|jangbones - 2013-01-16 |
I am starting to think the nihlists and the rich and the fools would rather destroy the country before they would allow the majority of Americans to change it.
They would rather see this country suffer under their ideology than see it benefit under anyone else's.
What's it like being so delusional about this topic?
The delusion of feeling relatively safe under most circumstances despite the fact that you don't have a lethal weapon strapped onto you and the lunacy of not thinking you have to wage war against your government.
UTTER FUCKING INSANITY!
What delusions? How the fuck does reductive fear mongering and outrage farming propel national debate on a serious topic?
|EvilHomer - 2013-01-16 |
Again, the "debate" is being structured in such a way that our choices are: disarm citizens, or make our schools a subdepartment of Homeland Defense. Either way, the state increases it's authority, the Constitutional ideas of checks and balances and enumerated powers become a little less relevant, and the gulf between the common man and his rulers widens.
Sure is a great time to "one of the elite"! Thanks, NRA, for doing your part.
I'm curious about one thing. Ok, let's assume you have your guns and that protects you from a government tyranny (as stated previously, I am doubtful the military industrial complex has much to fear from gun enthusiasts and militia-men, but let's ignore that part) when they try to take away your rights.
Which rights do you think they'd go after first, and at what point would you start shooting, and at what? Help me envision this scenario wherein guns would be helpful.
I think your making some assumptions about EvilHomer's statement. It is safe to say that the gun control conversation is skewed to fit two very particular ideologies that might be more similar than one would think. I think yours is a paranoid response.
I might be mistaken but I seem to recall that in another similar video he had mentioned that he believed in the second amendment because it was intended for people to be able to protect themselves from their own government (if the need were to arise), and that he didn't think that was an imminent threat, but that down the line, maybe in 50 to 100 years, that could be a possible scenario.
|Hooker - 2013-01-16 |
So are we all conceeding that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, and are moving on to the question of what special privledges the rich are going to get if they do pay their fair share?
Greed is a black hole. It is incapable of being satisfied permanently and only begets more greed. The wealthiest will only ever want more and more money and more and more special privleges.
|Cena_mark - 2013-01-16 |
Can't we just stop making political adds that look like that look like truck commercials?
Also 5 for asking the dumbest question ever, "Why does a world leader need security for his family?"
There's a meme going around that raises a tangential point that guns won protect our kids because even Presidents get shot sometimes: http://www.bartcop.com/Guns-Reagan-Safer.jpg
The tone of voice in which this ad refers to "MR." Obama is really just a thinly veiled attempt at not calling him a nigger.
These ads are ineffective because only people who already agree with the message won't find them offensively stupid.
|Adham Nu'man - 2013-01-16 |
Just give every kid a gun. Arm all the children.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2013-01-16 |
Are the president's kids more important than yours?
The answer is yes,.
I think the answer is NO, but they are way more at risk.
Because every teacher wakes up one day, looks in the mirror, and says, "hey, I want a job that forces me to be trained in weapons combat against an armed assailant, but don't want the power of a soldier or a police officer, or the respect, so I think I'll teach children!"
Hopefully, with a sentence like that, they wont be teaching English while also gunning down the armed children of teaterrorist parents who hated them for daring to teach mommy's little fucking murderer.
Tell you what: We stop making teachers the most underpaid and overworked people in America, and start recruiting only the best and brightest who have passed mental health checks and done years of training under supervision, and I'd be glad to hear arguments as to whether some should be armed. But until then, it's just an insane notion.
Given the number of teachers that are faced with ordinary violence from students each year, the number of teachers with mental issues or who just lose their tempers and lash out, and of course the number of students that would be trying to get their hands on that gun, could only increase student gun deaths.
More people have died in this country as a result of our responses to drugs and terrorism, than from drug use and terrorism. We shouldn't do the same with school shootings.
Even more succinctly, let's look at the arming teachers thing the way just about every overprivileged white-collar Republican would look at it, just from the perspective of being told they have to do something new:
"So you're adding more responsibility to my job? What's the upgrade in pay?
There is no upgrade in pay? Let someone else handle it and fuck you."
Scenario 1: you are a math teacher and you are armed. You see another armed adult in the halls one day, one you don't recognize. He could be a gunman, or he could be a substitute teacher. Do you dare shoot? Do you dare NOT shoot?
Scenario 2: you are a math teacher and you are armed. You hear what sounds like a gun shot. As you round a corner, you see another adult with a gun, but his face isn't turned to you. Do you dare wait for him to face you so you can confirm his identity, or do you shoot before he gets the chance to shoot back? Remember, your survival is at stake.
