers tightening restrictions on gun purchases by the mentally ill and offering token concessions on tough new licensing requirements.

 

Bad news.

 

Quote:

Newspapers face death threats over requests for public records on gun ownership

 

Routine requests for public records have become anything but routine for some newspapers these days.

 

For the third time in as many months, a newspaper has faced an angry backlash, including threats of violence, after it sought government data on local gun permit holders. In the two most recent instances, the newspapers rescinded requests for the documents amid the outcry, with one issuing an abject apology to its readers and the local sheriff for daring to seek the information in the first place.

...

The editor of a small newspaper in western North Carolina, the Cherokee Scout, resigned Tuesday after an angry reaction from readers over the paper’s request for records of people who have or have applied for concealed-carry weapons permits. The editor, Robert Horne, and members of his staff had been subjected to death threats after Horne wrote to Cherokee County Sheriff Keith Lovin two weeks ago seeking the records. Lovin declined to release the information and posted the request on his Facebook page, triggering public condemnation of the media outlet.

 

Although the paper said it didn’t intend to publish names and wanted the lists for more general stories about guns, its publisher, David Brown, later acknowledged “a tremendous error in judgment” in seeking the information. In a published note to readers, he said the newspaper had withdrawn its application and apologized to Lovin.
post #121 of 2754

as an addendum to Trav's post above...

I read this yesterday on Gawker

 

Quote:

The NRA Wants to Keep Gun Records Secret From Everyone Except the NRA

 

Legislators and gun rights advocates get really angry whenever nosy reporters try to use public records laws to find out who's packing heat. When the Westchester Journal News published an online map of local residents with handgun licenses last year, the paper was excoriated by the NRA and its allies; it eventually took the map down. When Gawker published a similar list—without addresses—of New York City handgun permit-holders last month, we were attacked by Fox News and received multiple death threats. And when the editor of the North Carolina Cherokee Scout dared to request—not publish, but merely request—similar data from his local sheriff, he was forced to apologize and resign; he plans to leave the state entirely.

 

All of which makes it more surprising that, according to a Gawker search of public records, gun-rights groups—including the National Rifle Association—have been accessing the same state gun-permit data for years to help their fundraising and recruitment efforts.

<cont.>

Quote:

But while the NRA has lately become one of the harshest critics of fourth estate access gun permit data—it has said "personal information regarding [permit] holders serves no public interest and only exposes law-abiding citizens to potential criminal acts" and places them at "risk to criminals who may target their home to steal firearms"—the group holds itself to a very different standard.

 

When Tennessee first tried to make gun records private in 2009, the effort died "amid fears that political groups and gun advocates would no longer be able to access addresses of handgun carry permit holders to add to their mailing list soliciting contributions," according to the Associated Press.

Indeed, in a survey of public records requests filed in 7 of the states that make (or formerly made) gun records public (we're still waiting on answers from 9 more), Gawker found multiple examples of the NRA and other conservative, "pro-gun" partisans seeking the lists for their own political and fundraising gain.

post #122 of 2754

Rolling Stone article on how the gun industry sees assault weapons as their future.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gun-industrys-deadly-addiction-20130228

post #123 of 2754

I actually agree with the criticism of the papers publishing names and addresses of gun permit holders. If it was a sex offender list, or a list of people convicted of gun-related crimes, it would be one thing. But, much as I agree with the general mission of gun control advocates, I don't think putting private information on the internet is the answer. (Especially information related to an extremely sensitive and controversial topic, which COULD lead to the private citizens in question - who, again, have committed no crime - being harassed, embarrassed, etc.) I mean, what's the purpose of publishing this data? "Avoid these people, as they are gun permit holders and, thus, are obviously dangerous and creepy?" And I say this as a man who never has and probably never will own a firearm.

 

If they just want to publish or analyze statistics or whatever, that's one thing. But if I DID happen to own a gun, I wouldn't want my name plastered on a list that may as well be labeled, "Look at THESE Assholes: Gun Ownership in the Great State of Ohio."

post #124 of 2754

post #125 of 2754

So, Michael Moore has called for the release of  photos of the victims of the Newtown shooting.

 

While I do have my own issues with MM, I find myself sort of agreeing with him here. 

 

Of course there are big problems with something of this nature. One one hand, it would be incredibly sensationalistic and pander to the the base emotions of people. There is also the issue of becoming desensitized to violent imagery (too late?) and dismissive of said images with a shrug.

 

On the other hand, maybe the people here in the U.S. need to see the photos of the damage that modern day firearms are capable of inflicting on the human body.

