Like all of America is an Onion story

Biden’s press conference on gun control interrupted by news of school shooting.

Biden’s press conference on gun control interrupted by news of school shooting in CA

, , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by cav on January 10, 2013 - 9:14 pm

    This just came up. It was not on any agenda. The agenda that was in place before this killing spree, was to address the fictional cliff, then on to busting up the ‘entitlements’ – while basically ignoring the role of off-budget wars of choice, tax-cuts for the wealthy, and how that wealth had been directed to purchasing elections.

    No, the agenda was the cat food commission till we were driven crazy. Body counting just got in the way for a while. It’ll be over soon. You’ll still have most of your guns (talk about being fixated on inanimate objects), your penis and much else of what makes you you.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 7:16 am

    Nice copy/paste job, Mike. What was the source?

    If somehow Congress re-instates the assault weapons ban (not likely, but we can hope) you’ll still have your AR-15. So what, exactly, are you complaining about?

    Word of advice – find a safer neighborhood to live in. I’ve lived in Yemen and the Philippines, and never worried about home invasion robbery. There is something wrong if it has happened to you twice!

  3. #3 by Shane Smith on January 11, 2013 - 8:39 am

    Hey Mike, I know you are overcompensating for the fact that you just found out you and your conservative beliefs are a major cause of teen pregnancy, but save the copy and paste for some fly by night rightwing rag, mmk?

  4. #4 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 8:52 am

    Richard,

    Nice blaming the victim there — telling him to move because criminals have targeted his house twice.

    You are a share the wealth kinda of guy; you going to help pay for his relocation costs?

    As for as what to complain about, let’s see

    Banning standard capacity magazines for AR-15s. 10 rounds is not the normal capacity. My Sig Sauer pistol, much like what the police carries comes with a standard 15 round magazine.
    The assault weapon ban would make a firearm commonly carried by the military and the police illegal.

    Move all semi-automatic weapons to the N.F.A. list which means I would have to register it and pay a $200 tax stamp for it.
    And since my existing magazines would also be moved to the N.F.A. list, I would be required to pay a $200 tax stamp on each and every one of them.
    My Sig Sauer SP2022 came with 2 such magazines — so registering it would cost me as much as the gun cost.
    And since I’m not rich that would be a very regressive tax policy.

    It would also inundate every local law enforcement agency in the country with paperwork – taking vital officers off the streets to deal with.

    Yea, that will really reduce crime.

    The Feinstein exempts 900 firearms used for hunting and sporting purposes but neglects to realize that many people use the very weapons she seeks to ban are used for sporting purposes.

    Feinstein’s bill also increase funding for the ATF; makes me wonder if they need it so they can ship more weapons to Mexico

    CBS News has learned that two guns found in the area of a recent Mexican drug cartel shootout have been linked to Fast and Furious: One trafficked by a suspect in the case, and the other purchased by a federal agent.

    Mexican beauty queen Susana Flores Maria Gamez and four others died in the brutal gun battle between Sinaloa cartel members and the Mexican military in November. CBS News has learned that an FN Herstal pistol recovered near the crime scene in November was originally purchased by an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) manager who was faulted by the Inspector General in Operation Fast and Furious: George Gillett. Gillett was the Asst. Special Agent in Charge of ATF Phoenix when Fast and Furious began.

    Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter (PDF) to the Inspector General late today asking for an urgent investigation. Grassley included records from three of Gillett’s gun purchases, so-called Form 4473′s, and says that Gillett appears to have provided false information on them.

    “Lying on a Form 4473 is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison,” Grassley’s letter states. The senator also points out that’s the same alleged violation that suspects in ATF’s Fast and Furious operation were arrested for. “Jaime Avila, Jr. recently plead guilty to a variety of charges” in Fast and Furious, including “for giving a false address on Form 4473.”

    Form 4473′s require purchasers to list their current residential address. Gillett’s gun purchase forms incorrectly list the local ATF Phoenix office and a shopping plaza as his personal residence, according to Grassley’s letter.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560107-10391739/pistol-purchased-by-atf-agent-found-at-alleged-cartel-crime-scene-in-mexico/

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 9:18 am

    Bob S.–

    It was an obvious copy/paste job, so we must wonder whether the home invasions happened to Mike, or even happened at all. Any sane person would move to a safer neighborhood after TWO home invasion robbery attempts.

