by the way, i feel that the statistically insignificant chance of a mass shooting should inspire us to action, just as the statistically insignificant chance of me being in a defense situation moves me to practice defending myself.

Quote :

"Correct. We need action regardless of mass shootings."

agreed

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 2:13:25 PM

If part of a new registration law included language making it illegal to release information to the public without making it anonymous, and again restating that its illegal to confiscate guns in emergencies, would you support registration?

why not?

1/14/2013 2:18:20 PM

Quote :

"Correct. We need action regardless of mass shootings."

+1

1/14/2013 2:23:39 PM

your idea of that though is free government gun control classes, you are not living in reality

1/14/2013 2:37:16 PM

Quote :

"http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-strangest-conservative-priority-prepping-a-2nd-amendment-solution/266711/"

-thegoodlife

that's a good article that points out why i rarely vote for republican candidates

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 3:13 PM. Reason : df]

1/14/2013 3:13:08 PM

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

What if in the future they required all guns to have technology that prevented them from firing if it was aimed at a person?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 3:15:46 PM

that violates recent SCOTUS rulings

1/14/2013 3:31:14 PM

I don't know if you're trolling, but if the effect is that the gun can't be used for defense then it certainly goes against some of the language used in the opinions

1/14/2013 3:42:05 PM

is that^ directed at me?

1/14/2013 3:44:40 PM

Quote :

"" But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it.""

- obama

this could get interesting

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM. Reason : a]

1/14/2013 5:18:17 PM

Headline on Drudge:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

Let it happen.

1/14/2013 7:40:39 PM

he can't really do anything via executive order. executive orders are for better enforcement of existing laws. he could maybe give them more money for tracing guns or more money for the NICS database, shit like that.

1/14/2013 7:45:17 PM

^he could block the importation of assault rifles using the gun control act of 1968

1/14/2013 8:24:41 PM

Quote :

"So now, after potentially shooting one of his co-attackers, a second attacker is going to attempt to kill you rather than aid his friend that you shot? "

That's exactly what he'll be doing if he has any sense of self preservation. He's just asking to die in place if he stops to help his friend. His only hope is to press the attack; there will be time to help his friend if he kills/incapacitates you. If you kill him, then that won't do his friend any good at all.

Quote :

"What if in the future they required all guns to have technology that prevented them from firing if it was aimed at a person?"

Hahaha, seriously? Who would want a useless weapon like that?

Quote :

"If part of a new registration law included language making it illegal to release information to the public without making it anonymous, and again restating that its illegal to confiscate guns in emergencies, would you support registration? why not? "

Once the registration cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. I can't predict what laws will be passed in the future. Therefore, I won't be registering anything, ever.

I, too, want to take some action, but there unfortunately isn't a lot of really ground-breaking stuff that's an option, and I vehemently oppose any kind of registry.



^^^ That guy's either an idiot or a fear-monger, or both. Nothing bad is going to happen via executive order. In fact, some good things could happen via executive order (more vigorously enforcing some good laws that we already have).

About the only sketchy thing that might happen via EO would be banning importation of certain foreign weapons...but then I would assume that someone would just produce them here if there's any significant market for it. This already goes on.

I have heard speculation that EO could be used to regulate 12-gauge shotguns under the NFA as destructive devices (since they are > .50 caliber) by declaring them as not having a sporting purpose...so I suppose the President could make it tougher to get your hands on a Saiga 12 or Kel-Tec KSG, or various other "tactical" shotguns. I think that would be a pretty bold move, though, that would almost certainly face significant challenges.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ^]

1/14/2013 8:29:31 PM

Quote :

"Once the registration cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. I can't predict what laws will be passed in the future. Therefore, I won't be registering anything, ever."

So if something you own is made illegal, you don't want it to be registered because that makes it harder for you to keep it illegally. That's what you are saying, that registration makes it harder for you to be a criminal. That without registration, regardless of the law, you would keep your illegal gun illegally.

I'm sorry if I don't find that to be a particularly sympathetic position

1/14/2013 8:38:46 PM

i'm shocked that someone who brags about breaking laws is bragging about breaking hypothetical laws

1/14/2013 8:45:00 PM

Anne Frank was a criminal. That doesn't count, though, right? Because that government was bad. Today's government is good.

1/14/2013 8:52:07 PM

If some future technology allowed it, would a semi-automatic tranquilizer gun or stun gun or whatever invalidate the self-defense argument?

1/14/2013 8:54:40 PM

Quote :

"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."

1/14/2013 9:10:29 PM

^^^ no, it doesn't count, for a lot of reasons

but you know that, are simply unable to respond to my point because it is solid, and decided to go Godwins law instead

"real conversation" about gun control indeed

1/14/2013 9:15:17 PM

Registration turns law abiding people into criminals if they don't want to be on a government list.
Nearly every government that has started registration, has gone to confiscation as time progressed.
Only new laws would make his gun illegal, and would make him a criminal... So new (pointless and meaningless) laws should not be made.

