anti-commentary thanks to facebook rightwing bullshit

[Failhorse]

First. My right wing nutty friends started sharing this stupid article that shows Obama's crisis actors. Cause you know we have those things so we can take guns away. Obviously our only goal as a country is to take some redneck's guns away. We've had these guys since before WW2. Didn't you know that? The same people that made this picture also contend that Roosevelt's kid also played Adolf Hitler AND Walt Disney.
source:



Second.
Source:

Seriously look at that title. Forget anything else this country may have done wrong. You are too fucking busy updating your facebook unless someone is coming for your guns. I also heard on the radio this morning that Martians attacked New York. There it's on the internet so it must be real.


I thought I'd never use this.
Hey idiots!

[stanley]

if we dont have our guns how do you expect us to protect ourselves from the martian invasion

[Spyder]

They'll probably ban assault weapons.

However, the government is not going to come around and "take our guns", despite what the Republitards think. Assault Weapons that are or will be bought before the ban goes into effect will be grandfathered into the possessions of the owner. People/Stores just won't be able to sell assault weapons anymore.

[Guy]

I better get that Syringe Gun I have been eying asap.

[Arty_pn]

I personally think there will be a DG, a Department of Guns. Even with the DG, how will gun owners react? Am I suppose to have a gun with me at all times? Will 15 year old teens dream of the day the day they can own a gun to show off? What about the older population; will a culture die? Will we have home school our children as sign of defeat to terrors of the day? Do we enslave people rights, or do we enslave people minds to the mentality that guns can be beat with more/bigger/quicker guns?

Do we teach the young, the unfortunate, and the handicapped, or do we jail the quick shot?

[stanley]

Good points. Almost coherent.

[Rologton]

This whole thing is reactionary bullshit of reactionary bullshit.

The people that did this were mentally unstable, but politicians and the news media would rather talk about guns and how bad they are than metal sickness and how bad our system is for handling it. And of course my fucking state has to jump right into it and railroad new legislation so it can grasp for more attention.

Did you hear about this? You might not have, it didn't fit into the latest cause everybody was trumpeting.

Either way, all of the restrictions in the world couldn't prevent people from getting their hands on a gun. There's a reason 90% of gun related crimes involve unregistered fire-arms.

[Hatred]

give them guns and ppl will complain and take them away and they'll be afraid ... so make giant turrets around the cities and take most guns ? wait the machines will rule ... nvmd comment withdrawn lulz

[Spyder]

This whole thing is reactionary bullshit of reactionary bullshit.

The people that did this were mentally unstable, but politicians and the news media would rather talk about guns and how bad they are than metal sickness and how bad our system is for handling it. And of course my fucking state has to jump right into it and railroad new legislation so it can grasp for more attention.

Did you hear about this? You might not have, it didn't fit into the latest cause everybody was trumpeting.

Either way, all of the restrictions in the world couldn't prevent people from getting their hands on a gun. There's a reason 90% of gun related crimes involve unregistered fire-arms.

Don't forget how the media makes the shooter a celebrity, constantly shows his face, talks about his life, etc.

[Rologton]

This whole thing is reactionary bullshit of reactionary bullshit.

The people that did this were mentally unstable, but politicians and the news media would rather talk about guns and how bad they are than metal sickness and how bad our system is for handling it. And of course my fucking state has to jump right into it and railroad new legislation so it can grasp for more attention.

Did you hear about this? You might not have, it didn't fit into the latest cause everybody was trumpeting.

Either way, all of the restrictions in the world couldn't prevent people from getting their hands on a gun. There's a reason 90% of gun related crimes involve unregistered fire-arms.

Don't forget how the media makes the shooter a celebrity, constantly shows his face, talks about his life, etc.

Oh god yeah. And how many pictures did you see of the victims? How often did we stop and mourn for them?

Edit:



Relevant.

[Repoman]

I have a right to big fuzzy bear arms!!

>:O

[Beartato]

Don't forget that people are blaming video games too because the shooter apparently liked Mass Effect or something. (He shot people and robots in a space-based shooting RPG set almost two centuries in the future? Clearly it desensitized him for killing people IRL.) It's generally really silly.

But not completely. Last year it came to light that ~70% of polled XBL users supported an increase in the number of unmanned drone attacks. This is noticeably larger than a national poll that only found ~60% support for the drone program, which means that only a maximum of 60% of those from the national poll would support an increase in attacks, but is likely somewhere below that figure.

This isn't damning evidence though. There certainly could be biases present (e.g., people who are already very pro-military bought the 360 because of the games it has) and it's hard to say anything definite without having the same poll for the two populations and without investigating other factors (like whether the polled individuals are familiar with the current drone policies and action, how they value the life of citizens of nations we are at war with, etc).