Scenario 3: you are a policeman responding to reports of gunfire at a school. You miss the good old days where you'd just look for the guy with the gun and bring him down, but now the teachers are packing too so you don't know who's a threat and who's not. How do you make sense of all this without putting your life at inordinate risk?
Scenario 4: same as scenario 3, except there are multiple people actively firing when you get there. In all likelihood at least n-1 of the shooters are panicked teachers in a situation they shouldn't be put in. Can you treat the teachers as innocents caught in the crossfire, or do you have to treat them as interchangeable with the initial gunman (if indeed there is one)?
I've said the same thing as Bort in previous gun videos. Less people having guns actually PREVENTS more people from getting shot since it's so easy to single out the shooter. You'd figure a maniac with an assault weapon tearing through a building of unarmed people would produce body counts of over 50, but it's usually never past the single digits or teens because everyone scatters so fast and runs from the guy with the gun. Imagine if delusional idiots actually hunted for the gunman with guns drawn.
|Oscar Wildcat - 2013-01-16 |
Why not just remand the children to actual jail for 12 years. We're pretty close to that now. Better to prepare them for the future.
|jreid - 2013-01-16 |
Welp I'm convinced. Powerful message, very effective, good job.
|memedumpster - 2013-01-16 |
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?"
Yes, because fifty million Terrorist Americans wouldn't stand in line to rape and murder my kids (once I steal me some from Russia). But thanks for comparing your little Cheetos stained future Chris Hensen sting target bigot pallid cuntspawn with the children of the most powerful man on earth.
|StanleyPain - 2013-01-16 |
TOTALLY GOOD POINTS HERE, I MEAN I DIDN'T WATCH IT BUT IT'S THE NRA AND THEY ALWAYS MAKE GOOD POINTS NO MATTER WHAT SO HEY I'LL GIVE THEM ANOTHER 00 IN DUES CUZ I AINT NO COMMIE
Newsflash: someone can like guns but dislike the NRA and not feel at all like they can identify with their overriding agendas or any of their spokespeople. The only single thing the NRA does right is promote responsibility and knowledge about firearm safety. I'm not sitting here and excusing Billy Joe Bumblefuck's gun fetish - i'm saying although there are people who view guns in an unhealthy manner (as toys) there are many, many more examples of people who have the proper respect for them and aren't just itching to be a conceal-and-carry hero.
When you start pretending normal people who own guns and/or are hobbyists to some small or large extent don't exist, you start sounding exactly like the WBC. Instead of attacking strawmen, why don't you articulate just how an assault weapons ban that only pertains to legal avenues of purchase can stop the ILLEGAL sale of guns?
Thats what I want to hear. How this magical bill will make guns that are already in criminal hands suddenly disappear. And how it will not affect handgun crime at all, which is as everyone in the entire universe knows the most common weapon of incidence in gun crime/violence.
...do i really have to say it out loud?
You can't ban one kind of gun to stop all gun violence. Especially when the gun type being demonized is one of the least-used for the kinds of crimes they're trying to stop.
Making an assault weapons law is completely non-sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with reducing violent crime. If you wanted to do that, you'd ban all handguns. In fact, you'd ban all guns period.
So if you're someone who wants to ban all guns period, you're kind of a worthless human being with no problem solving abilities. You might as well be a proponent of genocide to solve social maladies. It's a really lazy way to try and solve something - and it just reflects how little even my own party dedicates to actual, critical thinking. Both sides of the political spectrum get very knee-jerk about some subjects, and seeing my own party get this myopic about this subject leaves me with a sense of humility.
At least be of a mind to call bullshit on both sides of the fence.
...do I really have to say it out loud?
Slippery slope arguments are bullshit logical fallacies. Reality is slightly more complex that "Either do the maximum or nothing." No, you can't ban one kind of gun to stop all gun violence. But if you think that banning one kind of gun which has a greater potential for harm than other guns without corresponding benefits for legal defense, could reduce gun deaths, then it's worth trying. People might disagree, the statistics might show a negligible effect, but the argument that it must be one extreme or the other is nonsense.
Like Jon Stewart point out recently, you don't have to ban cars to reduce fatal car accidents, you can ban certain types of dangerous cars, impose speed limits, require seat-belts. Only in certain issues like guns, gay marriage and drug use do some act like the only options are no regulation, or genocide.
I'm not even going to address the "people who want to ban guns are worthless human beings who favor genocide". The UK bans private ownership, and many other countries like Canada heavily restrict one's ability to own guns. It's not in the slightest bit lazy, or in opposition to critical thinking.
