It is my right to have a M60 AM I RITE

12/3/2015 6:19:29 PM

When people (on either side of the isle) say stricter "gun control" laws, what exactly do you mean? How would your specific interpretation of stricter "gun control" laws have prevented what happened in San Bernardino?

12/3/2015 6:20:26 PM

They probably say it means making it more difficult for certain people to get guns. Gun owners are probably thinking the end game is to outlaw all guns.

12/3/2015 6:42:45 PM

CBS coverage:

coworker: he started growing beards
anchor: so you think he was being radicalized?

12/3/2015 7:06:36 PM

Quote :

"You are pushing your political agenda on an unrelated terrorist event, just like your boss man. In the most strict gun control state in the country. Even moron's suggestion of a "loophole" does not even exist in CA. All transactions must be done through an FFL. ARs are already banned in CA, and the existing inventory owned by Californians have to be modified to not have an easily removable magazine as well as no larger magazines than 10 rounds. Those laws on the books had no effect. CA gun laws are far and above what is already being dropped on the floor as soon as it comes out of a libtard lawmakers mouth, have fun daydreaming about a magical solution."

LOL, the point is that these things should be implemented everywhere and given some teeth. And the process of solving problems is determining what your end-result is, proposing a hypothesis to get there, then determine where this hypothesis fails.

You are finding very trivial or irrelevant failure points, and then bailing from the "problem solving" process, rather than moving forward. This is what makes gun nuts look so nutty-- you guys do it to yourselves.

12/3/2015 7:06:59 PM

This could have been included in workplace annoyances thread

12/3/2015 7:07:31 PM

^^^ today was all:

FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!
FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!
FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!
FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!
FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!
FOX: MUSLIMS!!!
MSNBC: GUNS!!!

12/3/2015 7:08:35 PM

Quote :

" Some of the contacts, which were years old, were made through social media. DMV photo of Syed Farook. “These were not substantial contacts,” the official said. “Those contacts would not have put him on our radar. We certainly saw that contact but it was insignificant. You’re allowed to like someone’s Facebook page.” The official said the FBI has yet to find definitive evidence that the couple had been radicalized or were looking at jihadist websites or reading terrorist literature such as Inspire magazine."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/03/fbi-takes-over-san-bernardino-investigation-as-authorities-seek-motive-for-attack-that-killed-14-people/

I bet they have evidence of a deeper connection, they're just keeping quiet.

12/3/2015 7:15:50 PM

^ yeah i'm thinking the same

trend is to hold info as long as possible these days

12/3/2015 7:26:06 PM

Quote :

"When people (on either side of the isle) say stricter "gun control" laws, what exactly do you mean? How would your specific interpretation of stricter "gun control" laws have prevented what happened in San Bernardino? "

I think part of the problem is not having gun restrictions standardized on a national level. This causes problems for progressive gun law states due to the ease of interstate movement of weapons that can circumvent laws that any individual state may pursue.

Using the California 10 bullet clip law as an example (even though I don't support this law) if I were intent on having a 16-bullet clip for my Glock all it would take would be a trip to Nevada or Oregon. No one at the border is going to stop you to check for guns. Even if you were stopped for a speeding ticket and being a responsible concealed carry owner you mentioned your gun in the glove-box, i doubt the police would ask one to pull the weapon out in order to count the bullets in ones clip.

Thus any gun enthusiast or future mass shooters can easily circumvent stricter gun control measures in any given by state if they have enough motivation to visit a state with looser gun laws.

On the other hand if the federal government were to issue a 10-bullet clip mandate (again I don't support this). Effectively the access to clips larger then 10 bullets would become greatly prohibitive and would decline as function of time. Sure some gun zealots would not turn in their outlawed clips but probably many gun enthusiasts who take honor in being law-abiding citizens would obey the law. In order to purchase a 10+ bullet clip outside the black market, one would have to travel across national borders (to say Mexico) where there would be customs inspections to find illegal contraband.

[Edited on December 3, 2015 at 8:01 PM. Reason : a]

12/3/2015 7:59:40 PM

^conecticut tried that, and had a 92% rate of non-compliance.

12/3/2015 8:31:01 PM

the federal govt shouldn't even have the authority to regulate guns whatsoever. they only do so now because they raped the interstate commerce clause many years ago.

12/3/2015 9:48:04 PM

about france...

Quote :

"^less than 1/3rd per capita"

that's true if looking at all gun-related deaths. however, if you look at just homicides, france's rate is 1/16 of US's rate. that's because unlike in the US where the number of suicides is [just under] double that of homicides, in france number of suicides is 10 times the number of homicides! (only gun-related)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

it is interesting that in many european countries the gun suicide rate is many multiple times their gun homicide rate, even as much as 40+ times more! (finland and norway), and 10-15 times is common.

