Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#702 Feb 08 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.

Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#703 Feb 08 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Pretend you have no position on gun ownership and look at the data.
Interesting you should mention that. If you look at the data of Clackamas and Westroads, two examples you gave as good execution and bad execution of Concealed Carry laws, you'd notice that the only difference between the two policies is that Clackamas costs $35 less to get. But, you know: Pretend you have no position and look at the data and etc etc.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 12:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#704 Feb 08 2013 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#705 Feb 08 2013 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
Hey, Meli is a hero and a god amongst men and if you'd be truthful to yourself you'd absolutely agree. If only someone in Nebraska had $35 more they could have stopped a genocide as well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#706 Feb 08 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Putting Clackamas and good execution in the same sentence is a red flag by itself.
Hey, Meli is a hero and a god amongst men and if you'd be truthful to yourself you'd absolutely agree. If only someone in Nebraska had $35 more they could have stopped a genocide as well.

I'm sure he's special in many ways.

So are these people.

Quote:

In the past decade, Clackamas River has burned through six general and interim managers and, because of recurring accusations of mismanagement, submitted to three expensive special audits and a half-dozen ethics and workplace complaints. Currently, the water district is entrenched in six lawsuits and an FBI inquiry.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#707 Feb 08 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.

Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.


After 86 they stopped producing them for the civilian market but you can still legally own any fully automatic rifles produced before then.

But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.
#708 Feb 08 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.

Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#709 Feb 08 2013 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
An AR-15? Ha, easier just to build a machine gun from scratch.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 2:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#710 Feb 08 2013 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,517 posts
I'd like to point out that non homicidal gun deaths, e.g. suicides and accidental shooting deaths, are also worthy of prevention too.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#711 Feb 08 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown


Smiley: banghead

Possession and use are separate ******* things.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#712 Feb 08 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Quote:
I'd like to point out that non homicidal gun deaths, e.g. suicides and accidental shooting deaths, are also worthy of prevention too.


I disagree. If someone wants to off themselves, hey, more soylent green for me.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#713 Feb 08 2013 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown


Smiley: banghead

Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.


Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.
#714 Feb 08 2013 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
If she hadn't left it in the fridge next to the sandwiches her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people, either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#715 Feb 08 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown


Smiley: banghead

Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.


Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.


I assumed BD was talking about the controversy over whether the Newtown whack job actully used that particular rifle or if it was just in the trunk of the car. I have heard conflicting stories and I am not sure what the final consensus was. Some have said there were two rifles, and the one in the car was a spare.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 3:24pm by Belkira
#716 Feb 08 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Remember when I said you were making points irrelevant to the argument? You're doing it again. That's why people are wondering where you're getting these gun-free zones/concealment laws. It's because you're bypassing the overall concerns expressed by the people and arguing your points that are irrelevant to the subject.


Huh? I'd wager that 8 out of the 10 pages of this thread have consisted of me arguing for elimination of gun free zones and broadening of concealed carry, and several other people arguing against me. That's hardly "irrelevant". It's what this thread has largely been about. It's only been in the last page that someone piped up with the whole "but that's not what anyone's arguing about". Um... It's what I'm arguing about. I don't really care what you think other people want to argue over.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 4:20pm by gbaji


I'd wager that 8 of 10 pages of this forum, people were wondering why you were bringing up irrelevant points. You might as well talk about immigration reform. All you're doing is intentionally avoiding the topic by scapegoating everything that avoids actually involving implementing gun control.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#717 Feb 08 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,817 posts
Torrence wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Torrence wrote:
we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.

Automatic weapons are, by in large, illegal for civilian ownership. I assume you mean semi-automatic.


After 86 they stopped producing them for the civilian market but you can still legally own any fully automatic rifles produced before then.

But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.

You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#718 Feb 08 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Kastigir wrote:

You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.


What part of my statement was factually inaccurate? Civilians can own machine guns that were manufactured before 86. I didn't say it was easy to register one - you have to have an FBI background check, fingerprints, letters from law officials and other stuff - I just said they could.
#719 Feb 08 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,817 posts
Torrence wrote:
Kastigir wrote:

You might want to check your facts. Fully automatic weapons were pretty much outlawed in 1934 for civilian ownership unless you had a Class III or higher FFL.


What part of my statement was factually inaccurate? Civilians can own machine guns that were manufactured before 86. I didn't say it was easy to register one - you have to have an FBI background check, fingerprints, letters from law officials and other stuff - I just said they could.

I guess "factually" you're correct, but your statement made it seem "trivially easy" to own an automatic weapon.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#720 Feb 08 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Belkira wrote:
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown


Smiley: banghead

Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.


Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.


I assumed BD was talking about the controversy over whether the Newtown whack job actully used that particular rifle or if it was just in the trunk of the car. I have heard conflicting stories and I am not sure what the final consensus was. Some have said there were two rifles, and the one in the car was a spare.


