Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   It's a Code Red Fox News Alert, folks: There's a new U.N. treaty about to get passed that could put IRAN IN CHARGE OF YOUR PERSONAL GUNS   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, arms trade treaty, Wayne LaPierre, Iran, United States, gun owners, United Nations member states, ownership rights, rogue states  
•       •       •

11429 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 1:35 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-11 07:36:36 PM  

j0e_average: jbezorg:
Living in a free society means accepting that there will be some bad apples that get away. i don't want to live in a country where the government keeps close watch over everyone to prevent wrongdoing. It's at that point that the government becomes the corrupting force.

Gun store employees who sell guns to ineligible buyers should face the same penalties as clerks who sell alcohol to minors (fines/jail) The license for the business should be contingent upon employees following the law.

Allowing illegally obtained guns to cross into Mexico is completely idiotic. We've seen the results. I'd dismiss everyone involved.


I agree with you. But shooting the messenger that shows just how the bad apples are getting away?
 
2012-07-11 07:41:24 PM  

intelligent comment below: drg8r: I will keep my AR-15, not in defense of criminals (I have a Glock 27 for that), but in defense of a tyrannical government... unknown


Do you think real life is like COD4 on xbox?

I'd sure love to see you fare against the Navy SEALs raiding your house

Hint, the 2nd Amendment is so government cannot disarm a states police or national guard


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-11 07:57:27 PM  

Click Click D'oh: jbezorg: If an organization, who is suppose to represent responsibility in gun ownership, response to to silence the ones exposing a problem of irresponsible gun ownership by enacting laws to prevent the exposure rather than fix the problem, that's stupid.

All that law does is make a state offense that mirrors a currently existing Federal offense. How is that stupid?

Previous to this law, it was a Federal offense to lie on a Form 4473 or to sell a firearm to a person a dealer knew was not eligible to purchase a firearm. Mayor Bloomerberg of NYC hired PRIVATE investigators out of NYC and sent them to various states to ILLEGALLY purchase firearms. The Federal government decided not to do anything about ILLEGAL firearms purchases, so the states, with the NRAs help made it a state offense too.

I fail to see the problem. States have enacted penalties on illegal firearms sales. What's the issue exactly?

Oh, and since many people here have been jumping the gun about actual Law Enforcement stings:

From the link:

This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
49 capacity or to a person acting at the direction of such law enforcement officer.

Again, what's the problem? The ATF, FBI, State Police et al. can still conduct their sting operations perfectly legally.


What's the problem? Apply this same logic anywhere outside your special interest of suppressing a citizen's ability to expose abuse of the intent of the law. Government corruption for example. Or freedom of speech? What happens?

NRA makes a great show of standing on a soapbox and warning of the dangers of the slippery slope of the application of more gun laws but damn are they so willing to grease themselves up and dive headfirst down other slopes to do so.
 
2012-07-11 08:11:50 PM  

HeadLever: Lol, didn't like the answer and now have to move the goalpost? You asked for Violent Crime and now need to refine you query to murder?


Moving what goal posts?

Gun crimes cause murder, right?

Your logic eludes you
 
2012-07-11 08:12:47 PM  

Silverstaff: The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.



Good for them. Historical context is relevant to every amendment. The 2nd falls under a time when there was no such thing as a police force.
 
2012-07-11 08:26:40 PM  

intelligent comment below: Silverstaff: The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Good for them. Historical context is relevant to every amendment. The 2nd falls under a time when there was no such thing as a police force.


So, in other words, you say that SCOTUS is wrong and your very restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment is right, and nothing is going to change that.

By the way, read the actual Supreme Court decision: Link.

It's not a matter of historic context, it's the grammatical construction of the amendment.

The decision also notes that in the historic context of the amendment, both commentary at the time, unused alternate wordings of the amendment, and contemporaneous equivalent declarations in State Constitutions made it clear it was meant as a general protection of the individual right to bear arms unrelated to service in an organized militia.

