• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dem lawmakers announce bill to limit mail-order and internet ammunition sales.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Then what's your solution to Aurora? Nothing?

It's so easy to criticize. That's all the tea party/gun idiots do.
A kneejerk reaction to a horrifying event is often a solution which is simultaneously overreaching and ineffective. The TSA was given huge powers post-9-11, and I don't think you'll find many people arguing in support of the TSA actions these days. The hurt is deep when a sudden shocking event wakes us from a state of contentedness, but that doesn't mean that we need to turn around and immediately begin banning things. We need to let the shock subside and take a reasoned approach to legislation. Banning something because of the actions of a lone psychotic is ridiculous.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
A kneejerk reaction to a horrifying event is often a solution which is simultaneously overreaching and ineffective. The TSA was given huge powers post-9-11, and I don't think you'll find many people arguing in support of the TSA actions these days. The hurt is deep when a sudden shocking event wakes us from a state of contentedness, but that doesn't mean that we need to turn around and immediately begin banning things. We need to let the shock subside and take a reasoned approach to legislation. Banning something because of the actions of a lone psychotic is ridiculous.
The TSA has worked. No successful attacks since 9/11.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
If the proposition from Dems is as the OP & link suggests...then as I democrat I think it is dumb.
I think it's, as usual, posturing. Too many of us Dems carry/hunt for this ever to go anywhere. As you can see it makes for good scurred gun nut circle jerk accelerant though, not much else...
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Well, I see people orgasming over the guns themselves, true.

The problem is that gun rights advocates take zero responsibility, advance nothing to make things better. They just sit back and say, "not my problem"
Okay so let's analyze this logically. You're saying we need to do something to prevent the next Aurora. Ok.

This will not accomplish that goal. This guy had what 100rd of 223 and 40rd of 40? That's 2 boxes at Wal Mart.

This law wouldn't affect me anyway but it's stupid. You want to prevent this from occurring again? At least advocate for something that will achieve that goal.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
9/11 changed things though. After 9/11 there were a number of foiled plots which were inspired or copycats of it.

Also, the price of a 2nd successful attack would have been catastrophic.
Sure. And then some guy tried to hide a bomb in his shoe and now we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. And we can't give the appearance of racial profiling even though everyone who has hijacked or attempted to hijack a plane in the last 15 years has been Arab, so we "randomly" stripsearch some white grandmother or an infant. And we aren't allowed to carry water on the plane in a sealed container because that's totally something a terrorist would do; everyone knows the key to a successful hijacking is proper hydration. Also shampoo. Terrorists love shampoo. You buy that shit when you get where you're going, dammit!

The TSA is a sham, a masquerade to give the illusion of security. So is banning ammo. There are thousands of people in this country stockpiling ammo for dozens of different reasons; if one of them were to snap, it wouldn't matter if you had banned all the guns and the ammo. You're trading in the freedoms of the law-abiding for the illusion of security in the wake of a tragedy, but you'll never be truly safe from the actions of a psychotic lunatic. Crazy people do crazy things, and we cannot sacrifice our freedom in the hopes that it will somehow cause crazy to stop.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
9/11 changed things though. After 9/11 there were a number of foiled plots which were inspired or copycats of it.

Also, the price of a 2nd successful attack would have been catastrophic.
So I guess Reagan, and Clinton kept us safe too because there were no attacks? There were plenty of attacks on US interest during that time too.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but what specifically is bad about this proposed bill? We're 2 pages into this thread, with many, many posts complaining about the idea without anyone actually saying what is the actual problem. Is it more than just a knee jerk rejection of anything that even remotely smells like gun control?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Sure. And then some guy tried to hide a bomb in his shoe and now we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. And we can't give the appearance of racial profiling even though everyone who has hijacked or attempted to hijack a plane in the last 15 years has been Arab, so we "randomly" stripsearch some white grandmother or an infant. And we aren't allowed to carry water on the plane in a sealed container because that's totally something a terrorist would do; everyone knows the key to a successful hijacking is proper hydration. Also shampoo. Terrorists love shampoo. You buy that shit when you get where you're going, dammit!

The TSA is a sham, a masquerade to give the illusion of security. So is banning ammo. There are thousands of people in this country stockpiling ammo for dozens of different reasons; if one of them were to snap, it wouldn't matter if you had banned all the guns and the ammo. You're trading in the freedoms of the law-abiding for the illusion of security in the wake of a tragedy, but you'll never be truly safe from the actions of a psychotic lunatic. Crazy people do crazy things, and we cannot sacrifice our freedom in the hopes that it will somehow cause crazy to stop.
Guy tries to hide bomb in shoe because in part the increased security after 9/11. If not for the TSA, he could have just brought a bomb in his duffel bag.

no, a shoe bombing isn't likely, but we still take off our shoes. I hate it, but it's necessary.

Why are gun rights so sacred compared to airline travel? Because gun owners cry more?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Okay so let's analyze this logically. You're saying we need to do something to prevent the next Aurora. Ok.

This will not accomplish that goal. This guy had what 100rd of 223 and 40rd of 40? That's 2 boxes at Wal Mart.

