Quote :

"I'm not a fan of eroding HIPAA"

hipaa already has no teeth so its not like it matters. security of private health info isn't a thing most people see so it doesn't play well in the media. on the other hand, kneejerk legislation is worth huge points.

1/16/2013 4:25:50 PM

i don't really have any issue with the EOs. some of them are kinda funny like "write a memo" or "start a national dialogue", but for the most part, they aim for better enforcement of the laws we already have, which, as i've been trying to explain to every fucking Ricky for the past week, is all that can be done via executive order.

fuckin' Rickies

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 4:27 PM. Reason : i]

1/16/2013 4:26:36 PM

Quote :

"Fox News/Drudge/Beck et. al drumming up paranoia is funny?"

Not funny haha, but funny ironic in that by stating the case that they want to ban something production has ramped up across the country on what they want to ban, and in fact sales of things like 30 round magazines for AR-15s will probably be more in the next few months and this year than they ever would have been over the next decade if no legislation were to be introduced.

It's a totally foreseeable consequence, but one I'm sure was unintended by team Biden and idiots like Diane Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg.

And actually, in just the case of magazines it looks like the "paranoia" about legislation to ban them was totally justified.

Personally I still think any bill similar to the 94 AWB has no chance of passing congress.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM. Reason : dfsdf]

1/16/2013 4:52:47 PM

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/did-president-obama-just-order-the-government-to-study-video-game-violence/

Quote :

"As this LiveScience article helpfully explains, the federal Centers for Disease Control have been prohibited from funding studies that "advocate or promote gun control" since 1996, when Congress cut the $2.6 million the organization had been using to fund gun injury research through its Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Further moves since then have prevented the CDC from even receiving federal crime data for gun research, and prohibited the National Institute of Health from doing gun violence research as well."

W.T.F.

How did this get passed through in the first place. That's nuts.

1/16/2013 7:35:59 PM

(I misread your post the first time)

It got passed in the first place because of the NRA

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 7:52:29 PM

here's what the CDC had to say last time:

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

my biggest fear would be the CDC's research leading to severe restrictions on lead, making it too expensive to shoot/train regularly.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM. Reason : dasf]

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM. Reason : lead-free projectiles are expensive]

1/16/2013 10:04:15 PM

not to mention that the CDC director is appointed by the president without senate approval

1/16/2013 10:17:34 PM

You guys are hilarious

1/16/2013 10:23:47 PM

^^^ valid concern.

But in general, it makes practically zero sense to ban a research based organization from conducting a single specific type of research at the hands of lobbyists.

It's far better for an organization that uses an openly reviewable research process to make a recommendation, than for a slimy lobbyist buttering up representatives.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2013 10:27:32 PM

but americans aren't interested in data or reviewing research methods. you tell them that their babies will be born naked because some hilljacks are filling up dirt berms with lead and they'll freak the fuck out.

1/16/2013 10:31:56 PM

gun enthusiasts don't really have good data, they have what they are told is good data.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:27 PM. Reason : oops]

1/16/2013 11:27:42 PM

looks like there have been plenty of studies already.

jackal? jackal? is it jackal? jackal?

1/17/2013 12:03:03 AM

Quote :

"you tell them that their babies will be born naked because some hilljacks are filling up dirt berms with lead and they'll freak the fuck out."

If my child isn't born draped in an American flag with an AR15 in its hands, I'm gonna be pissed.

1/17/2013 12:51:32 AM

Shit, I'd shoot a motherfucker or 31.

1/17/2013 12:54:15 AM

Ah yes, we need the CDC to do studies. Because government agencies aren't corrupt, bought by companies, or controlled by biased politicians... *cough* look at the epa *cough*

1/17/2013 9:44:38 AM

The CDC does some research themselves, but more importantly they fund independent research through grants at universities and other research institutions. That's why the NRA went after the CDC, to cut off funding to those places.

idiot

1/17/2013 9:48:08 AM

^^ you do realize how ironic of a statemet that is, right?

1/17/2013 12:08:49 PM

Explain the irony.

1/17/2013 12:34:03 PM

he's complaining about the exact same thing the NRA and its constituents did to kill the CDC funding

1/17/2013 12:37:09 PM

Quote :

"Explain the irony."

I find it fallacious to claim the CDC is corrupt based on "*cough* the EPA *cough*" whatever the fuck that means.

1/17/2013 4:25:18 PM

The EPA reference I believe is a reference to this http://www.wral.com/epa-changed-course-after-oil-company-protested/11984990/

1/17/2013 6:24:07 PM

i did lol @

Quote :

"If my child isn't born draped in an American flag with an AR15 in its hands, I'm gonna be pissed."

Just got this on my facebook .

1/17/2013 6:38:04 PM

It's a stretch to claim that Scalia ruled an assault weapons ban constitutional

(assuming its based on his decision in Heller v DC)

[Edited on January 17, 2013 at 6:53 PM. Reason : A pretty big stretch ]

1/17/2013 6:52:48 PM

I don't give a shit about what Reagan or Scalia think.