The phrase about a militia in the amendment is not related to the part preventing infringement of the right to bear arms, but they also address and specifically state that for Constitutional purposes that "Militia" refers not to an organized police force or National Guard but to the traditional Colonial definition of every male that is physically capable of fighting in defense of their home, without regard to membership in any organization, so even if it was tied to being in the Militia, it wouldn't disarm the general public.

This point has been legally argued and decided, and it wasn't even a very controversial decision (unlike, say Citizens United or National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (i.e. the "Obamacare" decision)). If you want to try to overturn Heller vs. D.C., go to Law School, pass the Bar, find a test case, and take your best swing at it.

Until then, the standing law of the land, Constitutional Law, and general legal consensus, says you are dead wrong, about as Constitutionally wrong as saying that Separate But Equal is valid.
 
2012-07-11 08:34:24 PM  

intelligent comment below: Moving what goal posts


Moving those uprights from 'violent crime' to 'murder'. In case you didn't know, those metrics are in different stadiums.
 
2012-07-11 08:35:28 PM  

muck1969: So this is a treaty about arms sales between governments, and nowhere in the FoxNews piece does it point to the specific portion or verbiage that even affects domestic gun sales or records ... and without this info the NRA is running through the halls of FoxNews with their arms flailing, shouting that the sky is falling.


the treaty would restrict the ability of US arms makers to sell weapons to brutal regimes like congo, sudan, and israel when they know such weapons are going to be used on innocent civilians.
 
2012-07-11 08:41:35 PM  

intelligent comment below: The 2nd falls under a time when there was no such thing as a police force.


Then why did you inclue the police force into your original argument? Are you taking it out of context too? There was also no National Guard the time the 2nd was written. Why include these entities when - by your own admission - they are not part of the context?

Your words: Hint, the 2nd Amendment is so government cannot disarm a states police or national guard.

Your logic is faulty.
 
2012-07-11 09:19:11 PM  
............
............................
WOOLVEREEEEEEEEENS!!!!!
 
2012-07-11 10:07:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: drg8r: I will keep my AR-15, not in defense of criminals (I have a Glock 27 for that), but in defense of a tyrannical government... unknown


Do you think real life is like COD4 on xbox?

I'd sure love to see you fare against the Navy SEALs raiding your house

Hint, the 2nd Amendment is so government cannot disarm a states police or national guard


No, I know what I am saying. The second amendment is designed to let all citizens keep arms to protect them against a tyrannical government. The founding fathers recognized that a standing militia (national army) is necessary to protect the common good, but because of that power the right for the average citizen to keep and bare arms is immutable. They just fought a war against a government that did not deserve its power and abused it. They wanted the ability to mount a defense by ensuring that all people could fight back. Simple.

As far as the Seals are concerned, I am sure I would not last long. But I am willing to put my life out there to protect OUR rights. How about you? Would you step up? What if the government signed an agreement with the UN that made all bloggers and journalists register with them. Allowing them to track you and potentially dictate what and when you could voice your opinion? What if one of the stipulations was that countries like Russia, China or Iran could veto any speech laws here as a violation of the UN charter? That is what this law does with guns. Why regulate private citizen transfers outside this country? Is there a rash of people selling their guns to representatives from the Congo for terrorist use? Seems it is our government that does that. Fast and Furious ring a bell.

If you don't think these things could happen here... read the history of Tennessee and the battle of Athens in 1946.

Open your eyes. This is just a step towards being controlled by an ever more out of touch government.
 
2012-07-11 10:19:21 PM  
You gun-crazy Americans are freaks.

Religiously adhering to a constitutional clause meant to protect you from THE BRITISH.

Hiding your overweight ass behind a couch while clutching your glock in sweaty fingers isn't going to repel any actual invasion of your nation or moonbug crazy notions of your own government turning on you.

It's vaguely useful in home defence except for the fact you probably wouldn't NEED it if most of your populace didn't have ready access to firearms.

This isn't about some holy constitutional human right, it's just simple fetishism overlaid with masculinity issues.
 