NY is looking to make the arbitrary limit 7 rounds, which would make some revolvers into 'assault' weapons. Do you see the stupidity in arbitrary designations?

Even Biden is looking to only ban 30+ round magazines.

1/14/2013 9:26:16 PM

Confiscation would require a constitutional amendment, it's not going to happen

And if registration is required but you don't do it, it didn't "turn you into a criminal"... you are a criminal.


You're still at not wanting registration because it makes it harder for you to be a criminal

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 9:28:48 PM

Quote :

"That's exactly what he'll be doing if he has any sense of self preservation."

So, out of self preservation he's going to attack? That seems like the one thing that would get him killed, unless of course you're some sort of psychopath who would shoot him in the back while he helps his friend. But I would definitely argue that surrendering or fleeing would be much more natural and more in the interest of self preservation.

1/14/2013 9:33:08 PM

^^Presumably you're ok with a government registry of all of your internet enabled devices and accounts?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM. Reason : dsf]

1/14/2013 9:34:02 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

lol nice pic CNN:

TRENDING: Poll: Gun control that Americans support



Looks like a couple of god damn Trapdoor Springfields in the foreground. Boy if that's where they're starting with legislation...

1/14/2013 9:34:04 PM

He's back, yay

1/14/2013 9:35:23 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4 All American 9721 Posts user info edit post ^^Presumably you're ok with a government registry of all of your internet enabled devices and accounts? [Edited on January 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM. Reason : dsf] 1/14/2013 9:34:02 PM"

I'm not sure, make a case for why its needed.

1/14/2013 9:36:26 PM

^to catch terrorists of course

1/14/2013 9:55:27 PM

^^Sure, but please note that all of the following is an argument on why a registration of internet devices and accounts might be needed, and it does not reflect my own personal views on the matter.

The anonymity of the internet enables such things as Anonymous and Wikileaks, both of which have been and will foreseeably be a threat to National Security. Additionally, the anonymity of the internet encourages other people to be more rude, inconsiderate or even aggressive than they might otherwise be. This leads to cyber bullying, a modern threat to our children which is increasing in correlation with suicide attempts by high school students. Additionally, because "the internet doesn't forget", small things can become blown up events due to careless use of the internet, as evidenced by the Rutgers suicide in 2010. Finally, anonymity on the internet allows for considerable law breaking the world over. The freenet project is well known to be a source of illegal things, including illegal pornography. VPNs and encrypted connections along with technologies like BitCoin enable illegal gabling. BitTorrent and it's like protocols enable anonymous, consequence free law violation, and the lure of such easy access to illicit materials to otherwise law abiding citizens has been instrumental in the propagation and growth of various viruses and bot nets around the world. In short it's quite clear that a registration of all internet enabled devices and accounts is a necessary step for strengthening the rule of law. Only someone intent on breaking the law or harassing other people without regard to consequence could object to such reasonable measures.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 9:57 PM. Reason : Bleh, I feel disgusting having written that]

1/14/2013 9:57:13 PM

Threats on the Internet are monitored and IP addresses are logged in many places.

And the Internet is not an American thing, it's not ours to regulate. In general though there is precedence for needing to register to exercise your 1st amendment right to speech (radio license). But both of those things are different because I can't kill anyone with my words.

1/14/2013 10:01:44 PM

So this discussion happened on my facebook today... thread was deleted shortly after because person was concerned FBI reads facebook. I kindly pointed out they were willing to discuss violent revolution to protect 2nd amendment, but wouldn't stand up for their 1st amendment rights by having a facebook discussion.

1/14/2013 10:12:03 PM

Quote :

"Threats on the Internet are monitored and IP addresses are logged in many places."

But not all, a federal internet devices and accounts database would improve this considerably. Just as by your argument a gun registry would improve on the already existing gun sale laws.

Quote :

" And the Internet is not an American thing, it's not ours to regulate. "

It doesn't have to be, we merely have to regulate what goes on in our borders. Just as we cannot regulate what guns are manufactured outside our borders, just what comes in.

Quote :

"In general though there is precedence for needing to register to exercise your 1st amendment right to speech (radio license)."

I assure you that no one needs a license or to register to exercise their 1st amendment rights. The only thing they need to register for is exclusive use of a public resource.

Quote :

"But both of those things are different because I can't kill anyone with my words."

Tell that to the parents of the Rutgers student and every other child who has committed suicide because of bullying.

Of course this is all beside the point of whether you would support a government registry of all internet enabled devices and accounts.



[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 10:17 PM. Reason : bleh again]

1/14/2013 10:15:41 PM

As soon as we start having 10's of thousands of deaths from speech, I will totally support your initiative

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 10:26 PM. Reason : Actually what the hell, it's dumb enough, I'll support it now, we should nationalize the Internet!]

1/14/2013 10:21:29 PM

Well, you're nothing if not consistent. You have horrible screwed up views on the rights of free people, but they're consistently screwed up.