    I think from now on we ought to rename assault weapons as “mass murder weapons.” I’ll lead the way. From now on, I will refer to them as mass murder weapons. Congress ought to pass a mass murder weapon ban.

  6. #6 by Shane Smith on January 11, 2013 - 9:23 am

    I think Weapons of Mass Murder has a nice ring to it. Maybe we can get some neo-cons to invade America, kill a few hundred thousand people, torture some NRA members, and then strut around on a flight deck.

  7. #7 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 9:27 am

    ‘CELINA, TX — A North Texas father has been charged with making a terroristic threat after he conducted an impromptu safety drill at his child’s school in which he pretended to be a gunman.’

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=8949793

    Onion has competition!

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 9:28 am

    Nullification again: Wyoming Mounts Unconstitutional Attack On Non-Existent Gun Laws.

    I really think the Gun Lobby is ramping up the insanity as a strategy, not because they are really this crazy.

  9. #9 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 9:29 am

    Call them what you want, doesn’t change the fact they are protected by the Constitution.

    Funny how you support police officers carrying ‘Weapons of Mass Murder’ eh?

    And did you hear that President Obama signed a bill yesterday giving himself, President Bush and future presidents life time protection?
    Protection provided by people carrying ‘weapons of mass murder’?

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 9:33 am

    The intent of the Second Amendment was clearly to provide for public safety. Access to mass murder weapons at Wal-Mart threatens our safety. So not protected by the Constitution.

  11. #11 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 9:42 am

    But ‘Lifetime’ protection is the variable.

    Are those tumbrels I hear?

    Or just the locking and loading of a gazillion stirred up constitutionalists?

  12. #12 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 9:44 am

    Richard,

    I agree it was intended to provide for public safety. From criminals, from riots (look up Koreatown Merchants and the L.A. Riots) and from our government should it ever prove as tyrannical as England was.

    Unfortunately for you, the Constitution does protect it. Look at this quote from the Heller Decision.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    Since the military uses a select fire version of the AR-!5, it is difficult to argue otherwise. I’m sure you will try anyways.

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 10:59 am

    Bob S.–

    The Second Amendment is an historical artifact. We no longer have the old-style militias where militiamen brought their own weapons. The Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear a single-shot, muzzle-loading MUSKET.

    So mass-murder weapons are not protected by the Constitution, IMHO.

  14. #14 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 11:12 am

    I like BobS’s analogy with the computer versus the quill pen – time marches on, Yes. My complaint in this present context, and here again I expose my idealism, is that there are so many other directions we may march, it seems a shame, It IS a shame, we’ve marched so far on this lame, murderous path.

    Time to try again. Something different.

  15. #15 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 11:34 am

    Richard,

    I’m sorry to keep accusing you of lying but frankly you keep lying.

    The Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear a single-shot, muzzle-loading MUSKET.

    No it doesn’t. It doesn’t say a single word about musket. It talks about ARMS…as in cannons, and rifles. Yes, even in the Revolutionary War, Rifles not just Muskets were used.

    And as far as repeating arms, those weren’t unknown either. Look up the Puckle Gun.

    I provided my citation showing that yes ‘weapons of mass murder’ as you call them are protected.

    And you respond in typical Richard fashion — vigorously asserting that you are right.

    Tell me, do you stomp your foot when you repeat over and over again something without providing evidence or do you hold your breathe waiting on me to believe you?

    Cav,

    Time marches on and with it progress regarding our tools but are we really that different as a species from the era of Genghis Khan, Roman Armies, or dictators like Hitler?

    I don’t think so. We still have psychopaths and sociopaths who will not accept normal cultural values and abide by them.

    Disarming the majority of the people to control the few didn’t make sense when the crossbow was the pinnacle of arms technology and it doesn’t make sense now.