2012-07-11 10:39:55 PM  
My pops was all concerned 'till I reminded him we aren't members. 'S why we host. Neutrality. Will always trust Fark over Fox for relevant news.
 
2012-07-11 10:40:21 PM  

cegorach: This isn't about some holy constitutional human right,


Yes it is.

The right to bear arms is recognized in the United States of America as a basic human right, right alongside the right to a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, or the right to be free against unreasonable searches.

Many, many Americans are quite willing to die rather than give up their weapons (or more accurately: go down fighting to prevent their weapons from being taken). "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" wasn't just a slogan Charleton Heston, it's a very popular mindset. There are a lot of bunkers and shelters across the country stocked up with food, medical supplies, ammo, and weapons in the fear that one day somehow "the government" will come for people's weapons.

The very idea that some kind of international treaty could endanger that is enough to spark a lot of people here to want to start World War III just to preserve their freedoms, just like saying a UN treaty would ban Christianity or require UN licensing and permits for any journalists. I know those things won't happen, but to the people upset by this scarelore, they are equivalent threats.

You're not going to change minds about a basic civil right by throwing insults at us. Centuries of culture don't change because somebody throws insults on an internet discussion board.
 
2012-07-11 10:42:28 PM  

cegorach: You gun-crazy Americans are freaks.

Religiously adhering to a constitutional clause meant to protect you from THE BRITISH.

Hiding your overweight ass behind a couch while clutching your glock in sweaty fingers isn't going to repel any actual invasion of your nation or moonbug crazy notions of your own government turning on you.

It's vaguely useful in home defence except for the fact you probably wouldn't NEED it if most of your populace didn't have ready access to firearms.

This isn't about some holy constitutional human right, it's just simple fetishism overlaid with masculinity issues.


murfinsandburglars.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-11 11:07:47 PM  

cegorach: it's just simple fetishism overlaid with masculinity issues.


Whoa.... Hey! Let me take a crack at this psychology thing applied over the internet!

You're projecting your insecurities on another society because it makes you feel safe. Tell me about your mum. She made you wear a dress and you never gotten over the embarrassment I take it?
 
2012-07-11 11:18:27 PM  

Silverstaff: cegorach: This isn't about some holy constitutional human right,

Yes it is.

The right to bear arms is recognized in the United States of America as a basic human right, right alongside the right to a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, or the right to be free against unreasonable searches.

Many, many Americans are quite willing to die rather than give up their weapons (or more accurately: go down fighting to prevent their weapons from being taken). "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" wasn't just a slogan Charleton Heston, it's a very popular mindset. There are a lot of bunkers and shelters across the country stocked up with food, medical supplies, ammo, and weapons in the fear that one day somehow "the government" will come for people's weapons.

The very idea that some kind of international treaty could endanger that is enough to spark a lot of people here to want to start World War III just to preserve their freedoms, just like saying a UN treaty would ban Christianity or require UN licensing and permits for any journalists. I know those things won't happen, but to the people upset by this scarelore, they are equivalent threats.

You're not going to change minds about a basic civil right by throwing insults at us. Centuries of culture don't change because somebody throws insults on an internet discussion board.


Those aren't insults. I am referring to mentally unstable individuals clutching deadly weapons in case REDCOATS or TEH GUVMINT come to take their cheetos away.

There has been no time in recent memory where personal firearms act as a security element for the US and as technology advances it becomes a more and more farcical notion.

Claiming validity of your constitution's historically-driven mandates is about as relevant as claiming Leviticus should be adhered to chapter and verse.

Some aspects that are relevant to the current situation, certainly - as long as you accept this is as a choice you make rather than a universal truth. Those driven purely by historical conditions at the time, not so much at all.

As I said.

This isn't about protecting yourself from a transatlantic monarchy. It's not really about home defence.

It's just fetishism and masculinity.

Kind of like playing Warhammer, just slightly more likely to kill one of your children with a stray bullet.

/not that there's anything wrong with that
//Warhammer, not killing your children with stray bullets
 
2012-07-11 11:20:37 PM  

jbezorg: What's the problem? Apply this same logic anywhere outside your special interest of suppressing a citizen's ability to expose abuse of the intent of the law. Government corruption for example. Or freedom of speech? What happens?