It probably will come as no surprise to you that I wouldn't support the registration I put forth, and for all of the same reasons that I don't support a gun registry.

That said, what is it that makes you think the US government is different from any other government in the history of the world? Why do you think that the US is immune to descent into tyranny or abuse? Certainly we've been guilty in the past (see slavery), and present (see gay marriage or the war on drugs), and elections aren't a sufficient safeguard (some of the worst tyrants in modern history have been elected to their positions). So I'm curious, what is it about the US government that you would so willingly cede power and authority to it, and trust that it would not abuse that power and authority?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ,mn]

1/14/2013 11:11:57 PM

It's a good thing our forefathers didn't build a series of checks and balances into the construction of the government.

The right to bear arms is our only assurance to not be overrun by a tyrannical government.

1/15/2013 12:31:10 AM

^ this

I was thinking the same thing the other day. The people that worship the 2nd amendment don't have any faith in the other parts of the constitution of keeping the country from turning to whatever Stalin/Hitler/Red Dawn fantasy they have.

1/15/2013 6:31:25 AM

^,^^

all it takes is 5 radical judges and they can do whatever they want unless 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states dissent

1/15/2013 6:38:20 AM

Only if you're able to do those things for free, the judicial branch does not control appropriations.

And only if all the other checks on the court fail.

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 7:21 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2013 7:19:47 AM

Quote :

"all it takes is 5 radical judges and they can do whatever they want unless 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states dissent"

If they're really "radical" then that wouldn't be a problem.

1/15/2013 7:45:22 AM

^^^^ because our entire government is in bed with each other.

who hired the judge? what's his affiliation? who does he owe for his position?

I don't trust a single politician... and i don't mean that in a creepy conspiracy way... they just owe someone something to get where they are... all of them. I think our current president was/is one of the better ones (just because he doesn't seem to be puppeted by haliburton or _______ as bad as others) but, its a shame that he doesn't seem to realize the futility in passing gun laws.

I feel if every bill didn't have a crap ton of ear marks to pass we probably wouldn't have an insane national debt... but no one wants to give up all of the favors they've done for each other to get bills to pass just to make our country financially stable . This is why i don't trust checks and balances... everyone in our government has traded X for Y at some point.

1/15/2013 7:49:17 AM

Earmarks are not why we have so much debt

1/15/2013 8:14:06 AM

Quote :

"As soon as we start having 10's of thousands of deaths from speech, I will totally support your initiative"

Well, according to many, words have killed in the past....

Quote :

"I was thinking the same thing the other day. The people that worship the 2nd amendment don't have any faith in the other parts of the constitution of keeping the country from turning to whatever Stalin/Hitler/Red Dawn fantasy they have."

Not really. Armed revolution, the means of which are constitutionally protected, was always thought of as a last resort, due to the system of checks and balances. However, that system is somewhat broken, not to the point of revolution, but broken nonetheless. I also think it is very unlikely that armed revolution will come to this country, unless outside forces are at play (different topic). But just a plain ol' rise up against our own government? Nah, ever since the Civil War, and somewhat since GW was POTUS, the federal government has been working in some form or fashion to prevent itself from ever being dissolved by its own people, even though that was originally one option on the table for the people, ala the American Revolutoin.

Supreme Court Justices are biased, bought and paid for unelected politicians. Why do you think it is so important to each party to hold POTUS when a seat becomes available? Why is there political outcry each time a Justice is nominated? Because left- and right-wing politicians are being put on the panel.

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2013 8:47:26 AM

lets try this out...

DEAD!

Did you die?


What would it take for you true patriots to take up arms against the government? What is an example of the kind of tyranny that needs an army of goateed and chin fuzzed overweight rednecks to defend against? Seriously, what would it take? How do we know when the government has gone too far and the existing checks and balances are inadequate?

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2013 9:21:46 AM

This is an incredibly powerful set of graphs

http://fosslien.com/gc/#about

this is pretty damming



Right after that, it gives other factors correlated with gun violence. That tells us what was already obvious, that our economic situation plays a larger role than whatever legislation we could enact would. It's not just about the mentally disturbed people, if you make life better for people they're less likely to kill.

I also thought it strange that more Republicans want to ban handguns than independents.

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

1/15/2013 10:04:29 AM

^^maybe when we're using drones to spy on citizens

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/15/2013 10:07:13 AM

the NRA lobby at work
BAH GOD KANE, OUR GUNS ARE IN DANGER

1/15/2013 10:12:23 AM

Banning hand guns seems pointless to me.

1/15/2013 10:20:42 AM

well its also unconstitutional, I'm just pointing out that support for guns is increasing and not decreasing

1/15/2013 10:22:32 AM

So NeuseRvrRat will take up arms against the government when they start spying on citizens with drones (I assume he is implying spying on them domestically). Why do you think normal government processes can't be used to prevent this?



When will everyone else take up arms against the government?

1/15/2013 10:24:38 AM

the use of drones domestically has already begun

1/15/2013 10:28:53 AM