This law wouldn't affect me anyway but it's stupid. You want to prevent this from occurring again? At least advocate for something that will achieve that goal.
But dude, his knee is about to pop out of his socket!!! Gotta do SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!! Argrrrrggggggg the horror!!!!!
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Guy tries to hide bomb in shoe because in part the increased security after 9/11. If not for the TSA, he could have just brought a bomb in his duffel bag.

no, a shoe bombing isn't likely, but we still take off our shoes. I hate it, but it's necessary.

Why are gun rights so sacred compared to airline travel? Because gun owners cry more?
You are such a good sheep.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but what specifically is bad about this proposed bill? We're 2 pages into this thread, with many, many posts complaining about the idea without anyone actually saying what is the actual problem. Is it more than just a knee jerk rejection of anything that even remotely smells like gun control?
What good does it do?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Okay so let's analyze this logically. You're saying we need to do something to prevent the next Aurora. Ok.

This will not accomplish that goal. This guy had what 100rd of 223 and 40rd of 40? That's 2 boxes at Wal Mart.

This law wouldn't affect me anyway but it's stupid. You want to prevent this from occurring again? At least advocate for something that will achieve that goal.
Simple method: ban sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons. It's extreme, but it is effective. It also would have helped in VA Tech, Giffords, and Ft. Hood if semi-automatic weapons were banned across the board.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Sure. And then some guy tried to hide a bomb in his shoe and now we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. And we can't give the appearance of racial profiling even though everyone who has hijacked or attempted to hijack a plane in the last 15 years has been Arab, so we "randomly" stripsearch some white grandmother or an infant. And we aren't allowed to carry water on the plane in a sealed container because that's totally something a terrorist would do; everyone knows the key to a successful hijacking is proper hydration. Also shampoo. Terrorists love shampoo. You buy that shit when you get where you're going, dammit!

The TSA is a sham, a masquerade to give the illusion of security. So is banning ammo. There are thousands of people in this country stockpiling ammo for dozens of different reasons; if one of them were to snap, it wouldn't matter if you had banned all the guns and the ammo. You're trading in the freedoms of the law-abiding for the illusion of security in the wake of a tragedy, but you'll never be truly safe from the actions of a psychotic lunatic. Crazy people do crazy things, and we cannot sacrifice our freedom in the hopes that it will somehow cause crazy to stop.
Don't you think there's a fair amount of hypocrisy in rejecting gun control as an unreasonable assault on our freedoms while supporting racial/religious profiling as a security measure?
 

HybridSquirrel

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2005
6,161
2
81
Simple method: ban sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons. It's extreme, but it is effective. It also would have helped in VA Tech, Giffords, and Ft. Hood if semi-automatic weapons were banned across the board.
That wouldn't help anything at all. List one instance where banning firearms has been effective.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
What good does it do?
I have my doubts it would do much at all, but "it won't actually help" doesn't seem to be the main objection in this thread. Instead, the complaint is that it's a horrible assault on our freedoms but nobody has bothered to say exactly why they think that...
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Simple method: ban sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons. It's extreme, but it is effective. It also would have helped in VA Tech, Giffords, and Ft. Hood if semi-automatic weapons were banned across the board.
And then after the semi autos, ban the bolt action rifles right? Because no one needs more than one shot?

I know, the second amendment only covers muzzleloaders right? Because that was the only thing available at the time?

What's next? Ban SUVs because most people don't need them anyway.

Put the blame for this tragedy where it belongs: on the family and friends that knew he was fucked up and chose to be silent. That therapist too.

Those people chose to let a rabid dog run wild. Don't blame the teeth for the situation.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
I have my doubts it would do much at all, but "it won't actually help" doesn't seem to be the main objection in this thread. Instead, the complaint is that it's a horrible assault on our freedoms but nobody has bothered to say exactly why they think that...
It's legally mandating against buying in bulk. It serves no common good. Isn't that enough?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
And then after the semi autos, ban the bolt action rifles right? Because no one needs more than one shot?

I know, the second amendment only covers muzzleloaders right? Because that was the only thing available at the time?

What's next? Ban SUVs because most people don't need them anyway.

Put the blame for this tragedy where it belongs: on the family and friends that knew he was fucked up and chose to be silent. That therapist too.

Those people chose to let a rabid dog run wild. Don't blame the teeth for the situation.
No, I'd allow six shooters.

Heck, if I myself were to actually buy a gun I'd probably get a six shooter type gun simply because it's more elegant mechanically.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Guy tries to hide bomb in shoe because in part the increased security after 9/11. If not for the TSA, he could have just brought a bomb in his duffel bag.

no, a shoe bombing isn't likely, but we still take off our shoes. I hate it, but it's necessary.

Why are gun rights so sacred compared to airline travel? Because gun owners cry more?
Obviously you've completely missed my point, so I'll highlight it for you; THE TSA IS NOT NECESSARY. EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO AIRPORT SECURITY POST-9-11 IS RIDICULOUS AND UNNECESSARY. You're afraid. Fear causes people to do reactionary things to feel more secure. It's a perfectly normal human reaction. But it's a horrible reason for legislation, and it's compounded when the legislation is done specifically in response to a tragic and shocking event. Fear is why marijuana is illegal, why blacks had to fight for civil rights, why gays have been persecuted for centuries. Fear drives the darkest parts of our emotions and causes us to do unthinkable things to our fellow man. It is the antithesis of rational thought, which I'd like to think should be the basis for good legislation.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY