John Stewart on Gun Control
Did anyone else catch this last night? I love how JS calls it how he sees it. Thank you for some common sense on the debate! (gun owner here, no need to get into a heated debate)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...playershare_fb |
Once again, he is the most annoying man on TV. Not even a little funny.
|
And he's out of touch with the Heller and McDonald decisions that fully acknowledge the individual right to bear arms.
And if you filled out the selective service form at 18 I would argue that's being part of the militia for those who want to argue the "well regulated militia" angle. |
Quote:
|
The real problem is the media.They make the sick minded serial killers into famous heroes.If you never knew who the shooters were they would choose a different path to stardom or suicide.
|
"The real problem is the media"
yah, out of the thousands and thousands of people killed by guns every year, they zero in on the mentally ill guy who take their AR and shoot up a bunch of kids! |
There was NO effing AR used!!!! There was a similar type rifle found in the trunk of the car. That is once again the media playing into the pocket of and drinking that presidential jungle juice
|
Over 10 times as many people die every year by malpractice.You don't see the media bashing doctors.Many more die at the hands of Drunk Drivers and the punishment is less severe.Shockingly enough more people die at the hands of a hammer every year than a gun.
|
JS is a good comedian. However, he would do better if he applied his brand of humor with less political bias and go with whats the funniest.
"Lets stop guys who dont follow the rules by.... making more rules." |
I get news from the TV via The Daily Show and CNN (left swinging) and to/from work in my car listen to conservative talk radio (Hannity, Rush, etc).... my best attempt to see/hear both sides.
From that the biggest argument from the "right" side is this - the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. After that they define "Good Guy" as a well trained, law obeying citizen (obeying a property's right to ban weapon included). With that said, all the guns in the world would NOT have stopped any public shooting as of late. I know that here in Wisconsin almost EVERY SINGLE STORE I have been in since the conceal and carry laws were passed here has a big sign saying "Firearms not permitted on this property" .... this includes malls, theaters, schools, churches, bars, etc etc etc. So as a bad guy whole strolls into the mall and opens fire, this means that all of you "good guys" wouldn't have guns anyway.... you're SOL. And if you do in fact have a gun at a place that does not permit them, maybe you're not such a good guy. Lets say you're in that mall with a shooter, your gun is in your car, how many people would actually leave, get the weapon (losing sight of the bad guy"), and come back to stop him? If you say "I sure would, FOR AMERICA!" then I would ask this..... I am in a mall with the shooter, you leave to get your gun and come back to shoot the shooter.... now I see two guys with guns, I assume there are two shooters, I get my gun from my car, now I'm trying to take out the two shooters.... etc etc etc, next thing you know you have 7 people with guns all trying to kill each other since no one knows who is who. ..... with all that said, I don't think guns should be touched namely on the principal of if the 2nd amendment gets fudged with, where does it stop. I also think there is ZERO need for 100 round mags, fully auto rifles (most semi auto I can't justify).... my family has guns for hunting, they are shotgun/ pump based or bolt action rifles.... they work great for hunting, we don't need more. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm a gun owner. I like shooting guns. I like shooting anything that goes boom. With that said, I think I'm with alot of American's who want to find middle ground. Some states are very easy to obtain firearms, while others are very tough. Does that coorespond to reduced crime rates? I've seen statistics pointing to yes and no.
