In the spirit of Godwin, I propose a new internet law that describes the inevitability of the MSNBC false equivalency whenever a comment or topic criticizes FOX news.

I love ya, choggie, and VS is way better and more interesting with you here, but this dog just don't hunt.

I think the days of intrepid journalism are largely over for most of the news sources you mentioned, but there still are pockets of resistance to the inanity that passes as news in America. Regardless of whichever political ideolgy you most identify with, you cannot dismiss MSNBC as opposite but equal to FOX. MSNBC is most definitely liberal/progressive, but they wear it on their sleeve, and their spin is backed by facts and reality. FOX spins everything, and completely misinforms it's viewers fans by simply making shit up, not to mention the ubiquitous fear-mongering, the subliminal programming of their crawl, the always-angry, paranoid, petty, spiteful, and shrill talking heads, and the daily memo'd bullet points that are regurgitated verbatim and hammered into the brains of their veiwers all day long from show to show. The dolts on FOX and Friends have got to be the three DUMBEST people ever to thousand-yard stare into a camera. FOX is "news entertainment" at best.

There are infinite shades of gray between black and white, and MSNBC is definitely biased, but you can't say it isn't factual (the vast majority of time). If there was a true "equal but opposite" version of MSNBC, I would watch it. Unfortunately, FOX serves only as a source of amusement for me. "No Spin Zone" makes me giggle every time Papa Bear says it. It's brilliant parody.

That said, we agree that Americans are largely low information because low information is exactly what we get from the news sources readily available. But the "truth" is out there if one cares enough to go look for it.

For starters...
Al Jazeera
CBC News
BBC News
Christian Science Monitor
Reuters

I do not know if going twenty five on the freeway is more careful, I honestly think I swerve more stoned because I am so paranoid that I psyche myself out.

How did this discussion go from LAPD corruption to Chinese economic dominance? Oh you guys...

Just by looking at this report I see symptoms of a cult. It seems the LAPD is more about keeping the team than protecting civilians. It's understandable seeing how crazy and fucked up the streets of LA can be. You do have to stick to one another, but not at the expense of civilians whom you are all sworn to protect and getting paid from.

Also, blasting away at innocent civilians seem bat shit crazy. Hearing this report and seeing how the police chief brush it off like it's nothing makes me sick to my stomach.

LAPD is a rogue organization at this point. They are fixing their own judge rulings and making their own rules. This is some serious shit.

Open firing on a random vehicle is something you'd hear about in Iraq or Afghanistan field reports. It's an indication of how paranoid and unprepared these officers are. I'm not saying that the job is easy. Hell I wouldn't do what they do in a day in a million years. Obviously it's a warzone down there and the stress is taking its toll on the officers. But letting this go on and accepting as 'normal' is completely unacceptable.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

Of course "screens" are important here and there are several "screens" already in place and a few could use some repair and tightening. Obama put 23 executive orders in place to do just that. I fully support fixing the small holes in the "screens".

Now, back to this murder. He is clearly not well-trained (or at all) and is certainly not responsible. A well trained, responsible gun owner would have never even revealed he had a gun until it was absolutely necessary to defend themselves or their property. They certainly wouldn't have come out the door firing into the air and then unloaded into a fleeing car because brown people are in it.

This guy fucked up. He murdered a kid. He'll pay for it and he deserves to. I wish there were a way to weed out the crazies legally and sanely, but the crazies will always find a way to show how crazy they really are. Hell, if this guy had used a bow and arrow, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Same deadly result, same murdering, paranoid act, but somehow when you toss in a gun and the current media fervor over guns, it is plastered all over every website and TV channel out there.

I disagree. He is the bad guy here. He is a paranoid, gun-wielding murder. Someone brown showed up near his house and his first instinct is the start shooting?

Bad guy.

The event has 'cast a blanket, or shadow, over everyone who wants to own a firearm' -- just as thousands of other tragedies have. Pointing out facts, even with a satirical tone, is not in itself political. I did not suggest that this event should motivate any political action.
Perhaps it's just that that the rational political action is just so glaringly obvious, that it seems to be inherently implied?
I also do not associate you, or any other individual gun owner who hasn't used a gun to express his paranoid fear, with the man in this video. I do realize, however, that with guns as prevalent as they are, events like this are inevitable.
You personal story is utterly insignificant considering the number of other gun owners out there, and the resulting number of gun accidents and acts of gun violence.
My personal story, equally insignificant, is told differently. I have been personally affected by two accidental gun deaths, have been threatened twice with handguns, and have been constantly bombarded with stories like the one in this video since I was old enough to comprehend them. I am surrounded by compatriots who are obsessed with tools of death. Despite this, I have never used a gun against a human towards a positive end, and (in civil society) I don't personally know anyone who has.

It's easier at that age. All anyone cares about in high school is that you're attractive and friendly. By 25, everyone is suspicious and paranoid and has unrealistic expectations.

There is no freedom of speech on a private website.

Awww, are you feeling bullied? Isn't that why you have guns? so you can be the ultimate bully? Do what ching says...or else? hrm?

You really just don't get to whine about name calling, then call someone a name in your very next sentence. sigh.

Either gov't isn't tyrannical and people are just being paranoid, or gov't really is tyrannical and the gun fetishists are cowards for not revolting yet.

which is it?

revolt or shut the fuck up, I'm sick of the whining about first world problems

@chingalera, you really aren't coming across as anything other than a paranoid nut job.