[Maringue]

This whole thing is reactionary bullshit of reactionary bullshit.

The people that did this were mentally unstable, but politicians and the news media would rather talk about guns and how bad they are than metal sickness and how bad our system is for handling it. And of course my fucking state has to jump right into it and railroad new legislation so it can grasp for more attention.

Did you hear about this? You might not have, it didn't fit into the latest cause everybody was trumpeting.

Either way, all of the restrictions in the world couldn't prevent people from getting their hands on a gun. There's a reason 90% of gun related crimes involve unregistered fire-arms.

I KNEW someone was going to make this argument.

First, people ARE talking a lot about the state of mental health services in this country. It's one of the NRA's biggest scape goats. I'll give you a little hint as to why. Absolutely nothing will be done to improve mental health care in this country. Why? Because it would cost money. We could raise that money through a small tax on guns and ammunition if gun people are really serious about mental health being the issue. But they're not, so that tax, if proposed, will be so demonized that Fox News will trot out all their Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and so on comparisons.

OH WAIT! Yeah, they've already done that.

Yes, we do need to do something about mental health in this country. And instead of have a national registry of insane people like the NRA wants, how's about we make everyone get a background check to buy a gun BEFORE we start putting citizens on a national nutcase list. Fully 40% of guns are bought without a background check. All the gun regulations in the world won't do shit if you don't even have to show ID before buying a gun.

Oh, and since everyone brings up NYC and their guns laws that supposedly don't do anything, 95% of illegal guns in NYC come from the I-95 corridor from places like VA where I used to live where you could buy 5 guns per day or go to one of the weekly gun shows and buy as many as you have money for. Then just drive up to NYC and sell them at a profit.

Gun control laws won't stop crazy people, but they WILL reduce the body count. Anybody hear about that kid who came to school with a shotgun? Yeah, 2 people injured, one seriously PROBABLY BECAUSE THE SHOTGUN ONLY HAD 2 CHAMBERS. So when a crazy person gets a gun, they might shoot someone. When that same person gets an assault rifle, they might shot dozens of people.

Also, does no one find it very convienent that the biggest lobbyst for the gun manufacturers, the NRA, has said that the ONLY way to stop gun violence is with, you guessed it, more guns. That probably has nothing to do with the fact that they sell an extremely durable good which can last for decades to an ever smaller number of people. But I'm betting their profit margins have absolutely nothing to do with the NRA's stance on gun control.

Oh, and that story you posted from China, you know what's different about it? NO ONE FUCKING DIED. Yup, they got stabbed, but if that dude had a gun there would probably be many more dead. But he didn't, so people just got injured.

Also, the argument that gun controls only make it harder for citizens to legally get a gun and do nothing to affect illegal gun sales is straight bullshit from the NRA. Gun dealers are not even required to keep track of their inventory. If they "lose" a few cases of guns out the back door to some dude with cash, there is ZERO way for law enforcement to do shit about it.

Also, everyone should read this article: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/
It's what actually happened in the fast and furious scandal, not the political bullshit.
In this you will find out about a guy in AZ who was unemployed and on wellfare. Oh, and he was buying $50,000 worth of guns a week. The ATF knew this, but they couldn't do anything about it because the attorney general said there wasn't enough evidence he was breaking the law. That's because it's perfectly legal to sell your guns in AZ to anyone once you buy them from a store. And this guy was selling them to Mexican drug cartels.

I've hunted and target shot before, so while I don't own one, I don't hate guns. But I do object to the dumbass who says his 5.56 AR-15 with a 30 round mag is for "hunting". If you need more than 2 bullets to take down a deer, you're a shitty hunter. Get another hobby or don't have quite so many beers before you go out.

[stanley]

A few months ago, I was talking to a cop who said that there had been a robbery at a local gunshop, and although multiple guns were stolen, and they had prints, they couldn't pursue the case because it cost too much money. Not really that relevant, just thought I would throw it out there. Also, I live in New Hampshire, there's not a lot of crime (or anything or that matter) here.

[Failhorse]

When you sit there and blame crazy people with guns. Or use the argument that the bad guys won't obey gun laws, you have fallen for the longest advertising stint/ lobbying attempt in US history. (Not including what the Pope has been doing for the last 250 years.)

For the last 75 years the 2nd amendment has been used to raise money from scared people. Much like abortion. It never changes. You have 260 million guns owned by 1/3 of the American population. I have yet to have 1 of my gun owner friends explain to me how an AR-15 or AK47 handles when you're out hunting.

But look at the perceived totally not gun lobby pictures going around the internet. The 1 with Obama walking during the first inauguration and they point out every single person around him has a gun. But guns don't make you safer. But you're not the president. But you're not the first black president, right?