What I think everyone can agree with is (which is the point JS is making), what we have been doing currently isn't working and needs to be changed. I'm not smart enough to solve the problem, so I won't make suggestions. What I DO know is, I do not need a rifle specifically designed to efficiently kill multiple people. The rifles/guns used in many of the mass shootings (Aurora, Columbine, Oregon Mall, Newtown) were these type. I sleep with an XD40 next to my bed with hollow point bullets in easy access. Yes, it is an efficient killing tool and will suit my needs for defense. No, it would not be efficient to kill a mass number of people. The idea is to make it HARDER to obtain "assault type" (broad term, yes but you know one when you see one) weapons. If that means I have to jump through 10x more hoops to get my hands on an AR15, and I cant carry X number of rounds, and I have to register it, report it stolen, lock it up, whatever, then that's OK with me if it keeps it out of the hands of just ONE criminal. What I'm really getting sick of seeing/hearing is people like the wacko that was on Piers Morgan. Yes, he is a fringe lunatic and no, he doesn't represent most gun enthuasists. However, I am tired of seeing people post pictures of facebook/email of Stalin/Hitler/Pol Pot and comparing them to our current administration. Come on guys, really? I've never voted for Obama, but this is quite a stretch. The most ludicrous suggestion I've heard is from the NRA to arm school administrators. Yeah, because thats a great idea - lets put a glock in the hands of principle Belding and they can go round-for-round in the hallway of an elementary school. |
Quote:
He's practically made a career out of exposing the hypocrisy of Fox News alone. Obviously if you are politically aligned with most of the rhetoric coming out of Fox News you aren't going to find what he does humorous in the least. But if you are politically aligned with his position on things then he comes off as brilliant. If you want yucks from jokes and can deal with the liberal bias, then just watch Colbert. |
Quote:
Nick, just because a property says "guns prohibited" does not mean you cannot legally carry there. It means they have the right to ask you to leave if they see it. In order for it to be illegal it must be listed as a restricted site (school, church, etc) or have the very specific 30.06 or 51%signage on the door. Also, you should hope every mass shooter uses a 100rd drum. They are crap and typically cant shoot more than 3rds without jamming or crapping out. They are cumbersome and throw the weigh dist way off. Hard to hit anything with it. Quote:
In a free society, the only way you can stop bad people from doing bad things is make them too afraid to do it. |
Quote:
|
8583>496
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think I need to point out that the comparison on your end is rather flawed ... |
The conversation is about a specific type of rifle and mass murders. Well mass murders peaked in 1929 and when compared to overall homicide, rifles of any kind are a small contributor. How am I wrong?
You can pick at the example of hammers but that's not something I proposed. Just that blunt objects > than a subset of rifles with the information provided. My position is well expressed in this article I posted in another thread: http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/ |
Quote:
http://www.mydoorsign.com/img/md/S/N...ign-S-4296.gif Are just a simple rule of thumb?..... right..... Quote:
|
The 2nd amendment says nothing about "need". If some idiot wanted to ban yellow cars they could say "no one needs yellow cars". Show evidence that banning 30 round or 100 round drum magazines lowers crime. It doesn't exist. Nada. "What if it saves just one life"... that is just IGNORANT.. Let's ban all cars right now and save the thousands of people that die in car accidents. So let me say it.... NO, it isn't worth it to save just one life. Columbine happened in '99 during the "Assault Weapon Ban" that was in effect from '94 to 2004. It took place in a "Gun Free Zone". Why not just outlaw murder and killing people? LOL...
|
Nick, I walk right into places with those signs like you posted carrying my concealed handgun all of the time. That is because in Texas they must use a specific sign referencing section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code. I was in a restraurant one time and I told the owner that his sign outside was bogus and basically meaningless and I was carrying my gun anyway. He just laughed and said "I put out that sign because a couple of my liberal college professor customer's wanted it and they are too uninformed to understand the law. I know you guys with a CHLs will just carry anyway. I have no problem with people carrying guns whatsoever. It is win win." I had to chuckle. But he is 100% right.
|
Quote:
|
interesting stat I heard on the radio the other night:
the number of guns in the United States has grown since the 1960s, but the number of households owning guns has declined from 50% to 33%. Those who do own guns tend to own more than one, and the industry depends on the minority who choose to own guns to own more than one. Link to the story: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/bu...g-its-business |
Quote:
http://www.2swordsprotection.com/images/30.06.jpg http://www.2swordsprotection.com/images/51.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Additionally, there are reports that mention the Columbine Deputy Sheriff, stationed at the school, saving several lives and allowing injured students to escape while exchanging fire with the perpetrators. |
Gun Free Zones don't apply to cops Rich. The point is rather simple: a) assault weapon ban was in effect - didn't matter b) Gun Free Zone - didn't matter
|
Quote:
|
The correct stat is more people die from a hammer than a rifle or "scary evil assault rifle". That is 100% correct :
323 die from a rifle 496 from hammer 726 from a non weapon (hands, feet, etc...) The link is posted above. That is an FBI crime statistics. |
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the prohibited gun sign is section 30.06?