12/3/2015 11:29:32 PM

anyone post any hooves ITT yet :3

12/3/2015 11:32:37 PM

Quote :

"the federal govt shouldn't even have the authority to regulate guns whatsoever. "

So given how some states vote, some states should be able to allow the purchase of machine guns without any license/permit at the corner store, and other states should able to completely prevent the purchase of any guns within their borders period? States Rights are King?

12/3/2015 11:36:38 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262032-brother-of-suspected-san-bernardino-gunman-is-decorated-navy-vet

Quote :

"Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, is suspected of opening fire on Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif.... the suspect’s brother, Syed Raheel Farook received the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon ..."

They're both named Syred R. Farook o.O

[Edited on December 3, 2015 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2015 11:56:29 PM

^^that was the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution for the first ~150 years.

actually, i'm wrong. the 2nd Amendment would make that last part of your statement unconstitutional.

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 12:14 AM. Reason : adsf]

the fed gets the right "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." the interpretation this clause and the definition of "commerce" have changed drastically over the years.

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM. Reason : afds]

12/4/2015 12:10:34 AM

So just to be clear, are u saying we should be allowed to buy machine guns at the Food Dawg, constitutionally speaking?

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 12:27 AM. Reason : As long as the state allows, of course.]

12/4/2015 12:26:18 AM

According to the old interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, that was left to the state to decide as long as they did not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

12/4/2015 12:29:21 AM

the Constitution intentionally established a very weak federal govt. the whole of U.S. history is just the growth of our infrastructure, which connects the states and leads to the growth of the federal govt.

12/4/2015 12:35:26 AM

I thought we were well past the point of accepting that the Constitution allows for guns to be regulated-- we've been regulating them pretty much since the thing was written.

^ you should build a time machine to let people and the judges know they're screwing stuff up by not interpreting it that way

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2015 12:36:16 AM

the shift in interpretation of the commerce clause (around 1937, btw) is a pretty important topic in American history. we're not just talking about regulating guns.

12/4/2015 12:41:41 AM

i just find it interesting that folks call for the fed to enact gun regulations when Americans used to debate whether or not the fed even had the right to do so

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM. Reason : adfs]

12/4/2015 12:48:29 AM

^ we used to debate lots of things as a country, that we no longer debate... the Constitution isn't a religious document, it's a framework that's been fleshed out over the years by court rulings and laws.

12/4/2015 1:06:35 AM

yeah, like D.C. vs. Heller

12/4/2015 1:08:39 AM

guise!!!! we need to stop with all the bickering! everytime there is a shooting we go round and round with the same old shit. "we need MOAR gun control!"..."you're NOT going to take away my guns!"..."gun control only affects law abiding citizens!"...etc. This is exactly what they want. we're just being distracted from the fact that it's time to terrorize the terrorists.

12/4/2015 9:05:10 AM

I think one of the big problems that makes discussing this issue difficult is the fact as soon as someone says the words gun control a huge portion of people seem to take that to mean taking away their guns or banning all guns.

12/4/2015 9:51:18 AM

I heard they were found with pipe bombs toot he govt should ban those.

12/4/2015 9:51:38 AM

guise!!!! we need to stop with all the bickering! everytime there is a shooting we go round and round with the same old shit. "we need MOAR gun control!"..."you're NOT going to take away my guns!"..."gun control only affects law abiding citizens!"...etc. This is exactly what they want. we're just being distracted from the fact that it's time to terrorize the terrorists. ban guns like Australia.

12/4/2015 9:53:12 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

12/4/2015 10:09:03 AM

Quote :

"I think one of the big problems that makes discussing this issue difficult is the fact as soon as someone says the words gun control a huge portion of people seem to take that to mean taking away their guns or banning all guns."

I agree, but several governments/politicians haven't helped when the some of the first pieces of legislation they push are bans and/or confiscation.

12/4/2015 10:15:33 AM

Quote :

"confiscation"

There have been actual confiscation bills in the US?

And when you say bans, I assume you're speaking of assault rifles right?

12/4/2015 10:17:04 AM

The reason people think gun control and more regulation means their guns will be taken away is because that's the road we go down in order to take their guns away. No gun law would have prevented those guns from being purchased and no gun law in CA stopped 2 of those guns from crossing into CA.

These people were actually smart enough to not leave behind cell phones and a hard drive in their computer making it harder for the government to track down their contacts. Makes me think they have connections who plan on doing more harm.

