I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Gun Rights Blowout

Hits: 7701 | Rating: (3.0) | Category: Misc. | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Dover78
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 224 Posts
Friday, January 25, 2013 10:10:13 PM
@McBoozerilla There is no gun show loophole for automatic weapons. If you try to buy a fully-automatic weapon at a gun show, you have to go through all the same process as if you bought it from a dealer. And O'Reilly is clearly biased in the argument. You can tell by the way you tries to paint the picture that a Kalashnikov-pattern rifle is "Heavy Armament." Civilian AKs (single shot, the only kind you can buy without NFA restriction) fire ONE 7.62x39 round per trigger pull. Like the 5.56 there is nothing magical or even noteworthy about the round. Its a standard .30 caliber bullet with a sub-par powder charge behind it. Any .30 caliber hunting round blows it out of the water in terms of accuracy, range and power. .308 AKA 7.62x51 NATO is far and away the superior cartridge.

mcboozerilla
Male, 30-39, Europe
 649 Posts
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:44:23 AM
I really don't like O'Reilly's manner, but this has to be the first time I agree with him so much. The gun show loophole is a travesty.

tatripp
Male, 18-29, Western US
 1201 Posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:49:42 PM
bill is nuts

ForSquirel
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 1608 Posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:20:07 AM
Bill O is a complete f\/cktard.

if he took 2 minutes to look at the laws he would know everything he said is complete poo

Finker
Male, 40-49, Europe
 506 Posts
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:10:02 AM
@5Cats " laws don't stop criminals",

Don't tell me nobody ever has thought about murder or other crimes but been put off because they might get caught. If there were no laws then more bad things would happen.

Danaxu
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 10 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:04:09 PM
And by 'drat' it means F>U>C>K

Danaxu
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 10 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:02:45 PM
I'll say this until I'm dead, drat Bill O'Reilly.
On any issue.

uatme
Male, 18-29, Canada
 1013 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:16:34 PM
That was a weird point of view for Bill

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4448 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:38:19 PM
patchgrabber-"Took you a while to realize that you do agree"

The mentally ill have the same rights as everyone else RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME they demonstrate they can't handle them.

Same way with criminals.

What YOU want to do is take them away from law abiding citizens prior to any such demonstration.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5703 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:02:32 PM
Some mentally ill should not be around guns

As I said before, I'm glad we're in agreement that laws can be made to limit rights in your constitution and that those laws, although serving a purpose, are arbitrary. Took you a while to realize that you do agree, but I didn't mind waiting.

I think quite a bit of the issues and concerns right now can be solved by widely adopting the agreed upon definition of "the people".

I concur, it would curb much of the hypocrisy.

The issue I take is that you assume loss of rights is the only concern

I don't assume that, actually. I'm merely picking at a common point conservatives like to make, which is that increased gun control is an attack on rights, and I'm attempting to highlight the hypocrisy and inanity of such statements.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:35:31 PM
However, that isn't the case currently with respect to who has a 2nd Amendment right, so that argument doesn't really work here.

I agree though I think quite a bit of the issues and concerns right now can be solved by widely adopting the agreed upon definition of "the people". As Justice Scalia stated in DC v. Heller: "in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community".

The fact remains that if you're sincerely concerned with loss of rights, that treating mentally ill as you do is a clear violation

From a strictly libertarian point of view, I don't see any problems with your logic. The issue I take is that you assume loss of rights is the only concern; for some of us, legality (authority) is the big problem.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4448 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:24:59 PM
patchgrabber-"since the constitution said nothing about situations"

It also said nothing about jailing or executing murders. It's a standard that if you show that you are unwilling to live by societies laws, you lose your rights.

patchgrabber-"you are implicitly agreeing "

No, I'm not, no matter how much you attempt to distort what you read.

patchgrabber-"I'd love to hear your response on the mental illness point I made."

Mentally ill people should be protected from themselves and others to whatever extent is necessary, also others should be protected from them to whatever extent is necessary.

Some mentally ill should not be around guns, or knives. Some mentally ill should not be allowed to drive. Mentally ill people with severe intellgence deficits going by the hand patchgrabber should not be allowed a computer or internet connection. (sorry, don't usually, but couldn't resist.)

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4448 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:13:31 PM
5Cats-"Will it make electronics someday?"

It very well could. Microchip manufacture is basically screen-printing technology. Learn to print using different materials and it could work.

5Cats-"Making a Timex watch with your 3D printer?"

The first computers were as big as buildings, with vacuum tube technology. We now can fit 50+ GB on something quarter the size of a postage stamp.

THIS was printed, already assembled, using 3D printing...how small do you think we could get it in a decade?



Mikeoxsbiggg
Male, 30-39, Canada
 1192 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:10:54 PM
This is why I don't go to the States. Both sides are bugnutty.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5703 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:53:11 AM
It's a known fact that many mentally ill people have committed acts of mass murder and instead of blaming the individual, the guns they use get blamed.