The 2nd amendment argument is dumb. When the Constitution was framed guns had a completely different purpose than they do today. We had land undiscovered. And no supermarkets to drive to to get fresh meat. We are no longer an agrarian society. The wilderness is not that black neighborhood in the inner city.

Locking a gun in your house statistically will not make you safer. Carrying on the street will not statistically make you safer. In both instances you are creating a larger danger for yourself.

So you're left if an illogical argument. Has humanity not changed in last 200 years? Have the bulk of gun toting Americans been so brainwashed they need to stock pile weapons for the impending 2nd American revolution? Or is it simply being brainwashed so business can make more money. If everyone only owns 1 gun, they're out of business. Every crazed idiot puts millions into the pockets of the gun lobby. And we see no effective change.

Long story short. If you really want to fondle automatic weapons, join the military.

[Beartato]

Faihorse, your post is misinformed in some spots.

For one thing, the AR-15 is not a fully automatic rifle as you kind of imply.

For another thing, the assault weapon ban during the 90's into the 00's is widely seen as having little to no effect on gun-related homicides over its period.

Furthermore, the tragedies at Columbine, VTech, and Aurora were all perpetrated using weapons that were (or would have been) permissible under the automatic weapons ban.

With regards to the origin of the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that it was more concerned with maintaining an armed civilian force in case of war. I base this guess off the fact that the Revolutionary War, which was underway when the Bill of Rights was ratified, was ~50% civilian forces and state militias (with the Continental Army forming the other half). On top of that is the fact that civilian forces and state militias represented about 90% of the US forces in the War of 1812. It wasn't really until the Civil War that the feds started to outfit the majority of the armed forces.

I see gun laws as a red herring. It ignores the real underlying problems of "crazy people" and "bad guys." Mental health services in this country are rather subpar and would help so many people (in addition to likely reducing the frequency of tragedies like Sandy Hook). In addition, socio-economic disparity, especially in minority-dominated inner cities, is another elephant in the room that people don't like to address even though it is the cornerstone of so much gun violence (and other problems) in America.

In the end, restrictions similar to the assault weapon ban would be worthless because (a) so few gun fatalities are caused by assault weapons and (b) so many gun fatalities are caused by unlicensed weapons.

So all that will happen is that people who are not doing anything wrong with their guns will lose their right to purchase such weapons with relatively little positive effects coming out of it.

And really, who cares why they buy guns? You wouldn't like it if I heckled you for your purchasing decisions (and I promise you that I could nitpick the hell out of them, everything from computer parts to your car to your guitars and even to your food choices; a lot of those have unseen environmental, health, and social costs both inside and outside of our national borders).

BTW, I would like to see your sources that allow you to make those statements about what does and doesn't make you statistically safer. Not trying to be a pain in the ass, I just like seeing studies with which I am not familiar.

[Maringue]

For one thing, the AR-15 is not a fully automatic rifle as you kind of imply.

There was no implication that it was. They are both semi-auto and have the ability to accept magazines that hold numerous military grade ammunition. I've said it a lot of times before, but if you are using hunting as a logical reason to defend your ownership of an AR-15, you need to get a hobby that you are better at because you're a shitty hunter. A real hunter is upset with him/herself if they have to take more than a single shot to take down their quarry.

For another thing, the assault weapon ban during the 90's into the 00's is widely seen as having little to no effect on gun-related homicides over its period.

First, homicide rates dropped over this period. Fact. What people are arguing over is what caused the drop, since there were multiple factors. This doesn't mean the assault weapons ban did not work.

Furthermore, the tragedies at Columbine, VTech, and Aurora were all perpetrated using weapons that were (or would have been) permissible under the automatic weapons ban.

Yes, what we are talking about here is the addition of a high capacity magazine ban as well. Yes, they would still have killed people, but with smaller magazines they would have been able to kill fewer people.

With regards to the origin of the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that it was more concerned with maintaining an armed civilian force in case of war. I base this guess off the fact that the Revolutionary War, which was underway when the Bill of Rights was ratified, was ~50% civilian forces and state militias (with the Continental Army forming the other half). On top of that is the fact that civilian forces and state militias represented about 90% of the US forces in the War of 1812. It wasn't really until the Civil War that the feds started to outfit the majority of the armed forces.

This are my thoughts exactly. Most people ignore the rest of the sentence and only focus on the part they like. Yeah, the "as part of a well regulated militia" gets completely fucking ignored. Especially by so-called "originalist" judges like Scalia and Thomas. If you are a part of a well regulated militia, then I have no problem with you having military style weapons.

I see gun laws as a red herring. It ignores the real underlying problems of "crazy people" and "bad guys." Mental health services in this country are rather subpar and would help so many people (in addition to likely reducing the frequency of tragedies like Sandy Hook). In addition, socio-economic disparity, especially in minority-dominated inner cities, is another elephant in the room that people don't like to address even though it is the cornerstone of so much gun violence (and other problems) in America.