It only seems that way to people who ironically complain about people stereotyping gun-fetish nutters, before comparing the gun policies of peaceful democracies with lower violent crime rates than us, to imaginary Hitler.
Ok, what do you think should be done to decrease gun violence in general and also how to address the school shootings phenomenon (which although statistically not very relevant on the overall homicide rate is definitely epidemic in the U.S.A. and is quite a monstrous thing)?
"I'm not sitting here and excusing Billy Joe Bumblefuck's gun fetish"
No, you're just rejecting any measures that are not both absolutely perfect and complete (which is to say all of them), while pretending to be somehow better than Billy Joe Bumblefuck.
Most of the talk focuses on assault rifles precisely because those are the sorts of weapons that have no legitimate uses in peace-time settings. Your pistol and your hunting rifle have their legitimate uses, and nobody is talking about restricting them. (There is talk of stricter background checks, better mental health treatment, etc. but those are matters of the person, not the gun.)
"Instead of attacking strawmen, why don't you articulate just how an assault weapons ban that only pertains to legal avenues of purchase can stop the ILLEGAL sale of guns? Thats what I want to hear. How this magical bill will make guns that are already in criminal hands suddenly disappear."
Perhaps you should quit with the strawmen yourself if you find them so offensive. No, a ban on sales of assault rifles won't make guns automatically disappear from criminals' hands, but it WILL reduce the pool of guns a criminal can get his hands on.
You still haven't answered, and will probably forever refuse to answer, why Adam Lanza didn't get an assault rifle from the black market, if it's such a go-to option for criminals. Adam first went to Dick's Sporting Goods, but they turned him down because he refused to deal with a background check and a waiting period. Then, a few days later, he stole his mom's legally-purchased assault rifle and went nuts. At no point did he buy an AR-15 via the criminal underground, which makes me think maybe, just maybe, it's significantly harder to find a guy selling assault rifles than it is to find a guy selling weed.
Bort, I agree with your post, but something definitely needs to be done about the black market. School shootings are horrific tragedies, but they have very little impact on the overall gun homicide rates.
Of the firearms in the possession of criminals, it is estimated that only 5% were stolen, while the rest were purchased either on the black market or through straw purchases (straw purchases also being the main manner in which guns come into the hands of black market dealers).
The black market issue should definitely take a central role in the debates if a true reduction on the overall homicide rates is to be achieved, and honestly I don't hear most "pundits" (either left or right) talk about it at all.
Thanks for the debate-splosion all over my comment, but I was basically making fun of Enjoy, which is a pastime I thought we all engaged in.
I am fully aware that pro-gun people who hate the NRA do exist, as I consider myself a relatively rational person when it comes to guns.
I actually have no problem with people owning handguns and hunting rifles etc. However, I think something is very fucked up in this country where someone can own enough firepower to take out a small military base and then tries to argue that there is no "difference" between assault weapons and everyday handguns. Laws will not stop crime, this is true. Obama also went painfully out of his to make sure this point is made in his statement today. However, it's one thing to carefully legislate and make mistakes and another to just not do anything whatsoever and try to pain the gun violence problem in this country as something that can't be helped, which is a bullshit argument. It's even more bullshit when red herrings like video games or movies are brought into the fray.
The problem is this, and this is ultimately what the whole gun debate comes down to: We have hard evidence that sensible gun control works. It works in other countries, and it works for the most part here on the rare occasions it's given a chance to work properly. This is something we know. There is also hard evidence that when put in situations where having a gun MIGHT potentially help prevent a crime or diffuse it, private citizens react in wildly different and unpredictable ways, most of the time not really doing any good. On the other hand, we have absolutely no evidence of any kind that citizens being allowed to stockpile weapons and then carry them in public has any sort of effect on either stopping gun crime or lessening the effect of gun crime (or any crime). At all. In the decades that US citizens have been allowed to be privately armed and conceal weaponry, there have been almost no instances of anyone making any significant difference in the end-result of a crime-in-progress or a crime that has yet to start. So, people can argue and call me names or whatever (not that anyone here is), but my stance on gun control is, I believe, a stand that is based on rational evidence rather than just pleas to emotion or dumb slippery slope arguments.