But wait, I thought a cornerstone of the argument against gun control was that the majority shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few? You're simply spouting off talking points about blaming guns, and I've done none of that in this thread.

@HA: Your argument seems reasonable, *if* that is how "the people" is actually being interpreted. However, that isn't the case currently with respect to who has a 2nd Amendment right, so that argument doesn't really work here. The fact remains that if you're sincerely concerned with loss of rights, that treating mentally ill as you do is a clear violation, and everybody seems ok with it, so with that precedent in mind, it's logical to extend that law however the government, and by extension its people, see fit.

Ripper398
Male, 18-29, Western US
 1318 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:52:29 AM
I have a basement full of ammo. That doesn't mean I'm going to kill all of you. Hell, I'm sure a few of you will escape after all.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16941 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:51:33 AM
5Cats: 3D printers will push the frontier of trademark and patent law the way mp3 and avi files have pushed media laws.

There are somethings 3D printers may not soon be able to replicate, but simple machines like guns and gun parts, are easy. I believe it's ridiculous that a pistol grip would make a gun illegal under Obama's proposals. That and other trappings do nothing to change how the gun functions.

The irrational fear of a 'scary black military style' gun needs to end and people need to understand the difference between fully automatic (and mostly illegal) firearms and semi-auto firearms. The scaremongering needs to end and that goes not only for guns but for other issues as well.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:48:42 AM
It is a very odd day when I agree with Bill O'Reilly (or to be more accurate the character of Bill O'Reilly that he is playing).

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:40:47 AM
Ah, but since the constitution said nothing about situations where it is ok to limit the freedoms, you are implicitly agreeing that those freedoms are not absolute and thus are open to restriction.

From the Supreme Court decisions I've read, "the people" in the Constitution refers to the political community (those who can vote) rather than all citizens. From this, the easiest way that I can see to legally restrict this right would be to exclude the group (felons and mentally ill) from the political community.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16941 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:39:02 AM
patchgrabber: It's a known fact that many mentally ill people have committed acts of mass murder and instead of blaming the individual, the guns they use get blamed.

No one blamed the knives or guns used in the Tate-LaBianca murders, Charles Manson and his crew were to blame and rightly so.

In the recent Sandy Hook shootings, too many people are blaming the guns and not the killer, Lanza.

As I've said before laws don't stop criminals, they are used to prosecute them after the fact. Since Lanza died people naturally want to lash out at something. You can't hang a dead man, can't lash out at him, so the urge to assign blame can't be easily assuaged. So politicians make promises of new laws, knowing that they won't solve the problem of maniac mass murderers, but to further their own ends of disarming the public.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5703 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:23:02 AM
Funny, since I said no such thing. I said that you can righty LOSE your rights through your own criminal actions.

Ah, but since the constitution said nothing about situations where it is ok to limit the freedoms, you are implicitly agreeing that those freedoms are not absolute and thus are open to restriction.

We were not talking about the mentally ill. YOU said, specifically, somone [sic] who 'was convicted of marijuana possession'. THAT's the scenario I was responsding to.

Actually I said both, but if you want to ignore the argument about the mentally ill and focus solely on the criminal argument it does nothing to strengthen your position. I'd love to hear your response on the mental illness point I made.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24822 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:35:03 AM
can you imagine what the anti-piracy ads will be like once that becomes an affordable norm for the average person? :P

@Musuku42: Actually, I have a difficult time imagining how far 3D Printing will go. (And I have a vivid imagination!!) Will it make electronics someday? Close to the Star Trek "replicators"? (which are REALLY stupid when you think about it...)

Making a Timex watch with your 3D printer? Leather strap not included of course...

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4448 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:03:39 AM
patchgrabber-"I'm glad we're in agreement that laws can be made to limit rights in your constitution"

Funny, since I said no such thing.

I said that you can righty LOSE your rights through your own criminal actions.

patchgrabber-"The mentally ill did no such thing."

We were not talking about the mentally ill. YOU said, specifically, somone who 'was convicted of marijuana possession'. THAT's the scenario I was responsding to.

Try and keep up with your own damn argument. Or at least quit moving the goalpost in mid-sentance.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5703 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:56:05 AM
Because the law (which is a good one) says so.

I'm glad we're in agreement that laws can be made to limit rights in your constitution and that those laws, although serving a purpose, are arbitrary.

They voluntarily gave them up when they commited crimes that could result of loss of those rights.

The mentally ill did no such thing.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4448 Posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:50:12 AM
patchgrabber-" convicted of marijuana possession, then paid his debt to society and was released *not* be allowed to own a gun?"

Because the law (which is a good one) says so.

There is a procedure in place where people who served for non-violent crimes can get their carry rights restored.

It's not easy, and it's not cheap. But if you're dumb enough to get arrested and convicted in the first place it's the price you have to pay.

patchgrabber-"yet their rights are infringed?"

No, they were not. They voluntarily gave them up when they commited crimes that could result of loss of those rights.

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.