  16. #16 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 11:41 am

    Bob S.–

    I’m giving my opinion. You call call it a lie if you want, but actually it’s my opinion and you just disagree with it.

    If you think you have a Second Amendment right to possess any military weapon, you are mistaken.

  17. #17 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 11:44 am

    Steam-powered, machine-guns as a leaping-off point.

    Everybody MUST purchase one!

  18. #18 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 11:44 am

    Steam-powered, machine-guns as a leaping-off point.

    Everybody MUST purchase one!

  19. #19 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 12:14 pm

    Richard,

    If you make a simple declarative statement, you are stating fact. “The Sun rises in the East”.

    If you are stating opinion, that sentence should includes words to indicate that…such as “I believe the 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to possess weapon X”.

    So let’s go with your ‘The 2nd Amendment is an historical artifact’ idea. Your logic is since it is outdated, it is not valid as part of the law. Correct?

    Then wouldn’t that run counter to your claims that the government is violating the 4th, 5th and many other amendments?

    If the government is wrong to be trampling over those amendments, then they are wrong to be violating the 2nd Amendment.

    As far as the idea that “We no longer have the old-style militias where militiamen brought their own weapons.”

    Tell that to the people who protected their business, selves and family during the L.A. Riots, during and after Katrina or Super Storm Sandy.

    Rockaways councillor James Sanders said he feared anarchy. “We have an explosive mix here,” he said. In Coney Island, residents have armed ­themselves with guns, ­machetes and baseball bats. In Long Island people have put up signs outside their homes warning looters will be shot

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/superstorm-sandy-looters-new-yorkers-1415662

    Time and time again we see that the RIGHTS our ancestors fought so hard to protect are timeless.

  20. #20 by jdberger on January 11, 2013 - 12:29 pm

    I realize that you’re kidding, but just how do you think machine guns are powered, cav?

    (hint: expanding gasses for most of them)

    Again, I realize that you’re just having a bit of fun, but I find your comment (and most of Richards) endemic of most gun-control advocates who don’t really understand the items or the subject matter that they’re trying to regulate.

    Richard’s grasp of Constututional law is spare, at best. Cliff’s ignorance of statistical research has to be intentional it’s so stunningly vacant. I don’t think (I may be wrong) that you have much of a grasp of the laws, mechanics, culture or underlying theory behind guns and gun rights in this country.

    Note, I don’t intend to be insulting, here. It’s simply an observation and I may be wrong –

    But given my observation, how can someone make informed suggestions when they’re so uninformed? So mislead? Could you imagine if people were giving advice on teen pregnancy who thought babies were dropped off by storks? It’s the same kind of thing.

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 12:33 pm

    Bob S.–

    Oh, come on. Unless I state that something is a fact, you can assume I’m giving my opinion.

    The Second Amendment applies to a set of circumstances that no longer exists.

    It looks like you aren’t going to press your claim that anyone in America can possess any military weapon system.

  22. #22 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 12:48 pm

    Richard,

    So you want to back up the basis for your opinion with any thing that supports it? Or do you want to admit you are making things up?

    It looks like you aren’t going to press your claim that anyone in America can possess any military weapon system.

    I’ve already stated my beliefs, I’ve provided evidence — including a Supreme Court Decision — showing how I arrived at my conclusion.

    It is now up to you to show that I’m wrong, if you feel that I am.

    (And I’ll let you go ahead and change the subject since it looks like you aren’t going to press your claim “We no longer have the old-style militias where militiamen brought their own weapons.” — Don’t you hate it when those Pesky Facts destroy your opinion?)

  23. #23 by brewski on January 11, 2013 - 1:23 pm

    Bob S.
    As a quick rule of thumb, if Richard does indeed state that something is a fact, you are safe to assume it is also his opinion and is certainly the opposite of what is indeed fact.

  24. #24 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    jdberger.

    I appreciate your delicacy. That I, or any of the citizenry – including the outspoken nut-cakes, may not be fully versed in all of the applicable science, does not mean our opinions have no weight. Further, I, for one am always willing to learn. And, in fact, that ‘expanding gasses’ are applicable as you suggest in driving projectiles towards collaterals, simply hadn’t occurred to me. Yes, I was having fun with the notion of a particularly unwieldy contraption pumping out the lead, but which is really not quite serviceable in the task of eradicating dozens of first graders.