You do know that there are a lot of crimes that are codified at both the Federal and State level right? In fact, many other firearms laws are, not just illegal transactions. Short barreled weapons, automatic weapons and silencers and often time prohibited persons are all laws that come to mind as being codified at both the state and federal level.

And of course, there's the more obvious laws that are both state and federal, like narcotics.

I think it's funny that the NRA actually helped pass a gun control law and people are using it as an example of how the NRA is crazy.

FYI, the NRA also helped pass the current law against armor piercing ammunition and prohibited persons... and sued several states to make them comply with mental disorder laws regarding firearms.

Silly NRA...

Canned Tamales: You see, tard-ass dumshiat, most sane people would regard this level of conspiracy derp to be, um....nuts.


Canned Tamales: Ok, nice try, troll-ass loserbiatch. Leave th3e grown-ups alone and go jerk your little gerkhin on your mom's face some more. She loves it.



Canned Tamales: Official Apology to farker Click Click D'oh:


We're all really sorry you have such a pathetic, limp little midget dick, and feel you have to compensate by trolling normal people with your bullshiat. So, sorry about your penis, loserbiatch. Now go troll your dad's ass with your tongue. He loves it when you do that.


Twelve is such a wonderful age, isn't it. Why so hostile, get banned from Xbox live?
 
2012-07-11 11:20:43 PM  

jbezorg: cegorach: it's just simple fetishism overlaid with masculinity issues.

Whoa.... Hey! Let me take a crack at this psychology thing applied over the internet!

You're projecting your insecurities on another society because it makes you feel safe. Tell me about your mum. She made you wear a dress and you never gotten over the embarrassment I take it?


Not at all. I feel safe because my neighbours don't carry firearms.

But I assume you were being ironic given you're engaging in the behaviour you're projecting?
 
2012-07-12 12:14:48 AM  

cegorach: I feel safe because my neighbours don't carry firearms.


I feel sorry for you. Over here we don't typically fear our neighbors. It is more a concern for the gangs and burglers that we tend to protect against. Of course for me, I just like to shoot. The guns I own wouldn't offer much protection against a home invasion since they are mostly single shot varmit rifles and big game bolt action guns that are always locked up in the safe.
 
2012-07-12 12:27:25 AM  
Does Rupert Murdoch own Fox and an ammo maker?
 
2012-07-12 12:29:05 AM  

Jodeo: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x324]


And yet he attacked the US anyway.
 
2012-07-12 12:39:55 AM  

cegorach: You gun-crazy Americans are freaks.

Religiously adhering to a constitutional clause meant to protect you from THE BRITISH.


Um, I think it was generally accepted that it was included to protected us from any occupying government that lacked a mandate from the people, including our own should something happen to it and it went bad.
In fact, I seem to recall quite a few comments by the framers of the Constitution to that effect. Some people say it wouldn't be useful to prevent a coup or other takeover. I would say that since we are still here after 200 years, maybe it has actually been wildly successful. Its real hard to repress an entire armed populace. They get rather uppity.
 
2012-07-12 12:56:20 AM  

Godot42: Since when has the U.S. given a crap what the U.N. thinks? They are supposed to facilitate dialogue between nations, not act as a broker for global treaties, and especially not act as a super-government. Pass any damn resolution you want, America is independent. Obama couldn't get people's guns if he tried with every last iota of his power. And I'm not a gun owner, I just recognize the reality of the situation.


This.

Of course we don't want the UN telling us if we can have guns or not. The fact is, most of us don't believe the UN even *could*.

/legally owned guns aren't really that big of a deal
//it's the illegally owned ones that generally cause problems...
 
2012-07-12 02:36:20 AM  

Silverstaff: It's not a matter of historic context, it's the grammatical construction of the amendment.