Perhaps this would be the only way for people to be made aware that having some of these military style firearms (both rifle and handgun) isn't necessarily a good thing.   

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm conflicted. I think 'The Wild Bunch' is a great film and catch 'Justified' every week and have even enjoyed target shooting on occasion but I think the American populace needs to be woken up to the damage that these weapons are truly capable of and maybe, just maybe some restrictions on them might be a good thing to consider.

 

 

America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)

 

<excerpt>

Quote:

 

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs – of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

 

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

 

Bush was able to pull it off because his handlers, Misters Cheney and Rumsfeld, knew that the most important thing to do from the get-go was to control the images of the war, to guarantee that nothing like a My Lai-style photograph ever appeared in the U.S. press.

 

And that is why you never see a picture any more of the kind of death and destruction that might make you get up off your couch and run out of the house screaming bloody murder at those responsible for these atrocities.

 

That is why now, after the children's massacre in Newtown, the absolute last thing the National Rifle Association wants out there in the public domain is ANY images of what happened that tragic day.

 

But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

 

video MM linked in is editorial - 30-06 Springfield Remington 55gr Accelerator impacting ballistic gelatin

post #126 of 2754

That is appalling.  I get that Moore's shtick is shock "journalism", but broadcasting pictures of murdered and mutilated children is sick.

 

I think a better way to handle this would be to put David Keene and Wayne LaPierre in an AR-15 firing line and unload 20-30 clips into them.  Televise it live so everyone can see what these weapons are capable of in amazing full color 3D slo-motion.

post #127 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

That is appalling.  I get that Moore's shtick is shock "journalism", but broadcasting pictures of murdered and mutilated children is sick.

 

I think a better way to handle this would be to put David Keene and Wayne LaPierre in an AR-15 firing line and unload 20-30 clips into them.  Televise it live so everyone can see what these weapons are capable of in amazing full color 3D slo-motion.

 

Putting aside MM's 'shtick' for a moment, I can't help but wonder if it will take some sort of 'shock' in order to wake the American populace up to the horrors and magnitude of gun violence in this country.

 

Just as he mentioned, the visual imagery of violence can be a potent catalyst for change. Cheney and those other neocon motherfuckers were scared that if they started showing video of dead american soldiers on the nightly news, the would loose any semblance of support for the invasion/occupation of Iraq much earlier than what actually happened.  They purposefully wanted to keep the American people in the dark, literally....they would only allow dead/wounded soldiers to be brought in under the cover of darkness. 

 

It's ironic seeing that there is a huge amount of violence on TV, yet America is mostly insulated from it's effects. Perhaps willfully so?? 

 

The LaPierre idea is interesting although I think the man is some sort of Golem created by the firearms manufacturers and is impervious to any weapon, so....

post #128 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

That is appalling.  I get that Moore's shtick is shock "journalism", but broadcasting pictures of murdered and mutilated children is sick.

That it's sickening and appalling is precisely Moore's point; that this debate takes place in a climate where the public is insulated from the damage being done by the free flow of firearms.

Having had a while to ponder Moore's suggestion, I'm almost afraid that he's underestimating the public's cowardice and the boost that the footage would lend to arms sales.
Edited by Reasor - 3/18/13 at 12:07am
post #129 of 2754

Also, on a very basic level you seem to be confusing something that is shocking with shock journalism.  They're not always the same thing by a long shot.  Could these photos be used to exploitative purpose?  Certainly.  Does that mean they should never be seen by public eyes?  I don't think so.  Part of the gun control debate is where to draw the line with regard to firepower.  These photos presumably speak to the fact that some people feel like these weapons put way too much killing power in the hands of a private individual.

post #130 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


video MM linked in is editorial - 30-06 Springfield Remington 55gr Accelerator impacting ballistic gelatin

 

That's actually nothing. It might have been taken down now, as I can't seem to find it, but there used to be a long form advert on youtube (one of many) for anti-personel rounds,  described and shown in loving detail the way the round spreads and spins as it impacts the target, becoming a flying blender blade.  The demos were done using high speed photography of balistics gel and large slabs of actual meat, showing that same kind of inflation.  Then the demonstrator proudly fingering the two inch hole afterwards and saying something like "Now that's the sort of injury that's going to make a determined intruder stop and think".  And then montage of it destroying animals of all shapes and sizes as well.