|
Quote:
|
Nick read this story from Wisconsin
http://www.wisn.com/Man-Who-Shot-Ald...k/-/index.html He was carrying in an Aldi's that had a sign up. |
Quote:
|
Also, note that "assault rifles" are not broke out in the rifle category. I'd bet there are far more murders with a $200 22 LR caliber than a 5.56 AR-15. Just like most of the handgun murders are committed with cheap pieces of crap and not $800 hanguns.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So we've established that both sides use words to invoke a response, anything unexpected there? |
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cut gun safety research by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to one estimate. Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.
Biden said he would like federal agencies to have the ability to get information on what kind of weapons are used most to kill people and what kind of weapons are the most trafficked. "I'm no great hunter - it's mostly skeet shooting for me - I don't quite understand why everybody would be afraid of whether or not we determine what is happening," he said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9090YM20130110 This. We will never get anything accomplished with lobbyists fighting at every turn. How about some actual RESEARCH into the issue? |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not sure why we're even discussing this - Jon Stewart put it perfectly: We're the only nation obsessed with guns based on an imaginery threat that the government may turn against us (I don't think we're close to a civil war or had one recently). If common sense hopefully prevails and we're willing to engage in a discussion how to prevent 10000 people dying each year due to gun violence (real issue) vs. talking about hammers and baseball bats then I believe we're getting somewhere ... |
Quote:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168771...icagos-goes-up Mainly that there are hot spots that account for most violent crime and we can address that issue directly. Our rights are not collective but individual. I did not perpetrate that crime, nor did millions of other law-abiding American gun owners. The collective does NOT have the right to strip me of my ability to defend my life. Additionally, like most I'm sure you do not mind that Congress recently waived your individual right to privacy, in violation of the 4th amendment. Again, this is a move toward collectivism and that is something that will not stand long in the psyche of Americans. All of this surrounding a fear of terrorism which could be addressed by revising our a-hole attitude towards foreign countries but Congress would rather sacrifice your individual rights. Different issues, similar fear, and the same non-solution to calm the nerves of the masses. |
Quote:
Look at how much $$$ we blew post 9/11, and for what? 14 guys with box cutters and some determination did something horrible. In newtown, a kid took his mom's guns and did something horrible (and aurora and columbine and v tech). But those are aborations. We can't and shouldn't plan our lives around the most rare, and extreme, events. Making grandma take off her shoes to get on a plane makes me feel no safer, and I doubt 15 round magazines would make me feel safer from gun violence than 30 round mags. Now would I like to see a culture shift so that the wang wagging of packing heat (legally or illegally) goes away? Heck yeah. Used to be perfectly acceptable to beat your wife. Anyone defend that now? How 'bout driving while intoxicated (not irradicated, but certainly stigmatized)? Racism too. Lots of these cultural norms have changed over the years, and I'd hope that the concealed carrying of lethal weapons around would be one of them. Which is not to say don't have a gun, it's to say your dong is still the same size whether you concealed carry one or not. |
The other common sense approach for mass murders and those creepy ones like this Jodi Arias are mental health services.