As long as you ignore the WELL REGULATED MILITIA part
 
2012-07-12 08:00:01 AM  
I'll just leave this here, this morning's little gift from 'ol Wayne himself:


Today I went to New York to testify before the United Nations to stop the Arms Trade Treaty...a treaty that could ban every rifle, pistol and shotgun you own...a treaty that could turn our God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms into a U.N.-regulated privilege...

...A treaty that has the full support of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who are eager to COOPERATE with the U.N.

With the stroke of a pen, Obama invited Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and the world's worst tyrants and dictators to rewrite our Constitution and lay waste to the Second Amendment.

After the U.N. delayed my testimony and tried to deny me a chance to speak out on behalf of gun owners like you...I stood up to those tyrants and said there will be NO COMPROMISE. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom...period!

But my words fell on deaf ears. Thanks to the Obama administration, this treaty is marching forward, and I need your help to stop it.

First, take a moment right now to sign your Declaration of Independence from the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty today. This declaration demands that your Senators defend freedom and block this dangerous treaty when it reaches the United States Senate.
With Obama's unilateral support for this freedom-destroying treaty, we must rely on the United States Senate to defend our Constitution and refuse to ratify this international gun ban. And your signature on this declaration is the most powerful tool in our arsenal!

Second, after you sign your Declaration, help NRA rally every American gun owner against this U.N. assault on our freedom by making an emergency contribution of $10, $15, $20, $30 or more today.
I want to make sure law-abiding Americans like you will never be forced to kneel before the altar of the U.N. and surrender your constitutional rights!

I want to make sure every American knows that Barack Obama has willingly surrendered our sovereignty and our birthright that generations of patriots have died defending.

With your immediate contribution of $10, $15, $20 or $30, NRA will blanket the country with ads and mailings that expose the truth that Obama is working with the U.N. to attack our Second Amendment freedoms.

And NRA is taking this fight head-on...at U.N. headquarters in New York...on Capitol Hill...and in all 50 states!!!

But we can only win if millions of American gun owners unite and add their voices to this fight. So please, sign your Declaration of Independence and make an urgent gift of $10, $15, $20, $30 or the most generous amount you can afford to NRA now.

Time is running out. The U.N. will vote on this treaty on July 27! Please stand with me and draw your own personal line in the sand against the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty before it's too late. Thank you.

In Liberty,

Wayne LaPierre
 
2012-07-12 09:18:56 AM  

cegorach: You gun-crazy Americans are freaks.

Religiously adhering to a constitutional clause meant to protect you from THE BRITISH.

Hiding your overweight ass behind a couch while clutching your glock in sweaty fingers isn't going to repel any actual invasion of your nation or moonbug crazy notions of your own government turning on you.

It's vaguely useful in home defence except for the fact you probably wouldn't NEED it if most of your populace didn't have ready access to firearms.

This isn't about some holy constitutional human right, it's just simple fetishism overlaid with masculinity issues.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Were you born stupid? Or did that develop later in life?
 
2012-07-12 09:45:02 AM  

cegorach: Not at all. I feel safe because my neighbours don't carry firearms.


I don't own a firearm and I feel safe as well. I also don't have to make sure my neighbors are disarmed as a crutch to do so.

I'll give you that your view of American culture may be a bit skewed. Sometimes it's hard to tell where the American News Media ends and the Situational Comedies begin.
 
2012-07-12 10:12:15 AM  

Click Click D'oh: You do know that there are a lot of crimes that are codified at both the Federal and State level right? In fact, many other firearms laws are, not just illegal transactions. Short barreled weapons, automatic weapons and silencers and often time prohibited persons are all laws that come to mind as being codified at both the state and federal level.

And of course, there's the more obvious laws that are both state and federal, like narcotics.

I think it's funny that the NRA actually helped pass a gun control law and people are using it as an example of how the NRA is crazy.

FYI, the NRA also helped pass the current law against armor piercing ammunition and prohibited persons... and sued several states to make them comply with mental disorder laws regarding firearms.

Silly NRA...


The question was this.