 

It must have been taken down.  It was pretty horrifying.  But while I sort of get Moore's plan and people do seem to treat shooting someone as a fairly...detached and sanitary exercise a lot of the time,  there a fairly large sector that takes pride in being tough enough to face "reality" and it'll only egg them on.  They've already got their self defense scenario worked out in their head and it often involves abstract dreams of gorily mangling "criminals".  (I'm actually optimistic that if it really came to that they'd see, or rather feel, the difference between imagination and reality pretty fast.  But it's not something you can really make happen to steer them away from all this, obviously)

post #131 of 2754

If in the 80s I had to sit through filmstrips of mutilated teens in auto accidents to get my driver's license (do they still do that?), then potential gun owners should have to sit through hours of slideshows of police photography taken at massacre scenes and domestic gun accident wounds and deaths in order to get their gun license.

post #132 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
...there a fairly large sector that takes pride in being tough enough to face "reality" and it'll only egg them on.  They've already got their self defense scenario worked out in their head and it often involves abstract dreams of gorily mangling "criminals".  (I'm actually optimistic that if it really came to that they'd see, or rather feel, the difference between imagination and reality pretty fast.  But it's not something you can really make happen to steer them away from all this, obviously)

 

On a motorcycle forum I frequent, the above statement is an understatement. There are a number of guys that are 100% convinced that guns will save them from the hoards of  illegal immigrant rapists that will be pouring over the borders and will be heading directly to the suburbs to break down their doors and sell their children into slavery. OK, that might be a little extreme.....just a little. You could present them with all the evidence in the world that contradicts their worldview but they would ignore and/or dismiss it as part of a conspiracy.

To many of these gun owners, it's become a matter of faith and the gun is their salvation.

 

In a roundabout way, 'The Walking Dead' is doing a huge disservice to America as the self same 'patriots' are looking at this show and saying, "I know this TV show isn't real....BUT you never know...it could happen so I better buy some more guns and ammo"

 

 

post #133 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trav McGee View Post

If in the 80s I had to sit through filmstrips of mutilated teens in auto accidents to get my driver's license (do they still do that?), then potential gun owners should have to sit through hours of slideshows of police photography taken at massacre scenes and domestic gun accident wounds and deaths in order to get their gun license.

 

Photos might help but one thing that I read that made some sense regarding the impact of violence is the smell that surrounds death after a day or so.

I've read that smell is the one sense that has the most impact. A combination of visual and aromatic stimulus would increase the impact.

 

I'm not saying we should go all Ludovico, but something a little more extreme is needed in order to overcome the desensitization that already exists in our society.

post #134 of 2754

Apparently I missed this the first time around....from Jan.

 

Quote:

“There is evil prowling in the world – it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds,” he said. “As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.”

 

-Rick Perry

 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/16/rick-perry-pray-for-help-rather-than-passing-gun-laws/

 

If I may.....FUCK YOU Rick Perry, you ignorant sack of crap.

Yeah, prayer will do the trick.....how did praying for rain work out when you had all those fires a year or so back?

post #135 of 2754

I think you're expecting too much from Perry, for example look at this 2012 campaign ad entitles "Strong"

 

 

 

Sort of speaks for itself how much of an awful person he is, though it makes me laugh that he's basically wearing the jacket Heath Ledge did in Brokeback Mountain

post #136 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Apparently I missed this the first time around....from Jan.

 

 

If I may.....FUCK YOU Rick Perry, you ignorant sack of crap.

Yeah, prayer will do the trick.....how did praying for rain work out when you had all those fires a year or so back?

 

But see, in this case he really wants nothing to be changed or stopped.  He wants us to do nothing.  So advising people to pray pretty much accomplishes that.

post #137 of 2754
Quote:
Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice.

 

 That's weird, I seem to recall God being pretty big on laws, too.

post #138 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

 That's weird, I seem to recall God being pretty big on laws, too.

Hell, on most Sunday mornings, the preachers like to claim that the Ten Commandments are the origin of all modern law. No, this was a dig at secularism for its own sake, as if we're to somehow stop noticing that the moral instruction offered by modern churches begins and ends with "affiliate with our brand, instead of our competitors, and have a really conflicted relationship with your own sexuality."
post #139 of 2754

Scalia Court says that "dangerous and unusual" arms are OK to be banned. So, why not ban and destroy all guns, start up state organized militias of sword wielding warriors, and declare guns to be "dangerous AND unusual arms"?


Edited by Dr Harford - 3/19/13 at 3:37pm
post #140 of 2754
Yeah figured this would be an uphill battle, but sad they basically gave up without a fight. Guessing limiting the magazine size will be killed too and only thing passing would be the background checks for all sales but without the records being kept, which essentially worthless.