This, but more so, the official police report stated that only the two pistols were fired at the school. I heard conflicting reports about which weapon was used to kill his mother, but the evidence released makes it pretty clear that the rifle remained in the car during the school assault. People like to keep throwing it out there because it makes the story more sensational, but it's blatantly false information.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#721 Feb 08 2013 at 7:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The hundreds of thousands used in "non mass" homicides are unimportant, clearly.


Clearly. If they were important to the Obama administration, then why wait for a mass shooting to push for changes to the small vendor loophole?

Torrence wrote:
Quote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?


Many of us don't oppose it at all, we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities.


Good thing those have been illegal for civilian activities since the 1930s then!

Quote:
There's guns designed for hunting and protection, and others designed to just kill as many people with as little effort in a short a time as possible. That latter type of gun only belongs in the hands of trained military or police personnel - not strapped to Joe the Bookkeeper's back.


Do you see why some of us on the right have a hard time taking that position seriously when you insist on associating those other weapons with the phrase "automatic assault rifles"? You'd sound a lot more reasonable if you stopped doing that.

Quote:
As far as you wanting to expand concealed carry because it would help to deter such crimes - not sure that would help. Expanding open carry might, because when 20 year old 130lbs soaking wet psycho #93849 looks around and sees four or five tough looking guys with a handguns on their hips, he might think twice about taking that AR-15 out from under his trench coat and opening fire into the crowd.


No. If concealed carry is not allowed, but open carry is, he'll just find a place where he doesn't see people with openly carried handguns on their hips and open fire. If concealed carry is allowed, then he can't know if someone in the crowd has a firearm and can't therefore pick a time and location where he can maximize the body count. This might deter him or might not, but it will certainly increase the odds that someone will be in the immediate vicinity of the shooting with the ability to actually do something about it.

Quote:
Then again, he might not. It still seems like it would be better to just take that AR-15 out of the equation entirely.


Except you can't. Well, you can ban the "AR-15", but then he'll just use some other weapon. Taking the AR-15 out of the equation would not have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter. You're chasing the wrong end of the equation. Banning the current weapon of choice will just make something else become the weapon of choice. That's a never ending process that can only end in banning of all firearms, which everyone claims is not really the objective. So if we don't want to ban all firearms, then we should maybe come up with an idea that can't work unless we do just that.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#722 Feb 08 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Like, say, much heavier restrictions on firearms without banning them?

I'm sure that's never been tried anywhere before. Uganda, maybe.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#723 Feb 08 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
But you are right, I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown when I posted that. Still way too much firepower for any civilian to reasonably need access to for protection and hunting.

Also, takes about 15 minutes and a vague understanding of tools to convert to full auto.


Strange that the Newtown shooter didn't take the time to do that. Nor the Colorado Theater shooter. Nor either of the mall shooters mentioned earlier. Or the Columbine shooters. So what was your point again?

Oh. And how many of those "hundreds of thousands" of gun crimes are committed with such modified weapons? It's a scary myth told to people who don't know any better.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#724 Feb 08 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Like, say, much heavier restrictions on firearms without banning them?


What restrictions would meet the desired criteria but would not require a ban of sufficient breadth that it could not be passed under the 2nd amendment? We're talking about window dressing here Joph. It's pablum to soothe the angry and ignorant masses. But when the next shooting still occurs despite whatever regulations are passed, what then? When do we realize that this approach wont work and actually look at the ones that will have a measurable benefit?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#725 Feb 08 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ah, here you were saying "Nothing will work without banning all guns!" and then the response to "We don't need to ban all guns" is apparently "That won't work! MORE GUNS!!!"

Right. Well, keep tootin' that horn.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#726 Feb 08 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ah, here you were saying "Nothing will work without banning all guns!" and then the response to "We don't need to ban all guns" is apparently "That won't work! MORE GUNS!!!"


And yet, when I asked what restrictions on firearms (short of banning to the point of violation of the 2nd amendment) would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings, you didn't give me an answer.


Edited, Feb 8th 2013 5:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#727 Feb 08 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, no. Did you expect me to write legislation for you or something? Am I supposed to cling to some gossamer hope that I'll write the perfect response and have you say "You're right! Those restrictions would make a difference!"

C'mon, man. Be a little serious. There's gotta be a carrot here if you want me to move forward with your posts Smiley: laugh

I'd probably start by looking at the laws in all those nations that don't count are. Maybe I'd look at their social welfare systems and educational systems as well as long as I was on their websites.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#728 Feb 08 2013 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama's old GOP opponent for the IL senate seat wants you to know that Obama's plan regarding gun control is to eliminate some 90% of the global population.