"What's the problem? Apply this same logic anywhere outside your special interest of suppressing a citizen's ability to expose abuse of the intent of the law. Government corruption for example. Or freedom of speech? What happens?"

Care to answer it?

Because I think a sane person's reaction to outing a licensed dealer who's farking up and undoing all of that you mentioned, what the NRA has accomplished, would be to go after the dealer. Not to silence the messenger. And doing it in such a way that opens up the possibility of setting the precedent to silence a private citizen's ability to expose other abuse of the intent of the law.
 
2012-07-12 11:27:38 AM  

intelligent comment below: As long as you ignore the WELL REGULATED MILITIA part


And if you would have read the Heller decision like I asked, you would know that the prefatory clause does in no way bind or limit the operatvie clause of the second amendment. Even that it is context, I am still not sure what it had to do with your point on Police Forces or National Guards.
 
2012-07-12 11:50:10 AM  

Click Click D'oh: There was a purpose for the strict separation.


So their lobbying division could spout lies to influence voters and fund laws that get murderers off, without preventing you from breathlessly defending the primary organization?
 
2012-07-12 12:17:35 PM  

jbezorg: "What's the problem? Apply this same logic anywhere outside your special interest of suppressing a citizen's ability to expose abuse of the intent of the law. Government corruption for example. Or freedom of speech? What happens?"

Care to answer it?


I did answer it. Many offenses are codified at both the State and Federal level. This one example is not unique. It's only being treated as unique because the NRA was involved.

jbezorg: Because I think a sane person's reaction to outing a licensed dealer who's farking up and undoing all of that you mentioned, what the NRA has accomplished, would be to go after the dealer.


Please show me where I've said that the dealers who make illegal firearms transactions shouldn't face prosecution? I think that if you read, my consistent stance has been that this is the job of law enforcement, not private citizens.

Tell me, if you went and bought a couple of crack rocks with the intent to out a crack dealer, what do you think the police would say? I'll answer that for you, they'd arrest you. Why do you think it should be different for illegal firearms?

kingoomieiii: So their lobbying division could spout lies to influence voters and fund laws that get murderers off, without preventing you from breathlessly defending the primary organization?


What law has the NRA helped pass that would get murderers off? Oh wait, you're going to say that homicide = murder, ergo justifiable homicide = murder. Yeah, good try.
 
2012-07-12 12:39:18 PM  

Click Click D'oh: ergo justifiable homicide = murder. Yeah, good try.


'Stand your ground' legal defenses worked in Florida even when victims were shot in back, investigation finds

SOUNDS JUSTIFIABLE TO ME

But I guess it makes sense when your worldview revolves around gun owners being a protected class stuck in a constant state of victimhood and oppression.
 
2012-07-12 12:58:20 PM  

kingoomieiii: 'Stand your ground' legal defenses worked in Florida even when victims were shot in back, investigation finds

SOUNDS JUSTIFIABLE TO ME


Must have sounded justifiable to a judge too. One was, after all, required for the SYG hearing or eventual trial that resulted from the shooting. You do realize these things still go to court right?

Without knowing the circumstances in which the person was shot in the back, it's dishonest for you to claim that it was an unjust shooting and that SYG allowed the shooter to get off. Since a judge, or jury apparently thought it was justified, it's dishonest to call the person a murderer, because they aren't.

FYI: Even before SYG laws, a shooting could be ruled justified even if the shoots hit the victim in the back. Rounds hitting a person in the back is not an automatic qualifier for a shooting being unjustified.
 
2012-07-12 01:20:57 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Without knowing the circumstances in which the person was shot in the back, it's dishonest for you to claim that it was an unjust shooting and that SYG allowed the shooter to get off. Since a judge, or jury apparently thought it was justified, it's dishonest to call the person a murderer, because they aren't.

FYI: Even before SYG laws, a shooting could be ruled justified even if the shoots hit the victim in the back. Rounds hitting a person in the back is not an automatic qualifier for a shooting being unjustified.