Wow thanks a lot to the milquetoast Democratic Party! Jeez why are we voting for you again?

http://rt.com/usa/senate-drops-assault-weapons-ban-505/
post #141 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

Yeah figured this would be an uphill battle, but sad they basically gave up without a fight. Guessing limiting the magazine size will be killed too and only thing passing would be the background checks for all sales but without the records being kept, which essentially worthless.

Wow thanks a lot to the milquetoast Democratic Party! Jeez why are we voting for you again?

http://rt.com/usa/senate-drops-assault-weapons-ban-505/

"Eeee but if we fight back ever, the other side will bombard the airwaves with attack ads and we'll looooooose! Then we won't be reelected! Because that's the whole point of electing us, isn't it? To make sure we're elected again? You guys didn't actually elect us to DO anything or stand up to these people, did you?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

In a roundabout way, 'The Walking Dead' is doing a huge disservice to America as the self same 'patriots' are looking at this show and saying, "I know this TV show isn't real....BUT you never know...it could happen so I better buy some more guns and ammo"

 

 

"The Governor wants your guns, Andrea!"
"What? You're TAKING AWAY MY GUNS!"

"That's right! He raped people and made people fight to the death in zombie arenas, but now you REALLY know he's bad!"

post #142 of 2754

This bit from Real Time is a bit of pragmatism to the whole gun control debate....

 

"...the US is in the old, fat Elvis stage of it's life...it's crazy and has guns"

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-throws-cold-water-on-gun-control-you-can-do-all-this-st-its-not-going-to-change-anything/


Edited by VTRan - 3/21/13 at 12:36pm
post #143 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Scalia Court says that "dangerous and unusual" arms are OK to be banned.

 

First they come for the unusuals, then they come for the crates, and finally they come for the hats! 

post #144 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

 

First they come for the unusuals, then they come for the crates, and finally they come for the hats! 

 

They are never getting my Vintage Pyro Beanie. NEVER.

post #145 of 2754
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

"...the US is in the old, fat Elvis age of it's life...it's crazy and has guns"

 

So... we're gonna eat a few too many peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwiches, and die on the toilet any day now?  Sounds about right.

 

I can't find a link unfortunately, but I caught a snippet of an NPR interview with Biden on my drive home yesterday.  I'm going from memory, so paraphrasing, but this line cracked me up re: extended magazines.  "Some hunters may argue that they need a 30 round magazine, but honestly, if you can't bring down a deer with more than 3 rounds, you have no business hunting.  You're a disgrace."

post #146 of 2754
And to answer LaPierre and the NRA more guns are the answer, well here's a shooting that just happened Quantico at wher now three Marines, including the gunmen are dead. Yep more guns are the answer!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/03/22/quantico-shooting_n_2929766.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
post #147 of 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

And to answer LaPierre and the NRA more guns are the answer, well here's a shooting that just happened Quantico at wher now three Marines, including the gunmen are dead. Yep more guns are the answer!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/03/22/quantico-shooting_n_2929766.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

If those marines had had more guns (three or four each, minimum) this wouldn't have happened.

post #148 of 2754

Self inflicted, eh?  If it comes out that the shooter was schizophrenic, they can just argue that a bad guy with a gun WAS in fact stopped by a good guy with a gun.

post #149 of 2754

Sounds like a love triangle mixed with, and I'm guessing, bad emotional and mental states. If the commentators on the various articles are any indication (dear god, why am I reading those...) then only MPs have guns on base, so this guy probably swiped one or smuggled it in. However, I still believe having a gun means dick if someone, who also has a gun, gets the drop on you. Can't shoot back when you're dead.

post #150 of 2754

So...are they for or against the 2nd Amendment?

 

Quote:

Gun shop blocks Mark Kelly’s right to buy AR-15, citing political ‘intent’

 

The owner of a gun shop in Tucson, Arizona on Monday refused to hand over an AR-15 military-style rifle that Mark Kelly purchased in order to demonstrate how easy it was to obtain assault weapons.

 

In a statement posted to Facebook, Diamondback Police Supply owner Doug MacKinlay said that he was blocking the former astronaut’s Second Amendment right because he questioned the political “intent” behind the purchase.

 

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use,” MacKinlay wrote.

 

Kelly, who is the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), said that he had purchased the rifle to show how easy it was to pass a background check. The effort was part of his push for more gun control in response to his wife’s shooting and other recent mass shootings.

 

A weapon similar to the Sig Sauer M400 was used last year to gun down 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

MacKinlay promised to refund all of Kelly’s money and raffle the weapon off to support the Arizona Tactical Officers Association.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Gun Control thread