Violence is a symptom of many problems combined, guns just make the body count from those symptoms higher, so saying guns are also not a major part of the problem is illogical.

In the end, restrictions similar to the assault weapon ban would be worthless because (a) so few gun fatalities are caused by assault weapons and (b) so many gun fatalities are caused by unlicensed weapons.

While these weapons are used in a smaller portion of incidents, they account for a larger portion of the body count, which is all I give a shit about.

And really, who cares why they buy guns? You wouldn't like it if I heckled you for your purchasing decisions (and I promise you that I could nitpick the hell out of them, everything from computer parts to your car to your guitars and even to your food choices; a lot of those have unseen environmental, health, and social costs both inside and outside of our national borders).

Yeah, but the impact of guns is WAAAAAAAAY stronger than anything you mentioned. Is my pizza delivery tonight capable of murdering and entire room full of people? No, so stop comparing them. Also, cars. Guns and cars are not the same, so stop comparing them (not you necessarily). Guns are designed to kill people, cars are not.

I'll pull a couple sources too when I get back from my meeting, if I have some time.

[Failhorse]

Faihorse, your post is misinformed in some spots.

For one thing, the AR-15 is not a fully automatic rifle as you kind of imply.


With regards to the origin of the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that it was more concerned with maintaining an armed civilian force in case of war. I base this guess off the fact that the Revolutionary War, which was underway when the Bill of Rights was ratified, was ~50% civilian forces and state militias (with the Continental Army forming the other half). On top of that is the fact that civilian forces and state militias represented about 90% of the US forces in the War of 1812. It wasn't really until the Civil War that the feds started to outfit the majority of the armed forces.

I see gun laws as a red herring.

I deleted a bunch because i want to focus on specific statements. And Maringue covered a lot of what I would have said.

Understand first that I am a well traveled American. My employment keeps me in contact with different people from all over the world. I'm not going to pull random facts or biased bullshit from the internet. I'm going to use strictly common sense. I am also very familar with firearms. I get it. Really I do.

On the AR-15. I am not calling it an automatic weapon. It is strictly an assault weapon designed specifically for gun toting yokels to feel like they have a military rifle. It is not a hunting rifle. Why would any decent hunter go out with .233 ammo? First off any hunter who needs to hunt to survive would never ever use the gun. It's incredibly hard to take any larger game down with such a small caliber. This gun was designed and promoted to be stored by said gun enthusiast to take on the government one day.

Leading me into the 2nd amendment.

You can blow hard as much as you want on the true definition of the 2nd amendment. If you came to a reasonable answer of what it means, and get can 51% of congress to agree with you. Congrats, you solved the mystery that has been debated for the last 100 years. Frankly. The well regulated militia does not apply. As we had regular army during and after our Republic was formed. Maybe they wanted a militia, maybe not. But we have a set of words that have confused people FOREVER. And until we can stop thinking that guns make Americans American. We'll never get anywhere. And it really doesn't matter.

Gun laws being a red herring? I think not. The mentality of gun toting Amercian's is the problem. There are 88 guns for every 100 people in this country. Yet only 40-50% own guns. What the fuck is up with that? Hunting? No way. Self defense? Good luck. I can prove quite easily that the gun protecting your house is virtually useless. Especially if you are storing it properly.

Let's look at the excuses.
Guns banned in other countries. Stabbings rampant.. They should ban knives. --- fucking stupid
Cars kill more people than guns. Should ban cars.... -- also fucking stupid.
Obama has 10 people around him at all times. He loves guns... -- If I were the scary black guy in the white house. I'd have them too!

Aside from the Obama comment. Why is it fucking stupid? Well knives and cars have a purpose other than killing. Simple as that.

Well the bad guys have guns. I should too.... --- And the bad guys are lurking and waiting for you to screw up. Pull a gun on a gun? Hope you're quick.
If someone has their heart set on killing you. Gun, Knife, Spoon -- you will probably die.

The nature of gun laws not working is 80 years of NRA type bullshit and big business clouding the minds of dumb fucks into thinking a gun will protect them. Business grew for gun mgr's the day the assault weapon ban was lifted. We have white trash TV shows showing people the charm of a gun that shoots 500 rounds a minute.

The US is in the Red Neck Renaissance. When this passes we may have some enlightenment for everyone else. But just the thought of someone saying this gun protects me makes me laugh. Not accounting for a history I won't speak of, quite frankly I giggle.

Then again I also think religion is the last bastion of the willingness of idiots to find peace with themselves when they're fertilizer. If not for God would we have more sinners? How about having some self control.. It's funny to think we're so special. We must have some devine energy inside us that will lift us all to another place.... But dogs, fish, worms, crabs, the other craps, virus, ect --- all just simple soulless organisms.