Since these people were smart, they stayed off the radar; even stopped going to their mosque. Whoever likes the idea of more gun regulation, come up with a gun law that would have prevented this man from arming himself and his wife.

12/4/2015 10:19:34 AM

Guess I better not get a folding stock for my Ruger 10/22. Wouldn't want to make it into an assault weapon, which legally it would be.

12/4/2015 10:21:40 AM

Quote :

"There have been actual confiscation bills in the US? And when you say bans, I assume you're speaking of assault rifles right?"

Yes, though I can't recall the state at the moment. Somewhere in the northeast.

Yes, bans on scary looking firearms that are functionally no different than a wooden stock "hunting" rifle.

12/4/2015 10:25:59 AM

are you one of those insufferable "there's no such thing as an assault rifle" people

God I hope so

that would be delicious

12/4/2015 10:27:37 AM

Quote :

"The reason people think gun control and more regulation means their guns will be taken away is because that's the road we go down in order to take their guns away"

You can't take people's fucking guns away. Give me a fucking break with that dishonest bullshit argument.

Quote :

"scary looking firearms that are functionally no different than a wooden stock "hunting" rifle."

That also is a bullshit argument.

12/4/2015 10:30:59 AM

^^No, there are such things. But what most of the general public calls an assault rifle is not an assault rifle.

It can't be made any more clear than this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 10:34 AM. Reason : /]

12/4/2015 10:31:16 AM

Quote :

"I think one of the big problems that makes discussing this issue difficult is the fact as soon as someone says the words gun control a huge portion of people seem to take that to mean taking away their guns or banning all guns."

Because that's what some people actually mean/want.

"Gun Control" is just a shitty marginalized catch phrase lazy people spout out when someone dies from gun violence. No one ever follows that phrase up with what their definition of Gun Control is and how it would have prevented the death that occurred. No one wants to address the intricacies of the issue.

12/4/2015 10:34:20 AM

Wow, Sayer, you're certainly not shy about spouting off some reductive, completely untrue bullshit, are you?

12/4/2015 10:43:14 AM

Quote :

"You can't take people's fucking guns away. Give me a fucking break with that dishonest bullshit argument."

You have to start somewhere. Chances are it will be easier to whittle away at a "right" one piece at a time than to come out and say the right no longer exists

Voting rights can also be regulated, taxed, and diminished

12/4/2015 10:45:50 AM

Quote :

"Wow, Sayer, you're certainly not shy about spouting off some reductive, completely untrue bullshit, are you?"

Considering the litany of reductive, completely untrue bullshit already in this thread, the comment seemed to fit.

12/4/2015 11:15:15 AM

Quote :

"Chances are it will be easier to whittle away at a "right" one piece at a time"

Except that hasn't been happening at all in recent history, but I appreciate your agreement that you can't take people's fucking guns away.

12/4/2015 11:16:45 AM

So is Obama still calling this one "workplace violence"?

12/4/2015 11:20:41 AM

Quote :

"So is Obama still calling this one "workplace violence"?"

When did he in the first place?

12/4/2015 11:21:33 AM

Crazy how we live in country where gun ownerships is a Constitutional right, while healthcare is considered a privilege.

12/4/2015 11:21:38 AM

On that note crazy where a significant % of the country thinks the world magically appeared 6000 years ago, that global climate change is some sort of anti-american anti-freedom conspiracy by 99% of the scientific world, and while bitching about welfare they want to defund Planned Parenthood that helps decrease unwanted children many of whom are born into families that then need more welfare.

12/4/2015 11:29:26 AM

Quote :

" When did he in the first place? "

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

Quote :

""It is possible that this was terrorist related, but we don't know. It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said, adding that more conclusions will be drawn after the FBI conducts a large number of interviews."

Well, he didn't outright say it but it's strongly implied he's reluctant to call it what it is, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it was an act of terrorism. Wait, maybe this couple just made a hobby out of building pipe bombs and it wasn't actually planned.

12/4/2015 11:44:31 AM

Quote :

"http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/"

You know what the phrases we don't know and it's possible mean right?

Your position is especially stupid given that this is looking like both terrorism and workplace violence

[Edited on December 4, 2015 at 11:50 AM. Reason : This just shows you don't like Obama so much you'll misquote him to score points. No points for you.]

12/4/2015 11:46:42 AM

Quote :

"On that note crazy where a significant % of the country thinks the world magically appeared 6000 years ago, that global climate change is some sort of anti-american anti-freedom conspiracy by 99% of the scientific world, and while bitching about welfare they want to defund Planned Parenthood that helps decrease unwanted children many of whom are born into families that then need more welfare."

holy shit, I agree with HUR

12/4/2015 11:48:58 AM