However, violent crime rates in many "western" gun-free countries are higher than the US, so despite a higher murder rate because of access to guns we are a less violent society than many of those anti-gun advocates are choosing to compare us with. So while the gun is a tool that makes the outcomes of those attacks more severe in some cases, we also have less victims in our society per capita, by a 4X multiplier when compared to the UK. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Common misconception from those who get their gun knowledge from Hollywood. Protecting yourself and your family will never go out of style. Maybe you should go get your CHL and carry. See what its really about rather than your Dirty Harry dreams. Then decide wether its for you or not. I wouldnt cancel your ED script just yet if I were you. You will be very disapointed. |
Ddd
Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk HD |
Quote:
The only reason he says that the shooter didn't use an AR was because the police pulled an AR out of the trunk of the car and everyone knows your only allowed ONE assault rifle. I would like to see the video of the shooter going from his car to the front of the school, unless he wore a trenchcoat, he would not be able to conceal the AR, plenty of time to lock down and secure the gate so no idiot could shoot his way in! |
Quote:
"plenty of time to lock down and secure the gate so no idiot could shoot his way in!" The gates were locked down and secured. He shot the lock. |
Quote:
The meaning of those signs varies state to state, in ga for example they mean nothing. All you can be asked is to leave, if you refuse to leave its trespassing, no weapons charge. Your missing the point of the argument though, if weapons were permitted everywhere by licensed carriers it would serve as a deterent. Think about where shootings occur, gun free zones(the big ones anyways) when's the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? Google kennesaw ga, it's a local law to require home owners to posses a firearm, must be the Wild Wild West right? Wrong........ Magazine changes take less than a second, limit them to 10 rounds you add a whole 10 seconds to dump 100 rounds, wow! Full autos? I don't think you know much about the NFA passed in the 1930's do you? In order to legally obtain anything that fires more than 1 round per trigger pull it requires a form 4 filed with the BATFE NFA, this is paperwork requiring approval from your local sheriff, passport photos a description of the weapon, a $200 tax, a 1-6 month wait(closer to 6-7), fingerprinting, and an extensive background check. The weapon must be "pre 1986" to be compliant, and there are strict rules once you owe it, for example you must obtain approval before leaving the state, it may not be loaned out etc. there are not legally acquired "full autos" running around the streets As far as the militia goes, no one ever wants that but think about how spread out the military is, our military hasn't had a lot of success fighting an insurgency let alone one as well armed as their own citizens. Do you really think soldiers would agree to fight their own friends and family? Maybe some but not all, that's a whole different discussion though |
Quote:
Fact is, treason is treason until the traitors win (compare civil war to revolutionary war). |
Quote:
Read here as it breaks down and explains the second amendment a little better http://www.barefootsworld.net/article2.html Treason? How about passing laws against the very same constitution they agreed to uphold? That's where treason starts |
^In a time of muskets, canons, and bayonets, I don't think the forefathers gave autos and high capacity mags much thought.
|
(
Quote:
we have a supreme court to decide whether laws are constitutional or not. We don't need the militia for that. |
Quote:
Bazookas are classified as destructive devices under the NFA, technically the constitution does guarantee them to civilians. However its then up to the states to decide if they want to allow them. See how that works? New York just passed a ridiculous gun law, good for them, it was passed by the state senate and is perfectly constitutional. I wouldn't move to New York for double my salary, but that's fine if the people that live there want to stay. Georgia allows just about everything(great state), full autos, silencers, destructive devices, concealed carry, open carry etc. Technically a "bazooka" is legal to have, even legal to build as long as it doesn't fire projectiles that explode, it would be more or less considered a cannon but its legal. wake77, when the constitution was written they guaranteed citizens the right to the most deadly weapons at the time, if you don't think they were smart enough to know weapons would progress from that id say your underestimating some of the most brilliant men to ever live. Don't you think they might have written a clause in saying except military grade weapons or something? |
Quote:
Federal legislation is not looking likely unless Harry Reid makes a move. The House is staying silent until the Senate makes a move. So aside from EO actions I would not expect anything out of DC at this time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
> vigilantes overthrowing a tyrannical government
This concept is so flawed today. We could hardly stand up to our high tech military with our pea shooters. Our best defense against tyranny is our all volunteer military. There is not a chance that they would destroy their own families. |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, understand if a ban was truly popular the Democratic controlled Senate would be moving on it right now... But notice Harry Reid has not... His constituents and many of his caucuses constituents are willing to speak with their votes on this issue. And we would be remiss to not acknowledge this is a civil rights issue and at the core of our counties value structure. The fear was always tyranny of the majority and infringement of absolute rights of individuals. |
Quote:
|
Shawn, I don't think marriage should be governed. If your church wants to marry you great do it. If you want to enjoy the property rights now associated with the marriage contract then have a civil partnership. Gay, straight, I don't care, marriage should not be handled by the state. Property rights contracts, sure let the government in there.