(1) Take away the guns
(2) Cull the masses until there's only hundreds of millions of people left on the planet
(3) ???
(4) Obama = Mad Max Overlord
(5) Profit!


Edited, Feb 8th 2013 8:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#729 Feb 08 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
So you support a policy of increased restrictions on gun ownership, even though you can't yourself think of any such restrictions (absent bans in violation of the 2nd amendment) which would actually help with regard to these sorts of shootings. How do you reconcile that with your previously stated position that you don't support violating/infringing/removing/whatever the 2nd amendment? I mean, that's like insisting that you don't want to hit your friend in the face with a baseball bat, but then also insisting on swinging it directly at his face with no idea how you'll stop from hitting him. And when your friend points this out you just say "Hah! That's crazy! I have no intention of hitting you with this bat. Now stand still...".


And you wonder why folks on the right don't believe the whole "we have no intention of attacking your 2nd amendment rights" line? Cause that would seem a legitimate concern when you can't yourself explain how what you're trying to do will accomplish what you want it to accomplish without doing just that.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 6:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#730 Feb 08 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Smiley: facepalm
#731 Feb 08 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#732 Feb 08 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.
There is no way - at all - ever to "prevent" this kind of shooting. Ever. We may find a way to dimish the frequency of occurences, but not eliminate them. Try to rewrite you argument without that proviso.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#733 Feb 08 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Nowhere in the second amendment does it say you have the right to bear any 700 rpm arm you can get your hands on, so banning anything short of a musket still wouldn't really be a violation. More interesting is if you consider that we don't let Shmucky the Janitor go squirrel hunting with an M2 that we're already violating the amendment anyway and completely okay with it. I'm absolutely against banning of weapons (I'd love to go squirrel hunting with a ma duece), but crying "second amendment violation!" is so stupid.

I know you're pretending that no one has given suggestions, but I've already pointed out I'm all for a national database and better tracking of guns for better background checks, more than an 8 hour class for ownership that we currently have (I'm a huge believer in mandatory training), limited magazine sizes, and I'll add now, since I actually looked it up for a bunch of states, but the requirement of 18 month residency prior to obtaining the initial permit, a requirement of going through complete renewal processes if you move to a different state (which means no 18 month wait, but full background check etc etc) and associated fees (don't care if you still have a year on your previous permit, this way the owner and weapon's location is better tracked), no "our state permit means it's good in 38 states!" and no non-residency permits bullshit, but a stipulation specifically for people who travel interstate and can prove the need, and a severe fine and charges (depending on the crime) for losing and not reporting a lost or stolen weapon. Something like criminally negligent manslaughter. Kid stole your weapon and went on a spree? Fuck you, you go to jail too.

Not perfect, but better than both the "no guns!" and "more guns!" arguments gbaji seems to be having with himself.

Edited, Feb 8th 2013 10:33pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#734 Feb 08 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
There is a certain mind set which holds fervently to the belief that if you can't solve all problems, you shouldn't spend effort and resources solving any.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#735 Feb 08 2013 at 11:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings.


We don't usually let a convicted felon own guns. You demonstrate you can't trusted with one, you don't get one. People don't seem to mind that so much. So there's certainly some precedent for restricting gun rights.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#736 Feb 09 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
I'll think of a plan. However, my prediction is that you will not meet me half-way, but either spend time arguing how it's too much, wont work or just ignore it all together.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#737 Feb 09 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If she hadn't left it in the fridge next to the sandwiches her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people, either.


Further evidence that maybe the population at large just isn't responsible enough for this kind of firepower.

BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Torrence wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Torrence wrote:
I was specifically thinking of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used in Newtown


Smiley: banghead

Possession and use are separate @#%^ing things.


Not really sure what you are trying to say. The conversation around the country is about what firearms are reasonable for the average citizen to own. That rifle is currently one of them, and if it hadn't been, it's doubtful that Nancy Lanza would have had it since she did have all her firearms registered properly. If she hadn't possessed it, her son couldn't have used it to murder almost thirty people.


I assumed BD was talking about the controversy over whether the Newtown whack job actully used that particular rifle or if it was just in the trunk of the car. I have heard conflicting stories and I am not sure what the final consensus was. Some have said there were two rifles, and the one in the car was a spare.


This, but more so, the official police report stated that only the two pistols were fired at the school. I heard conflicting reports about which weapon was used to kill his mother, but the evidence released makes it pretty clear that the rifle remained in the car during the school assault. People like to keep throwing it out there because it makes the story more sensational, but it's blatantly false information.




Blatantly false? Well, when confronted with conflicting news sources, one can always turn to the actual police report for the facts.

Conneticut Cops say...