    Beyond that, my credentials are in no way noteworthy. Well, I do make a pretty ‘mean’ pizza!

    Can I imagine poorly informed folks providing sexuality counselling?

    Why yes. Yes I can: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/phil-gingrey-todd-akin-was-right.php

  25. #25 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    And further, of course, not all violence is physical. Lots of ways to be violent that don’t leave scars, break bones, or even cause physical pain.

  26. #26 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    Bob S.–

    Your idea of a “well regulated militia” is vigilantes wielding baseball bats and machetes… OK. You are entitled to your opinion, illogical as it may be.

    Did the Supreme Court say that I can have a nuclear weapon in your opinion? How about a Predator drone? What I really want is my own fully-operational tank. After all, if we’re going up against the full might of the U.S. military as Alex Jones says, we’ll need the right equipment.

  27. #27 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 1:42 pm

    Cav,

    You might appreciate learning about the Holman Projector from WWII

    The design eventually settled on for the Mk I featured a 4½ foot unrifled steel barrel. Rounds were dropped down the barrel and the pneumatic system triggered instantly upon the round striking the base. The rounds themselves were made from an open-topped metal container, holding a Mills bomb fitted with a 3.5 second fuse. High-pressure air bottles were able to supply enough power to fire fifty rounds each, with a maximum height during trials of around 600 feet (180 m). The rate of fire could reach thirty rounds per minute in the hands of an experienced crew.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Projector

    If I have discounted your opinion because you are not well versed in the science (or even the law) please let me know. There is a difference between discounting your opinion and correcting discrepancies in fact or law. I endeavor to do the second.

    By the way, the worst school massacre in U.S. history? It used dynamite — Bath Township Michigan 1927 — 38 children and 6 adults killed, 58 injured.

  28. #28 by Bob S. on January 11, 2013 - 2:06 pm

    Richard,

    At one point clubs where military weapons as were swords/machetes (Look up Rwandan Genocide as to the effectiveness of gangs armed with machetes). The article mentioned bows and arrows and cross bows; also military weapons.

    Ask the people who were there if they would have preferred firearms. The merchants in Koreatown during the L.A. Riots used them. As did citizens living in and around New Orleans after Katrina; you remember when they needed to protect themselves since President Bush was so slow to respond.

    As far as buying a fully functional tank, go for it.
    You’ll have to apply to the ATF; I believe it would be considered a ‘destructive device’
    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-destructive-device.html

    I’ll even help you get started
    http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

    The Supreme Court has not ruled on the upper limit of weaponry that a person can own to my knowledge.

  29. #29 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    I feels respected in these exchanges, but rather impotent in that there’s such momentum in the generally rather unwise use of our energies, talents and leanings. Maybe that’s just me. I do suppose the best way to alter the culture is to alter ones-self. I’d rather see the goodness than fear all the crap the media exposes us to. Therefore I have only a modest arsenal, and only a few thousand rounds stashed in my bunker. : )

  30. #30 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2013 - 2:25 pm

    Thanks for that link. Restored armored fighting vehicles in automotive working condition are surprisingly affordable. There are even a couple of Sherman tanks for sale in Tooele. But I doubt if I could restore the weapons on them without breaking the law.

    I was just kidding, anyway. I’ve got no room to park a tank, and unless they let me take it to Dugway, no place for target practice.

  31. #31 by brewski on January 11, 2013 - 9:52 pm

  32. #32 by cav on January 12, 2013 - 9:31 am

    DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

    “I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,” said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed “Scopes Monkey Trial” and is widely considered one of Darwinism’s holiest sites. “Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested.”

    Added Freiberg, “Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!”

    http://o.onionstatic.com/images/3/3906/original/700.jpg?1314

  33. #33 by travel nursing on April 12, 2013 - 2:50 am

    Interesting blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from
    somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make
    my blog shine. Please let me know where you got your design.
    Appreciate it

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: