Happy Gun Appreciation Day! Anti-Gun Control rallies attract 1000's - Polidicks

goblin answer my question, I need to know before ATF busts down my door for owning AR15!!!

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283731]because those threads don't have the regulars from another thread imported so they can mutually agree with each other on arguments they stole from other people ok i get it "GUNS", they are super-fascinating to some people but when you already have all the people who fucking care about this news in one thread why not just post it in that thread so you don't have to make threads that don't serve a purpose or derail other threads about far more important shit than a bunch of bored people marching with swastikas.[/QUOTE] so you don't think news stories about guns are legitimate? or just this particular thread?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283737]bradyns comments in almost every science thread, and ovb comments in a lot of them(especially if it's about marine such and such), does that make those threads a circlejerk?[/QUOTE] no those are two people

[QUOTE=Apache249;39283744]It is a circlejerk, between passionate pro-gunners and passionate anti-gunners. That is never going to change. His statement about us calling them names was false.[/QUOTE] I'd rather you stopped saying "anti-gun", just say "Pro-gun control" because that's what most people in here are anyway. I think very few in here view a ban as realistic.

[QUOTE=Crimptor;39283735]I was thinking, and I realized that the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791. Back then, all guns were single shot, flintlock, muzzle-loading, and made specially by gunsmiths. They were quite rare, so the chance of say, a mass shooting, was practically non-existent. I believe that laws and amendments should change as technology changes: in this case, I think they should look over the Second Amendment and change it so it fits with the technology and availability of guns today, not in 1791. (Please don't construe this as me being a gun control nut, I simply think they should rethink laws that are hundreds of years old.)[/QUOTE] Semi-automatic firearms were invented a few decades over 100 years ago. They've just been improved and refined over the course of time. Then they were made with black-plastic and given pistol grips.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39283781]I'd rather you stopped saying "anti-gun", just say "Pro-gun control" because that's what most people in here are anyway. I think very few in here view a ban as realistic.[/QUOTE] Sure I can do that.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283780]no those are two people[/QUOTE] there are more, johnnymo or w/e usually comments too. im sure there are more regulars but idk their usernames.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39283754]goblin answer my question, I need to know before ATF busts down my door for owning AR15!!![/QUOTE] I'm glad to report that Governor Goblin hasn't been online for the last 30 minutes, about 5 minutes before you responded. Please take a vacant seat in the waiting room. [QUOTE=Apache249;39283793]Sure I can do that.[/QUOTE] Nice of you, thanks. I find it a pretty important distinction.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283756]so you don't think news stories about guns are legitimate? or just this particular thread?[/QUOTE] i just think that anyone who cares enough about this to have an opinion already knows about it, and the only reason it gets posted is because everyone like circle-jerking weve basically turned this sub-forum into r/guns

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283780]no those are two people[/QUOTE] honestly, why do you even care? There isn't a massive number of these threads so they're not clogging up the forum, if you don't want to participate in the circle jerking, then don't.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283803]i just think that anyone who cares enough about this to have an opinion already knows about it, and the only reason it gets posted is because everyone like circle-jerking weve basically turned this sub-forum into r/guns[/QUOTE] news is news, if you don't like it stop browsing the news forum

[QUOTE=Crimptor;39283735]I was thinking, and I realized that the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791. Back then, all guns were single shot, flintlock, muzzle-loading, and made specially by gunsmiths. They were quite rare, so the chance of say, a mass shooting, was practically non-existent. I believe that laws and amendments should change as technology changes: in this case, I think they should look over the Second Amendment and change it so it fits with the technology and availability of guns today, not in 1791. [/QUOTE] Yes, but they didn't have radio, television, internet, ect. in the 1780 or 1790s. Yet, the first amendment covers those areas.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283803]i just think that anyone who cares enough about this to have an opinion already knows about it, and the only reason it gets posted is because everyone like circle-jerking weve basically turned this sub-forum into r/guns[/QUOTE] well yea but a couple months ago everything was about the election. i mean news stories tend to follow fads.

Honestly, I feel like the whole gun debate is possibly the biggest waste of time in modern politics. Both sides are making terrible points, and neither of them have much of a leg to stand on. I mean, lets consider the best and worse case scenarios if there were some kind of weapons ban: Best case: Gun culture in America evaporates and everyone is peaceful and there are no violent crimes anymore thanks to the lack of guns. Worst case: the Government takes all your guns away from you and establishes a tyrannical regime where people are turned into slaves and the fatcat politicians reap the benefits, while the thugs and pimps roam the streets now that there is no one to stand against them. Of course, neither of these are ever, EVER going to happen. People will still commit crimes, and the government isn't going to try and turn you all into slaves. Absolutely nothing will change if the AWB goes through. Which is why this whole thing is so incredibly pointless. We should be focusing on the social and mental issues that are the root of the problem. We need better prison systems and mental health care so people don't go on these murder sprees. We need background checks and gun licenses to make sure guns don't get into the hand of the wrong people. Rather than take peoples guns away, we should get people to [i]not feel like they need guns.[/I]

it so happens that this particular fad is gun control.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39283812]honestly, why do you even care?[/QUOTE] because youre all ruining it for everyone to the point that we cant even have a thread about a journalist dying without people jerking off about guns

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283146]you people have a damn thread, do you just want to make threads to circle jerk each other in?[/QUOTE] there's a trans and gay thread no more articles about gay or trans news anymore right?

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39283845]there's a trans and gay thread no more articles about gay or trans news anymore right?[/QUOTE] i don't know what gay or trans news is, but its not being posted on fp

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39283802]Nice of you, thanks. I find it a pretty important distinction.[/QUOTE] Then again there's another problem that I, for one, am not "anti-gun control." I am "pro-gun control," but I seem to disagree with a lot of the other "PGC" people, ones who say things like "all guns were designed to kill" or "it's easy to convert semi-automatic rifles to machine guns" or otherwise display blatant lack of firearms knowledge and understanding. Despite this, I understand the need to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. I just don't necessarily agree with how they are trying to do it.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39283941]I understand the need to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. I just don't necessarily agree with how they are trying to do it.[/QUOTE] To be fair, I think even the "anti-gun control" people on this forum agree it is a bad idea to have firearms in the hands of minors, felons, and the mentally inept.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283876]i don't know what gay or trans news is, but its not being posted on fp[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1239755[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1239770[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1239638[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1239274[/url] yeah, never posted on FP ever. not even in the last week.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39283962]To be fair, I think even the "anti-gun control" people on this forum agree it is a bad idea to have firearms in the hands of minors, felons, and the mentally inept.[/QUOTE] wouldn't denying felons firearms be morally a breach of the 2nd amendment?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283987]wouldn't denying felons firearms be morally a breach of the 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE] It's already a federal law.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283987]wouldn't denying felons firearms be morally a breach of the 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE] Technically yes, but felons don't deserve firearms because of their criminal (and sometimes violent) history. That is a regulation that is logical. To say people are getting military grade rifles that are going on mass shooting sprees... well you would have to be an idiot to believe that / think that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283987]wouldn't denying felons firearms be morally a breach of the 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE] Sure, in the same way that denying citizens fully-automatic weapons would be a moral breach of the 2nd amendment.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39283987]wouldn't denying felons firearms be morally a breach of the 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE] I don't think that even the bill of rights can take precedence over simple common sense.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39284007]It's already a federal law.[/QUOTE] well duh [QUOTE=UziXxX;39284009]Technically yes, but felons don't deserve firearms because of their criminal (and sometimes violent) history. That is a regulation that is logical. To say people are getting military grade rifles that are going on mass shooting sprees... well you would have to be an idiot to believe that / think that.[/QUOTE] so someone who gets busted on tax evasion should not be allowed to own a firearm? also, you are implying that a person cannot be truly rehabilitated or reintegrated into society after committing a crime we deem a felony. if they cannot be reintegrated, shouldn't they be in prison for the rest of their life? [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;39284042]I don't think that even the bill of rights can take precedence over simple common sense.[/QUOTE] common sense doesn't necessarily take precedence over logic or reality either. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] common sense often isn't sensical at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39284056]so someone who gets busted on tax evasion should not be allowed to own a firearm?[/QUOTE] Usually tax evasion is a crime that is charged onto drug lords and mob bosses because authorities have no other evidence of their (mostly violent) crimes. That doesn't go without saying that there are plain old tax cheats out there who didn't do anything really wrong, except not pay their taxes. In that case, I can compare it to people who smoke marijuana and are given 15 years in prison. It is stupid and isn't worthy of a felony charge. [QUOTE=yawmwen;39284056]also, you are implying that a person cannot be truly rehabilitated or reintegrated into society after committing a crime we deem a felony.[/QUOTE] It depends on the person. Most of the time, no, because child molesters usually rape children, and gang bangers go back to the streets to sell drugs and rob people. History tells us this. [QUOTE=yawmwen;39284056]if they cannot be reintegrated, shouldn't they be in prison for the rest of their life?[/QUOTE] Yes, as cruel as it sounds. But we already do that. It is the "life in prison without a chance of parole" sentence.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39283816]Yes, but they didn't have radio, television, internet, ect. in the 1780 or 1790s. Yet, the first amendment covers those areas.[/QUOTE] Yes, that is correct. But what is your point?

[QUOTE=Crimptor;39284102]Yes, that is correct. But what is your point?[/QUOTE] My point is as the technology changed, the first amendment stayed the same. It doesn't really need to change. Why should we change the second with the advancement of technology? What needs to be changed about it?