He used the AR-15 and fired about 150 rounds. Do you, and be very careful here, seriously think that a twenty year old kid with two handguns could rack up almost thirty kill shots among a panicking public? The closest that guy got to firearms training was Call of Duty on his xbox. Generally I like your posting style and your "shut the **** up, stupid" responses, but you have no idea what the **** you are talking about here. They pulled a 12 gauge out of his trunk.
#738 Feb 09 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.

Sure, how about only people who belong to a "well regulated militia" get to own guns.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#739 Feb 09 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Can I just mention that it tickles me to be gone doing other stuff and return to a string of Gbaji saying "No answer, huh? HUH?" Smiley: laugh

Makes me imagine him just sitting there all night, shouting at a blank screen.

Quote:
Sure, how about only people who belong to a "well regulated militia" get to own guns.

Personally, I think we need a re-interpreting of the 2nd Amendment. Someone go place some banana peels on the Supreme Court steps...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#740 Feb 09 2013 at 11:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
So what makes the average untrained citizen so special when these guys who are required to take all the gun training in the book get it wrong.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,7478164,full.story
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#741 Feb 09 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Moxie!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#742 Feb 09 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
oh son of a ***** that story is in its own **** thread.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#743 Feb 09 2013 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Samira wrote:
There is a certain mind set which holds fervently to the belief that if you can't solve all problems, you shouldn't spend effort and resources solving any.


Solving problems is a slippery slope.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#744 Feb 09 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.


Steps:

1. Acknowledge that we (the US) have a "gun problem". Yes, there are other factors involved, but those factors don't take away from the actual gun problem. Yes, gun control affects "law abiding citizens" unfairly, but so do every other law created. Furthermore, every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" and legally purchasing a firearm doesn't make you a "law abiding citizen". It means that you legally purchased a weapon, just how a thief legally purchased gas to fuel his car. Therefore, the term and concept takes away from the problem.

2. Determine what types of firearms should be accessible to the general public. This needs to be generalized across the nation. Allow states to add to, but not allow to take away. Realize that the average person does not need access to weapons with large magazines, certain automatic settings, etc.

3. Ban the production, buying, trading, selling, importing, etc. of the aforesaid weapons.

4. Implement a national background check to include factors such as people living in the same house.

5. Standardized national necessary gun training for purchase. States can add to, but can not take away.

6. Out of state purchases will be treated by the laws of the sellers home of record listed in the database and proven by the seller at purchase.

7. Implement new and enforce current auditing for gun vendors to include a database correlating with the national background check.

8. Implement and conduct an UNANNOUNCED Don't Ask Don't Tell gun buy back program at a later date. Add benefits like a tax write offs to people to return guns that were banned.

9. Any possession of illegal weapons will result in "harsh" punishment. For example 5+ years in prison based on the weapon. This excludes weapons in the buy back program but includes vendors caught in buying/selling illegal weapons through audits.

10. Implement strict "gun-free" zones in high crime areas which include rent-a-cops (job creation Hooah!) and metal detectors. Implement "show me your papers" metal detector searches during certain hours and certain places (i.e. 2200-0500 at the park, car-wash) with stated signs.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#745 Feb 09 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,602 posts
Almalieque wrote:
10. Implement strict "gun-free" zones in high crime areas which include rent-a-cops (job creation Hooah!) and metal detectors. Implement "show me your papers" metal detector searches during certain hours and certain places (i.e. 2200-0500 at the park, car-wash) with stated signs.


This one, I don't know...

It might be easier to just sew color coded symbols on peoples clothing. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#746 Feb 09 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Yea, I can see that going horribly wrong and thought twice about putting that in there. However, to be fair, there have to be laws "attacking" intentional law-breakers. I figure if there are posted "gun-free zones", which are strategically placed in high crime areas, I think it's fair to question people on the side of the corner in a high crime area at 0300 hrs.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#747 Feb 09 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Screenshot
.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#748 Feb 09 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
In before "he was saying that cause of the AK-47 being a Russian made weapon".
____________________________
.
#749 Feb 09 2013 at 11:13 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,584 posts
Red Sox: Prospect accidentally shot himself in leg
Quote:
FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) -- Boston Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington says outfield prospect Bryce Brentz accidentally shot himself in the leg last month, but could recover in time to play in spring training.

Cherington said Saturday that Brentz was cleaning the gun went it went off. The bullet passed through Brentz's left leg.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#750 Feb 09 2013 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,351 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Red Sox: Prospect accidentally shot himself in leg
Quote:
FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) -- Boston Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington says outfield prospect Bryce Brentz accidentally shot himself in the leg last month, but could recover in time to play in spring training.

Cherington said Saturday that Brentz was cleaning the gun went it went off. The bullet passed through Brentz's left leg.


Rub a little dirt on it and he'll be good to go.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#751 Feb 10 2013 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
I feel no one is stupid enough to clean a loaded weapon. He clearly just didn't want to be recruited by the Red Sox.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CST
Bijou, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (31)