Oh, ad I forgot the most important thing like an idiot: The second amendment, contrary to what gun nuts want everyone to think, was not envisioned by the founding fathers as some way of keeping this nation "free" or any of that nonsense. It was added to the final version of the initially ratified Constitution in order to get pro-slavery members of the government on board with getting this country moving. "Well regulated militia", as any credible American historian will explain to you, is basically olde tyme code-speak for "Slave Patrols" which were the privately armed people who helped find escaped slaves, provide security for slave plantations when needed, and put down slave rebellions. Hopefully that fucking myth will get more debunking as the gun debate gets bigger.
|Adham Nu'man - 2013-01-16 |
He's just another Elitist who likes to tax the rich! Wait what?
Rodents of Unusual Size
It made no sense. It's almost as if the people who wrote this don't know what they're talking about.
|Paracelsus - 2013-01-16 |
So I actually read the 23 Executive Actions. I have no objections. And we get mental health parity.
there is nothing extreme or outrageous in the 23 executive actions, just some positive steps (like better background checks and research into gun violence) and a few common-sense regulations of the gun trade, none of which will prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from purchasing or owning a handgun or rifle
so of course gun rights supporters and Republicans are likening Obama to Hitler and Saddam Hussein and threatening revolution
"#9 Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
Jesus Christ was this seriously not already a requirement?
|Tasso - 2013-01-16 |
What planet are these people living in where schools don't have armed guards? My high school had 3 cops, all with pistols, pepper spray, clubs, and stun guns. And it was a gun-free zone because civilians weren't allowed to have guns there, that doesn't mean anything about cops.
And the sad thing is that tons of creepy shutins will see this and think OH MY GOD MAH CHILLUNS while their children are at school in a horrible horrible gun-free zone with armed police guards. Go figure.
I guess then what this ad really means is ARM EVERYONE IN SCHOOL, they just don't have the balls to say it. So 1 star for being pussies even though they're a lobby entirely devoted to lethal weapons.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2013-01-16 |
Sticks and stones, NRA. Or should I say, guns and bullets?
|FABIO - 2013-01-16 |
I would still like to know why anyone would ever need to own any gun beyond a double barrel shotgun or revolver for "home defense" (which is just a watered down version of this Travis Bickle nonsense) or a breechloading rifle for hunting.
There is never any reason aside from a delusional fantasy that you'll be fighting off FEMA death squads or "it's fun". Neither is a good enough reason.
Delusions are a reason not to own a gun.
Fun is a very valid reason to own a gun. It's like having a penis that ejaculates death. Fun is a reason to legalize a lot of dangerous things.
Rodents of Unusual Size
when I read the line "it's like having a penis that ejaculates death" I immediately thought of Florida.
Also, Texas is threatening to arrest any federal officers that try to make any gun related arrests or confiscations.
|cognitivedissonance - 2013-01-17 |
Oh no! The tribal initiation fetish is being threatened! How will they know we're from the Moar American Than Thou tribe if we don't have guns? Shouldn't we make the counter offer that their nut roasts be banned? If'n I have to go to Thanksgiving one more time and there's a nut roast, I'm going to go on a shooting spree! IT'S ONLY FAIR!
|Blue - 2013-01-17 |
You know what just occurred to me? Any other fucking special interest group would be more than fucking happy to write their own regulation. The call for gun control isn't happening because we hate guns, it's because we're fucking shocked that guns are pretty much unregulated in most places. They're angry that there isn't some sort of required class or test people have to pass. And really, the need for people that own guns to be educated in gun safety was the reason the NRA was started in the first place.
It's the NRA's fucking job to write the gun control legislation. If they don't, it's done piecemeal by people that know nothing about guns. That isn't what the people that pay NRA dues are paying for. And just in case someone suggests that the NRA opposes gun control, look at the fucking legislation they've put out there for concealed carry. Oh, look, people have to take a class and pass a test and get a fucking licence. They're doing it with concealed carry, why don't they just fucking do it for gun ownership in the first place?
|William Burns - 2013-01-17 |
Up until the 70's, when manufacturing interests took over the NRA, they were active in legislating restrictions on machine guns, destructive devices and nearly made handguns illegal in 1969. My guess is that much of the gun ban legislation is still written by industry insiders, as it has historically benifitted the largest "civilian" gun manufacturers like Ruger and Smith & Wesson, who's firearms were mostly unaffected by the 1994 ban. These ban cycles are unbelievably good for industry, creating false shortages and causing people to horde and overbuy. They are also creating MASSIVE concentrations of highly dangerous and user-friendly rifles in the US. If there is confiscation in the US, it will be in the same spirit as planned obselecence.\
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2013-01-18 |
I think we should just hire guys that look like the Punisher to patrol schools. That will make me feel safer. Of course most of them will not look like the Punisher and may look like the guy from Falling Down. But still. SAFE SAFE SAFE
| Register or login To Post a Comment|