Read the source article. All the defendant has to do now is demonstrate that A) They weren't breaking the law and B) It was reasonable for them to fear for their lives. It doesn't matter if the defendant started the conflict, and there's no need to attempt to defuse a situation or leave the area. Confront a guy, piss him off, he hits you? Shoot him in the face.

Stand Your Ground makes it easier for someone to use their gun, instead of their mouth, to solve problems.
 
2012-07-12 01:23:02 PM  

kingoomieiii: A) They weren't breaking the law


By which I mean "immediately before pulling the gun".
 
2012-07-12 01:46:00 PM  

kingoomieiii: Read the source article. All the defendant has to do now is demonstrate that A) They weren't breaking the law and B) It was reasonable for them to fear for their lives. It doesn't matter if the defendant started the conflict, and there's no need to attempt to defuse a situation or leave the area. Confront a guy, piss him off, he hits you? Shoot him in the face.

Stand Your Ground makes it easier for someone to use their gun, instead of their mouth, to solve problems.


Point A negates your claims in regards to SYG. If SYG is invalidated by acting in an illegal manner ( your point A), you can't start a fight then invoke SYG because starting a fight is illegal either as disorderly conduct, assault or battery.

Point B also negates the claim that people exonerated under SYG would be considered murderers without SYG. It's called the reasonable person standard, and has always been the common law requirement for the use of lethal force in self defense just about everywhere.

All that SYG did was remove the duty to retreat, and in some locations offer civil immunity.

All the above is the reason why a man in Texas who claimed SYG immunity was recently convicted... He went to his neighbors house, started a confrontation then shot his neighbor. SYG does NOT protect that.
 
2012-07-12 02:16:53 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Tell me, if you went and bought a couple of crack rocks with the intent to out a crack dealer, what do you think the police would say? I'll answer that for you, they'd arrest you. Why do you think it should be different for illegal firearms?


That's not an accurate analogy.

40 (B) Any person who provides to a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or
41 ammunition what the persons knows to be materially false information with intent to
42 deceive the dealer or seller about the legality of a transfer of a firearm or ammunition is
43 guilty of a felony.

An accurate analogy would be a bartender who is obligated by law to stop selling alcohol to someone who is intoxicated and continuing to serve drinks to someone who tells them that they are drunk and should stop serving them alcohol. Being called out. Then having the Hotel, Restaurant & Club Employees & Bartenders Union Lobbyist ( This is an example, I don't think he'd actually do this. At least I hope. because if he did, that would be stupid ) attempt to pass a law preventing citizens from exposing bartenders who knowingly break the law so they can get a few extra sales in.

If the transaction is actually illegal, then that's already covered.

LOL. A more accurate title for the "Honesty in Purchasing Firearms Act" is the "Prevention of Butthurt From Doing Something Stupid and Having it Called Out Act".
 
2012-07-12 05:59:32 PM  

HeadLever: intelligent comment below: As long as you ignore the WELL REGULATED MILITIA part

And if you would have read the Heller decision like I asked, you would know that the prefatory clause does in no way bind or limit the operatvie clause of the second amendment. Even that it is context, I am still not sure what it had to do with your point on Police Forces or National Guards.



What next? You're going to cite Citizens United as proof corporations are people?

Of course you don't understand why in an era with no police or standing army you would need all males to own weapons to take up arms. And why during todays era you have professional trained forces to do those jobs for you. Now can you have a gun or 2 for home defense? Sure. But don't hide behind the amendment just because you love a hobby of collecting and shooting guns.
 
2012-07-12 07:54:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: You're going to cite Citizens United as proof corporations are people?


Only when you start arguing that free press only applies to media printed off the printing presses.
 
2012-07-12 07:56:44 PM  

intelligent comment below: But don't hide behind the amendment just because you love a hobby of collecting and shooting guns.


Lol, you are a moron of the highest order. 'Hide' behind an enumerated right? Are you off your meds?
 
2012-07-12 08:11:27 PM  

HeadLever: Only when you start arguing that free press only applies to media printed off the printing presses.



Freedom of the press applies to journalists and those who publish their work.