OK Done. i'm not proofing my rant. gotta get back to work.

[Beartato]

For one thing, the AR-15 is not a fully automatic rifle as you kind of imply.

There was no implication that it was. They are both semi-auto and have the ability to accept magazines that hold numerous military grade ammunition. I've said it a lot of times before, but if you are using hunting as a logical reason to defend your ownership of an AR-15, you need to get a hobby that you are better at because you're a shitty hunter. A real hunter is upset with him/herself if they have to take more than a single shot to take down their quarry.

FWIW, I picked up an implication it was because it was lumped with the AK-47 and the final line (paraphrased: "go join the military if you want to use automatic weapons").

Aso, TIL "quarry" means "prey."

For another thing, the assault weapon ban during the 90's into the 00's is widely seen as having little to no effect on gun-related homicides over its period.

First, homicide rates dropped over this period. Fact. What people are arguing over is what caused the drop, since there were multiple factors. This doesn't mean the assault weapons ban did not work.

Unfortunately I am having trouble finding data from before 2000 online, but this page from the US census shows the weapons used to commit murders in 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2009. In all four of those years, rifles were used in less than 500 murders out of at least 8,500 gun-related homicides. At most 6% of homicides were caused by rifles (which after 2003 included assault rifles).

I would definitely be surprised to see data that suggests the assault weapon ban was responsible for even 10% of the reduction in murder rate (~8,000 / yr) over its course at this point.

Furthermore, the tragedies at Columbine, VTech, and Aurora were all perpetrated using weapons that were (or would have been) permissible under the automatic weapons ban.

Yes, what we are talking about here is the addition of a high capacity magazine ban as well. Yes, they would still have killed people, but with smaller magazines they would have been able to kill fewer people.

Cho used 10- and 15-round clips in the VTech tragedy. Those 10-round clips would be legal under the old ban and the 15-round clips are not substantially above the limit. Columbine was perpetrated using 10-round magazines, which were legal under the assault weapons ban at the time. It didn't seem to make much difference that Harris must have reloaded at least nine times during the attack. (Admittedly I was wrong about the Aurora shooting. The magazines were well over the size that would have been allowed under the ban.)

I see gun laws as a red herring. It ignores the real underlying problems of "crazy people" and "bad guys." Mental health services in this country are rather subpar and would help so many people (in addition to likely reducing the frequency of tragedies like Sandy Hook). In addition, socio-economic disparity, especially in minority-dominated inner cities, is another elephant in the room that people don't like to address even though it is the cornerstone of so much gun violence (and other problems) in America.

Violence is a symptom of many problems combined, guns just make the body count from those symptoms higher, so saying guns are also not a major part of the problem is illogical.

People will find ways to hurt others if they truly desire it, whether they are allowed to do so using guns or not. The US's worst school attack, by death count, was carried out without the use of guns.

In the end, restrictions similar to the assault weapon ban would be worthless because (a) so few gun fatalities are caused by assault weapons and (b) so many gun fatalities are caused by unlicensed weapons.

While these weapons are used in a smaller portion of incidents, they account for a larger portion of the body count, which is all I give a shit about.

I refer you back to the census data provided before. Less than 6% of the gun-related body count in any of the given years were caused by guns that could be assault weapons.

And really, who cares why they buy guns? You wouldn't like it if I heckled you for your purchasing decisions (and I promise you that I could nitpick the hell out of them, everything from computer parts to your car to your guitars and even to your food choices; a lot of those have unseen environmental, health, and social costs both inside and outside of our national borders).

Yeah, but the impact of guns is WAAAAAAAAY stronger than anything you mentioned. Is my pizza delivery tonight capable of murdering and entire room full of people? No, so stop comparing them. Also, cars. Guns and cars are not the same, so stop comparing them (not you necessarily). Guns are designed to kill people, cars are not.

Actually, some of the things I mentioned do result in deaths. Coltan mining, which is an essential process for manufacturing electronics, directly financed the genocide in Darfur. The exploitation of rosewood resources for making guitar components on lands occupied by indigenous people frequently leads to deadly confrontation between the indigenous people (who protest the destruction of their homeland) and either government or industry "security" forces. Many of the processed food products (primarily sourced from corn and soybeans) have greatly distorted and increased global food prices to the point that a larger percentage of people are dying from starvation and malnutrition than have in the last few decades. And the gasoline that fuels your car (and was used to manufacture a lot of its components) comes from oil fields that completely destroy the land and leave the poor inhabitants by it with a life span that is less than half what it ought to be.

Yes, guns are a bigger threat in our society, but outside of our national borders we are screwing over so many more people through seemingly innocuous means. And even inside our own borders these industries are still wreaking havoc in ways that are less easily seen and still less easily understood.

I can provide additional sources as needed (especially about that last bit; it's kinda "my cause").

I'll pull a couple sources too when I get back from my meeting, if I have some time.

No worries, anything I had questions on, I looked up myself already, lol.

[Beartato]

buncha stuff

Ultimately we are on pretty different wavelengths, probably because of our different experiences. I can't say I know any of those crazy gun-toting rednecks, but I that's probably more likely because they're not common where I'm from. I've only met gun owners who were at worst slightly hick-ish. That said, I do know some people who own guns that really have no practical purpose; they are owners because it is something that interests them. It's almost like people who have large collections of porcelain angel dolls except that the latter are very infrequently used in murders.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I wasn't meaning to blow hard at all. I completely agree that its original intention is incredibly irrelevant nowadays, as could be said with so many of the amendments. "Living document" and such, which does mean that its meaning is only temporally relevant. I personally can't wait to see where the debate goes once laser rifles hit the market. All I wanted to do was mention what was likely the intention of the 2nd Amendment when it was ratified by the 13 Colonies simply because I found it rather interesting (and to an extent that it demonstrates the temporal relevance).

As for the religion bashing, I'm with ya on that one. It scares the hell out of me that people aren't bad to each other just to keep out of trouble for when the FSM descends from the celestial abyss to drag us into eternal marinaradom with his noodly appendages. That or so the IPU doesn't gore them on his IPU horn.

[Shotgunbob]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-passes-first-u ... 09067.html
New York has become the first state to screw over gun owners.

I can only hope this reaches the Supreme Court and gets shot down. All these laws do is infringe on the rights law abiding gun owners.

[Failhorse]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-passes-first-us-gun-control-law-since-222009067.html
New York has become the first state to screw over gun owners.

I can only hope this reaches the Supreme Court and gets shot down. All these laws do is infringe on the rights law abiding gun owners.

How do you figure? Nothing to do with hunting rifles. reduces the magazine to 7. (carry more clips right.) Bans military style weapons, what exactly are those uses? Requires a database of gun owners identical to that of the DMV. Requires gun owners with assault weapons to register them. And requires background checks to buy ammo.

I am unclear how this is unconstitutional. Or how it screws over gun owners.

[Shotgunbob]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-passes-first-us-gun-control-law-since-222009067.html
New York has become the first state to screw over gun owners.

I can only hope this reaches the Supreme Court and gets shot down. All these laws do is infringe on the rights law abiding gun owners.

How do you figure? Nothing to do with hunting rifles. reduces the magazine to 7. (carry more clips right.) Bans military style weapons, what exactly are those uses? Requires a database of gun owners identical to that of the DMV. Requires gun owners with assault weapons to register them. And requires background checks to buy ammo.

I am unclear how this is unconstitutional. Or how it screws over gun owners.

The limitation of magazine sizes apply to many weapons that are far from being assault rifles or anything of the sort. For example the Ruger 10/22 (It fires .22LR rounds) comes with a stock external mag of 10 rounds. Not to mention many other handguns and ranch rifles that come with magazines that hold more than seven rounds. All it accomplishes is making legal gun owners jump through hoops to purchase smaller magazines. Aside from that what evidence is there to assume that banning 'high capacity' magazines would actually reduce gun crime? If you do have valid statistics on how it would affect gun crime nationally I welcome it.

As for uses of AR-15s and other semi automatic rifles that are styled off of military rifles, they are primarily used for plinking and in some cases home defense (Granted that's anecdotal evidence but the vast majority of people I know that own AR-15s use them for precisely that.) I fail to see why so many people don't understand that owners of AR-15s use them simply because they are a fun rifle to shoot, target shooting and customizing a rifle is a perfectly valid hobby, just as is owning a sports car and maintaining it. Moreover is the fact that they have become a massive scapegoat for the media and gun control activists despite being responsible for very little of the national gun crime/violence. Or take into account the fact that gun crime actually rose after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted in 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban) Here is the Bureau of Justice Statistics graph and table for gun crimes and violence from 1973-2006 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

My main concerns here are the fact that some states (and possibly the federal government here soon) are going to start limiting the gun rights of law abiding gun owners in the interest of a false perception of safety. There is little or no information that suggests such bans would actually make the United States any safer or reduce gun crime in any way.

As whether or not it's unconstitutional lies on the courts interpretation in the future. But here's my take if you care:

Second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In my view, as the same with many people the historical meaning of a militia as applied to the United States constitutes all legal citizens of the state. Recently the Supreme Court has upheld such context in multiple cases, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_vs._DC and the failure of the D.C. and Chicago gun bans.

As for banning "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines I think it falls under the text of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" In my view it is unconstitutional government interference and infringement on legal gun ownership without any secure basis or reasoning. While there is no Supreme Court precedent on this I think it may very well be the next fight that goes to the court over what the government can limit when it comes to gun ownership.