If they supported a ban on so-called "assault weapons" then they were even more awful at their respective jobs than I thought.

1/17/2013 10:36:18 PM

Is the 10 round mag thing just rifles or pistols too?

1/17/2013 11:57:35 PM

both

1/18/2013 6:36:30 AM

Reagan supported the ban on actual assault weapons, not the stuff being called 'assault' weapons.

1/18/2013 9:11:17 AM

Quote :

"he's complaining about the exact same thing the NRA and its constituents did to kill the CDC funding"

My point exactly. In the past, the NRA has the funds to buy the CDC. Who's next? Handgun, Inc?

Not sure why you think I would be in favor of the NRA. I've made it perfectly clear in the past that I am not an NRA member or supporter.

1/18/2013 9:12:21 AM

so you fund grants and studies are peer-reviewed and published. that's how science works. if there are problems you let the peers point it out.

1/18/2013 9:32:24 AM

I've noticed how pretty much any remotely modern gun is now an "assault weapon".

1/18/2013 4:18:54 PM

civilian firearms have always followed military firearms. from rifled muskets to the Sharps rifle to the millions of Mauser-style bolt actions that were sporterized by hunters to the M1A and now the AR-15.

1/18/2013 4:43:10 PM

^^

For the pro gun-control people: this is a good (maybe not perfect) breakdown of WHY some pro-gun 'ers (such as myself) are not in favor of an "assault weapons ban"

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I recommend anyone interested in discussing such a ban flip through the material (< 5 mins to read it all).

Edit: not calling you ^^ pro gun-control or vice versa, just wanted to tag onto the AWB topic that is floating around

[Edited on January 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM. Reason : ]]

1/18/2013 9:09:30 PM

There is no emotion in that article.... we all understand that emotion is the only thing that the antis can rely on to push their agenda..... what makes you think they would care about facts and, most importantly of all, logic?!?!

1/19/2013 1:59:36 AM

Because gun nuts ever ignore facts or kill funding for research about the subject or anything

1/19/2013 10:56:43 AM

The AWB was thrown out there to be shot down so that the rest of the measures could pass.

See: public option and Obamacare

1/19/2013 12:36:59 PM

[Edited on January 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: DEY DERK R DERRR]

1/19/2013 3:03:22 PM

all the laws in the world won't matter if we, as Biden put it, "don't have the time or manpower to prosecute."

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/#ixzz2ISCZT1DG

hey guys, we don't have time or money to enforce these laws. we clearly need more laws. yes, that's exactly what we need.

lolololololol

1/19/2013 3:09:35 PM

Any guesses as to why the ATF does not have the time or resources?

1/19/2013 3:44:54 PM

they're too busy walking guns to mexican drug cartels?

1/19/2013 3:57:19 PM

^ I think the answer he wanted was that the NRA lobbied to reduce their budget... not sure if that is true or not but I would not put it past the NRA.

Also on another note.

http://www.wral.com/two-people-injured-in-shooting-at-raleigh-gun-show/12000843/


[Edited on January 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2013 4:00:38 PM

^ so the cop checking the gun shot 2 people because he didn't know what he was doing... I'm sure that will be ignored by the media and it'll just be used as another reason we can't be trusted with guns.

1/19/2013 4:51:23 PM

the chief of the fairgrounds PD said that the shotgun discharged before any of their personnel touched it. he made it sound like it went off as the patron was taking it out of the case.

[Edited on January 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM. Reason : they just had a press conference. he could be full of shit. who knows?]

1/19/2013 4:54:12 PM

^ we both know he's full of shit. Sadly others will think its another gun that just jumped up and shot someone all by itself.

1/19/2013 4:56:45 PM

[Edited on January 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : speak for yourself]

1/19/2013 4:59:21 PM

1/19/2013 5:42:21 PM

^ nice

1/19/2013 6:05:52 PM

I'm not really sure what point they're trying to prove. That people have to be scared of others because of the very weapons you so stringently defend?

Because that's what I'm getting from the video.

Hey, for all you gun owners who need it for "protection", do you also have a home security system? Or does protecting your family mean "only when you're home and have access to your gun"?

1/19/2013 6:25:03 PM

^think they were going for the hypocrite angle. they are against others having guns yet they have armed guards.

1/19/2013 6:34:10 PM

Quote :

"Hey, for all you gun owners who need it for "protection", do you also have a home security system? Or does protecting your family mean "only when you're home and have access to your gun"?"

i currently rent, but i'll be buying a house in the next 6 months. i plan to have a security system.

1/19/2013 7:09:55 PM

I don't quite get what a security system has to do with anything.

I don't have guns to protect my stuff. I would much rather get the fuck outta there, given a chance, than have a gunfight/shooting over stuff that my homeowner's insurance covers.

If I'm not home, I have door locks and homeowner's insurance.

If I am home, I have door locks and guns. I don't see what a security system is for if you're home, unless you have a really big house where conceivably you could be in one part of the house and not hear an intruder enter somewhere else.

1/19/2013 7:16:30 PM