First you utterly ignored the actual point of the video, ya know, the one about how the 2nd amendment is intact, but the 4th and 5th are kinda fucked?

Then you bring up some delusional persecution fantasy, where the government "takes your guns". There has never been any suggestion of that.

Look soon to RC hobbyists to be up in arms over proposed legislation (paranoid/agendabots) calling for sweeping bans after some douche straps something bad to a quad rotor.

When I hear the argument about hammers, I laugh, because who ever believes that is a dumbass. And then I realize, people actually believe it, and then I'm sad.

Yes, assault rifles are outnumbered by hammers . . . maybe. Actually, BLUNT OBJECTS outnumbers rifles, but that includes bats, bricks, printers, pianos, pipes, candle holders and the whole ensemble of clue.

Now, in reality most murder is between people who know each other. That's why serial killers are more terrifying. They're killing people they don't know, seemingly at random. Which puts the paranoia in the population and people start freaking. Random killings just seem more terrifying. For some reason people just don't expect their mom to kill them. Who knows why, must be some weird fluke or Buddha or something.

The idea that I can go watch a movie with my daughter and some guy with an overloaded assault rifle, body armour etc can come in and just shoot everyone is way more terrifying a prospect than my mother-in-law finally snapping and picking up a knife and stabbing me. First off, I could totally kick her ass. Second, the former I can't do anything about. Despite the "it takes a good man with a gun" bullshit, reality shows otherwise. 9mm versus bulletproof vest, smoke grenade, IED's and assault rifles just doesn't cut it. But I don't play CoD . . .

In regards to the constitution, yeah, when it was written the military and the people had the same access to weaponry. Matter of fact, we didn't even have a standing army. It really was up to the states to get a regulated militia to keep the country safe from invaders. So comparing that to printed newspapers and tv and internet is, well, simple. It's a similar argument most paranoid gun owners use for everything. Let's just take a superficial look and ignore reality. Kind of like real dictators and tyrants taking away 22mm hand guns while pointing their tanks at your house.

I think that's the greatest irony . . . those who wish to own guns to protect themselves from tyrants are blindly following their leaders and scream for murder and revolt, or 1766 will rise again! yadda yadda, are becoming the same puppets they claim they are protecting themselves from. No one saw Hitler coming? Well, he sounded a lot like Beck honestly. So did Stalin, etc. The people who followed them thought they made absolute sense, and then this and that happened and now we all know them as mass murdering fiends.

So again, are we really talking gun control so we have the right to become the fourth reich, or are we really wanting a worthwhile discussion on saving lives?

I appreciate how he made the point to say SOME gun enthusiasts, as there are plenty of them that actually recognise the need for regulations for firearms. It's just unfortunate that we seem to mostly hear from the loud mouth, paranoid lunatics

bareboards2, your arguments all, may be condensed into one barrel of the same bilge.
Inflammatory rhetoric tinctured with convenient appeals to some idyllic world where assholes don't exist.

How bout some wake-up news from June of this year?? Hugo (Penn's best buddy) Chavez, cocksucking "president" of Venezuela, did what all great "leaders" do when they want no dissent and a country full of obedient and easy-to-control automatons:
-Outlawed all private ownership of guns, except of course for the military, the police, and certain private security monkeys. Their judicial system is total shiet, do some reading-up on how completely fucked it really is-

He's been in office since 99', "elected" once again by "popular" vote (give me a break), and if cancer doesn't kill him he'll probably die in office.

Guns are not the problem, society in decline, culture in decline, morality, ethics out windows, retarded ego-maniacal control-freak paranoids asshole douchebags in power..THIS is a much more pressing problem that mentally-retarded idgits raised by the developmentally-disabled twisting-off and going on killing sprees. If this recent shit happened in Inglewood or South-Centra-LA, there would not be a national uproar. It happened in a hamlet in Connecticut and the kid was living in his out-to-lunch, survivalist mother's home that was loaded with a massive collection of guns.

Didn't some Chinese guy twist \-off a few months ago and walk into a school and kill about 30 kids....WITH A FUCKING KNIFE!!?? Crazy fucks are the problem sir, firearms in their hands simply let's them reach-out and touch someone else with crazy. SO, keep guns in the hands of citizens with judgement and restraint and sound minds...Or go live in some shit-hole where only cops, soldiers, and officers of the King have weapons...How about Vatican City?? Bet that place is safe enough for ya??

Sorry Maynard, keeping my guns until I expatriate to a country without retarded fuckers being bred like tadpoles!

I haven't handled a pistol since 1983 in boot camp. All I need to do in Oregon to get a CCW is watch a video online, take an online test, pay to download the certificate, and take the certificate to the Sheriff's office for my permit. I wouldn't want me carrying a gun in public, but I could if I wanted to, with virtually no experience or training. Now, guns are not my thing. I don't want one. I'm relatively sane, but if I wasn't, if the world was cruel and oppressive and needed a dark knight, getting a CCW would be just as easy.

This video shows simply and clearly that things very often don't go as you plan when you find yourself in a very stressful and scary situation, and that the training required to perform spontaneously and correctly in such situations must be ongoing, something the vast, vast majority of CCW's would be unable or unwilling to do. Would they have performed better had the "drill" happened when they were told it would happen? Maybe, but that isn't how things unfold in RL now, is it? Sometimes it's an elementary school classroom full of six and seven year-olds, or with smoke bombs in a movie theater, or outside the food court at a mall, or even, like this video, in a lecture hall at a school.

So drop the paranoid, ulterior-motive bullshit. "Dubious"? You sound like a child.