That's my wall of text post, don't have time to edit so I'm sure it's full of grammatical errors.

[Failhorse]

I'm not going to copy all that. I would say to reference some of the thing Marginue said because he already covered most of this.
First off posting a Wiki article to determine what effects the assault weapon ban had on crime is idiotic. Not to mention
it's references are either from the government itself, saying it was inconclusive. Or from NRA funded think tanks, who said it had no effect on crime.
Crime was higher in the 80s and early 90s overall. Just like crime is rising now. A bad economy is the first trigger for increases in crime.
Crime overall is not an effective gauge on guns, gun crime, ect.

You equate the 'gun fun' to owning a sports car. Yet It's harder and more expensive to own a car than it is a gun. Why? You have more chances of effecting
the general public in a car. Well at least in theory.

Quick question. Do you think gun owners should pay higher premiums on health/life/home owners insurance?

It's also funny mentioning customizing rifles. How hard is it to 'upgrade' an AR15 to be fully automatic?
Pretty damn easy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLD5yVl0PM

Let's talk 2nd amendment bullshit. If we cannot agree our surpreme court is legislating from the bench. I'd just skip this entire paragraph.
The 1st time in 70 years the supreme court discussed the '2nd' Also happened to be a 5/4 decision that changed how the US works. (in 2003)
The last time, in 1939 the supreme court interpreted the 2nd completely different.

This was also a different time. We didn't have a court creating laws and legislation like we do now. Understand that the supreme court is
100% different than what it was supposed to be according to the constitution. You can research that one on your own.

The 1939 verdict. This was about being able to own a sawed off shotgun.

Code: Select all

.S. v. Miller (1939), the Court noted: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  This reaffirmed the "collective right" interpretation of the Amendment that federal courts had taken since 1791.

Note what that says. The court kept it's same stance including this 1939 verdict since 1791.
As affirmed by how they interpreted the 2nd.
* A sawed off shotgun poses no use to the preservation of efficency of a well regulated militia
* this weapon is not any part of the ordinary military equipment and does not contribute to the common defense.
* Ergo taking away said right to own said firearm does not violate the 2nd.

No federal appellate court had adopted an "individual right" interpretation of the 2nd until the 2003 case of U.S. v. Emerson. Yet in the Heller case a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The ruling overturned a longstanding ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. It was the first time in history that a gun control law had been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.


So 227 years of a law interpreted a certain way was destroyed by lobbyists. All so we could sell automatic rifles so idiots could fondle them and say their rights are being taken away today.
How long until Full-Auto, Flame Throwers, or Mini-Guns are legal?

Again. 227 years VS 10 years. A law revisioned by the same group of people that said corporations are people. Decided several laws that 'only apply in this case.' All in 5/4 decisions.
The supreme court did not have this authority until the 21st century started.

You tell me who is over reaching. And how much money has been spent to put us where we are today.

[Maringue]

My favorite part of all this: idiots ranting on youtube against gun control are hurting their own cause. But if you want to see the crazy people that are against ANY common sense controls over deadly weapons, just google it, a huge list will come up.

I couldn't even make it through this idiots video, but the best quote I made it to was: "Executive order means no Congress. WE HAVE NO GOVERNMENT!"
Oh, and this dude is calm and logic by comparison to his peers.

[BoB Dolen]

[Failhorse]

This article highlight NRA bullshit. I wonder if his son was playing Grand Theft Auto 2 at the time.
(The son of the NRA president got mad while driving and shot at another driver.)
http://www.techyville.com/2012/12/socia ... -incident/

[Maringue]

Oh, and now they want to put a tax on violet video games to pay for mental health upgrades. How's about that same tax on guns and ammo asshole?

Oh, and Penny Arcade hit this one on the head:

[GoDM1N]

Eh, could make a huge post about why I think guns should be legal but meh. I don't feel like backing it up against what I consider to be "who gives a shit?" arguments. I completely understand why Fail is against guns because of his state, but a "war on guns" is going to turn out just like the war on drugs. It doesn't stop people from doing it, it just makes criminals out of the innocent who want it. More should of been learned from prohibition. I don't give 2 shits about the legal semantics, the extreme majority of people who legally own guns don't commit any crimes and that is what matters to me.

[check six]

i'm so glad you're back godmin

i'm also so glad you're bumping a 3-month old thread

basically america has an ingrained gun culture that refuses to be changed; it's gonna stay this way and there's basically nothing we can do. lobbies are bullshit, assault rifles are horseshit and serve no purpose other than the massacre of other human beings, etc.

guns are dumb and to pretend that our guns could be used to start a revolution is bullshit, we could get our asses bombed off by the government the moment we start a revolution and try to overthrow a government.

l8r

[GoDM1N]

i'm so glad you're back godmin

i'm also so glad you're bumping a 3-month old thread

Was going to reply to that other thread, but this was the original so meh.

assault rifles are horseshit and serve no purpose other than the massacre of other human beings, etc.

Shooting contest etc. Shooting is actually a pretty popular sport as is archery. It even pays for school scholarships. Hell because they're fun to shoot as well. (never actually shot one, but it looks like a blast)

In a nutshell it is my opinion that reasons to own something is for the individual to decide. I think it should be legal to own a AR-15, I also think it should be legal to own motorcycles that go 200mph as long as you don't break any laws. Who cares right?

to pretend that our guns could be used to start a revolution is bullshit, we could get our asses bombed off by the government the moment we start a revolution and try to overthrow a government.

This I agree with, maybe back in the 1800s when canons were the weapons of mass destruction. But, then again they said the same thing about us in the revolutionary war. Maybe we should allow Bubba to own guided rockets to even the odds. /shrug Personally I feel if you are really worried about protecting the country , you should join the army. Though I think both republicans and democrats are tools, I don't think they're going to stage a "take over" or anything.

[Maringue]

I don't think we should be outlawing guns, but saying that the government has the right to regulate an extremely dangerous product shouldn't be that controversial, even if it is Constitutionally protected. Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd amendment guy, stated that resonable gun restrictions do not interfere with a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms when he wrote the majority decision that struck down the DC handgun ban.

The thing that pisses me off is that the ultra pro-gun sect thinks that guns are different from literally everything else the government is allowed to regulate. The government has a list of almost every single car owner in the country and no one cries fowl. Yet we can't even talk about the government being allowed to track a product specifically designed to kill without Stalin, Hitler and any other despot you can think of being mentioned. You need a license to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Also, the argument of "criminals don't follow laws" needs to stop. If we are using that logic then we should just burn all the laws because criminals don't follow them. Laws don't completely prevent behavior, but they sure as shit discourage it. Crystal Meth is illegal but I can still get it if I really want to. What the illegality of crystal meth does is make it harder for me to get the drug if I really want it instead of it being sold in Walmart. Same goes for guns. If there are no places where you can get a gun without a background check, then it will be increasingly more difficult, requiring criminals to spend more money and effort to acquire a gun that the law precludes them from owning.

The NRA is against background checks and gun trafficking laws because it will hurt the profit margins of the people they actually represent, gun manufactures. They literally have no other concerns apart from the protection of profit margins of gun makers.

[GoDM1N]

I don't think we should be outlawing guns, but saying that the government has the right to regulate an extremely dangerous product shouldn't be that controversial, even if it is Constitutionally protected. Justice Scalia, a very pro-2nd amendment guy, stated that resonable gun restrictions do not interfere with a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms when he wrote the majority decision that struck down the DC handgun ban.

The thing that pisses me off is that the ultra pro-gun sect thinks that guns are different from literally everything else the government is allowed to regulate. The government has a list of almost every single car owner in the country and no one cries fowl. Yet we can't even talk about the government being allowed to track a product specifically designed to kill without Stalin, Hitler and any other despot you can think of being mentioned. You need a license to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Also, the argument of "criminals don't follow laws" needs to stop. If we are using that logic then we should just burn all the laws because criminals don't follow them. Laws don't completely prevent behavior, but they sure as shit discourage it. Crystal Meth is illegal but I can still get it if I really want to. What the illegality of crystal meth does is make it harder for me to get the drug if I really want it instead of it being sold in Walmart. Same goes for guns. If there are no places where you can get a gun without a background check, then it will be increasingly more difficult, requiring criminals to spend more money and effort to acquire a gun that the law precludes them from owning.

The NRA is against background checks and gun trafficking laws because it will hurt the profit margins of the people they actually represent, gun manufactures. They literally have no other concerns apart from the protection of profit margins of gun makers.

No argument here when it comes to guns anyway. I think it's perfectly fine to require licenses etc. I haven't gone through the latest thing they're pushing, but from what I've heard I don't see the problem. As far as drugs, I think they also should be legal. I wear a helmet every time I get on a motorcycle regardless of state law on the matter. However I think it should be legal everywhere to not wear a helmet if the rider doesn't want to wear one. I think personal health should ALWAYS be up to the individual, and I think the same should be applied to drugs and put under the same general rules on smoking and or drinking. (Age, time and place etc)

[Maringue]

Personal health should always be left up to the individual if that is who is paying for it. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, society at large pays for most of the healthcare in this country. And part of the reason we are going broke as a country is that we have to pay for the healthcare of people who made very, very poor personal health choices. Even if they pay for insurance (the best scenario), you are still paying more than you should because those people wanted to be unhealthy.

[GoDM1N]

Problem with the system, not the rights.