HeadLever: Lol, you are a moron of the highest order. 'Hide' behind an enumerated right? Are you off your meds?


Meds? I don't take meds, projection much?

A hobby is not protected by a right, gun ownership rights so you can collect and shoot guns has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment just like the 1st amendment doesn't give me the right to start a blog and post libel and slander because it's my hobby to make fun of people
 
2012-07-12 08:27:09 PM  

intelligent comment below: Meds? I don't take meds,


lol, could've fooled me.

And a hobby is not a protected right? What if said hobby IS a protected right? Does it apply then? Having you proclaim it as a 'hobby' does not make it any less applicable. Lol, you keep digging your hole and showing how little you know. You know what they say about those that deem it better to remain silent rather than thought a fool? You are doing a good job at removing all doubt.
 
2012-07-14 12:52:18 AM  
Silverstaff

Funny thing is, who would take these guns up?
Some foreign army on US soil? Yeah, right. Put invading troops on US soil for any action against US citizens and you'll see an insurgency that makes Afghanistan look like a grade school playground. I'd personally take everything I've learned about counterinsurgency in the US Army and spin that right around, and I know a lot of veterans that would do the same thing.

US military? Heck, they have as many private guns, or more, than most civilians I know. Last year I overheard a long conversation between a National Guard Captain, an NG Major, and a couple of NCO's basically talking about how "they" better not come for their guns or they'll get them, bullets first. Funny thing is, they are the "they" that other conspiracy theorists fear. Tell US soldiers to go door to door taking people's guns because a UN Treaty says so and you'll have an outright mutiny on your hands.

Police? Most officers I know have personal gun collections as big as the soldiers I know. They wouldn't stand for having their personal weapons taken either. They know that if they tried to go door-to-door to take guns, they'd get shot at, at most of those houses.

Basically, any concerted effort to seize privately owned weapons in the US would lead to a Second Civil War/National Insurgency, and it would be doomed to fail. The leaders of that insurgency would be people who have been preparing for such a situation for decades and veterans who were trained to fight insurgencies and know every COIN trick in the book.

There are so many unregistered weapons in the US (or weapons whose registry information is so hideously out of date due to sales and moves in the intervening time that they are practically unregistered), that there would be no way to get them all. The fact that you can make a functioning weapon with basic machine tools (and the plans are so easily available you can find them with Google and 5 minutes). When I was a kid, I saw an exhibit at the State Fair of contraband seized at the State Penitentiary. The zip gun exhibit cemented into my head how you'll never really ban guns: if prisoners behind bars can make guns, then everyday people will always have them if they want them.

No, they aren't coming to take your guns away. Even if they tried, they would fail miserably.


One thing that I thought of that nobody has said yet. Theonly threat that the ATT could pose to gun owners in America is in the using of the guns. There is no way that the US government could start by seizing all the guns. However the OTHER COUNTRIES in the UN might decide to sanction trade embagos aginst us until the government meets certain requirements(something that the US does all the time). requirements like say the immeadate outlaw of all ammunition as well as anything and everything related to the reloading and production of ammunition. Then what good are your guns gonna be when all you have is what ever rounds you have on hand? Come to think of it this is starting to seem like a great time to stock up on ammo and reloading supplies. Just a thought for everyone to pick apart and fight over.
 
2012-07-14 01:13:00 AM  
sorrythat last paraagraph should not have been made in itallics. that was my thought on the subject. So again:
One thing that I thought of that nobody has said yet. Theonly threat that the ATT could pose to gun owners in America is in the using of the guns. There is no way that the US government could start by seizing all the guns. However the OTHER COUNTRIES in the UN might decide to sanction trade embagos aginst us until the government meets certain requirements(something that the US does all the time). requirements like say the immeadate outlaw of all ammunition as well as anything and everything related to the reloading and production of ammunition. Then what good are your guns gonna be when all you have is what ever rounds you have on hand? Come to think of it this is starting to seem like a great time to stock up on ammo and reloading supplies. Just a thought for everyone to pick apart and fight over.
 
Displayed 45 of 295 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report