Feel the same about women's health issues. I'm a man, it's not my body, therefore it does not infringe on my liberty and I am not bothered by it. I do understand as a man between the age of 18-45ish I will be subsidizing their healthcare but I freely entered into those insurance contracts, well until ACA, which I'm not entirely upset about, just think it could be done better and cheaper with equal or greater results i.e. Japan. See unlike either political party, I believe my views are logically consistent. As for the parties, I won't ever register for one because of the inconsistencies. |
Quote:
And while I don't really understand gun (or gay) culture, I don't begrudge legal use and ownership of firearms (or what two dudes do in the privacy of their home). I don't for the life of me understand why we don't keep track of guns though. My kids get a birth certificate when they are born, my car, my boat, my home are all titled or ownership is recorded in a public record. Shoot, even my voter registration is a matter of public record. Could someone 'splain to me why gun reg is such a no-no? |
Quote:
I'm ok with gun sales requiring background checks and taking place at FFLs. But to track the citizenry is just something in concept I'm opposed to. |
Quote:
|
do you feel like someone is going to take away your car, home, children and right to vote too?
So much is registered, I don't see what the big deal is. How are those things (home, family and vote -- essential liberty interests for sure) distinguishable from firearms? Honest Q -- I'm looking to understand the argument. All I see is a line in the sand and I don't understand why it's there. |
Looks like the armed guard in schools lasted about a week before it backfired.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/ I am honestly surprised guns manufactured in the past few years all aren't being RFID chipped.... this could provide tracking (obviously they could be disabled or removed, but make it PITA).... RFID could be tied to the hammer too, so if the gun is stolen, owner commits a felony, or enters a "gun free zone" the hammer disables. |
I am a gun owner who favors simple training/licensing...
1) mandatory saftey/usage training. 2) background check for a license. 3) 10 round clip limit. 4) any semi-auto is ok Once licensed, you can buy any gun/ammo without waiting period or background check. |
First, I believe one of the first things you are taught in drivers education is driving is not a right. Car registration is a taxation thing and when a bad driver is convicted of such crimes they do not take the car but rather the license. Many people drive still without licenses. I'm not sure the car analogy is congruent.
I'm not advocating free and clear sales. In fact, I just posted that all sales should have a background check and take place at an FFL. This would limit sales of new and used guns to citizens who were cleared by the government. Ben, Ca w/ SKSs, Chicago w/ longguns, NY, Australia, Canada and many others have used their registrations to then collect or demand turnover after further changing the laws after the registration periods. Registration isn't the problem it's when the majority reverses itself and decides to change the rules, this is the tyranny I fear. Not to mention registration doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, look at US vs. Haynes (1968) and see how unlawful possession of a short-barrel rifle was protected by the 5th amendment. Another argument against registration is it serves no purpose and has lots of problems and costs. Reasons Canada got rid of their long gun registry last year (shocker CA passed legislation to create one at the same time). http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...and-never-did/ Quote:
|
Quote:
Most guns outside of states with arbitrary magazine limits come with more than 10-round magazines. Standard capacity for most handguns is above 10-rounds. Changing a magazine isn't going to lower death counts or prevent these tragedies. |
yeah bad analogy. but it the point was to get the though across that: some things are intrinsically dangerous and as such should have more oversight.
That said i completely agree with you that regulation wont do anything. Currently there are 330 million guns in circulation, and there are about that many people living in this country. if all gun sales were hauled today, there is still a very good chance that crazy people and guns will mix together with ease. Its a mental and pharmaceutical issue, guns are just easier than driving planes into buildings |
Quote:
What really surprises me is that I haven't read anybody posting that Sandy Hook never happened and was a conspiracy concocted by the government. A buddy of mine informed me that there are Sandy Hook "truthers" (think of 9/11 truthers) all over the internet. Any thoughts on this?? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Here you go wake. I do not believe in any of this btw. You asked so I am just posting it up for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrngdgUixYg |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 AM. |