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.

(Uproxx)   Rep. Louie Gohmert and the NRA are the early frontrunners in the "Who Can Make the Biggest Idiot of Themselves Following the Colorado Shooting" contest   (uproxx.com) divider line 615
    More: Dumbass, Louie Gohmert  
•       •       •

9656 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 2:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 05:45:51 PM

o5iiawah: Mouldy Squid: The idea that if I were an American and could just walk into a gun store and buy one, stick it in my belt and walk out frightens me.

I'm not sure why - because I dont know of any state where you can walk in to a gun store, purchase a firearm and walk out. The only exceptions to that are some states allow you to cash and carry if you have your CCW which requires a background check, fingerprints and in a lot of areas, a couple of references and a character interview with your local sheriff to go along with a CCW class. Mine cost me upwards of $250-$300 to get in photos, classes, documents, trips to various agencies and what not.

I purchased both of my pieces in FL and the store required an extra $50 or so for the FFL, and background check. The American gun market is not mogadishu.


I'm sure he was thinking of a gun SHOW, not a gun store. No waiting period, no background check. Yeehaw. Let's get us some guns, boys.
 
2012-07-20 05:45:57 PM
Has anybody asked Michelle Bachman for her opinion yet?
 
2012-07-20 05:46:06 PM

spmkk: LasersHurt: "spmkk:

Until you can prove, via statistics, that arming everyone would reduce the number of people shot, I will disagree with the idea. And since you can't prove that, I'm feeling pretty solid."

I'm glad you asked. I encourage you to read about the town of Kennesaw, GA, which has seen a 50% crime reduction and zero murders in the 30 years since enacting a law that requires residents to be armed. I also urge you to read about citizen gun ownership vs. violent crime in places like Switzerland and Israel.


I encourage you to read an article about the difference between correlation and causation.
 
2012-07-20 05:46:52 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So gun massacres are in no way related to guns?


Not really. They're the sign of a sick mind who wants to go out and kill people. If they can't get guns, they'll use bombs, swords, whatever, just to kill people like they want. If you REALLY think the lizard jews are out to get you and you're the chosen one, you'll drown people in your tub and go joyriding through a school bus line.

HotWingConspiracy: Please, educate us on what is really wrong with society today. Also, explain how it leads to gun violence that is no way connected to guns.


The incredibly shiatty perspective the country has on mental health issues - and the unwillingness to address them among ourselves - is one of the leading problems. People tend to know when someone's totally farked up, but nothing is done about it until after the fact, when they just give really awkward interviews. The raw medical issues as well - cost and other barriers to entry - are pretty significant as well.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if expansion of the health care bill to have an equally substantial effect on the mental health industry would be much more effective than spending twice that on gun laws/enforcement.
 
2012-07-20 05:47:33 PM
A perverted country produces perverts. James Holmes is a classic amerikan product just like the massacred country of Iraq ( or Vietnam if you want to go back 40 years ). If you want to go back further look into the rape of Iran by amerika in 1953. Look into the Sand Creek massacre ( of Indians ). "The evil in America is very old" - William Burroughs.
 
2012-07-20 05:48:35 PM

spmkk: LasersHurt: "spmkk:

Until you can prove, via statistics, that arming everyone would reduce the number of people shot, I will disagree with the idea. And since you can't prove that, I'm feeling pretty solid."

I'm glad you asked. I encourage you to read about the town of Kennesaw, GA, which has seen a 50% crime reduction and zero murders in the 30 years since enacting a law that requires residents to be armed. I also urge you to read about citizen gun ownership vs. violent crime in places like Switzerland and Israel.


magusdevil: "I am pro-responsible-gun-ownership as well and that puts me on the opposite side of the fence from the NRA."

Know how I know that you are completely oblivious to what the NRA actually does?


The NRA opposes licensing gun owners, the registration of guns and closing the gun-show and private-sale loopholes that allow buyers, who cannot pass a background check, to purchase any guns they want.
 
2012-07-20 05:49:15 PM

magusdevil: I bet if an average of 31 homicides per day were committed using cars as the weapon of choice, it would, in fact, be harder to get a car than it is now.



There are a hell of a lot more homicides per day by car than 31. And I'd argue that there's little practical difference between a drunk driver plowing in to a family and killing them, and some drunk idiot firing in to a neighborhood and killing someone. Except of course that it's even easier to kill more people with the car. And which one happens several orders of magnitude more often? In fact, without even Googling a source I'd bet you that drunk drivers commit homicide on a FAR more vast scale then all shootings each year.

And I don't see anyone trying to ban cars, do you? Of course not. We ALL use cars. We're used to them, so no one wants them taken away even though they kill massive farkloads of people each year. Even though many people intentionally use them to murder other each year. Even though even more people negligently kill people with them each year. They're incredibly dangerous things.

But not everyone uses guns, not everyone is used to them, so it's a lot easier to feel justified in calling for the banning of something that doesn't matter to you personally, and would only impact other people.

qorkfiend: mongbiohazard: But in the end it's the killer who is responsible,

That doesn't mean it should be trivial for the killer to acquire and use said tools.

Why don't more people blow things up? Could it possibly be because it's a bit harder to get or build a bomb than it is to get a gun and ammunition?



That also doesn't mean it should be any harder for the other 99.999% of people who are NOT mass murderers to get them. Or the 99% of people who aren't the regular kind of murderers. Should it be harder for me to get a car because (WAY more) people drive drunk and kill people? Should we ban every product that is misused by someone? That won't solve the problem because the fundamental underlying problem is that people are imperfect, and some of those imperfect people are downright FARKED.

Sorry, but life isn't perfect. When you can come up with a reliable method of weeding out just those who are going to commit mass murder I'll be all ears. Until then, no. I'm not willing to abdicate a fundamental right based on the knee-jerk emotional response to a rare situation which gets national headlines in a huge country.
 
2012-07-20 05:50:04 PM

LasersHurt: spmkk: LasersHurt: "spmkk:

Until you can prove, via statistics, that arming everyone would reduce the number of people shot, I will disagree with the idea. And since you can't prove that, I'm feeling pretty solid."

I'm glad you asked. I encourage you to read about the town of Kennesaw, GA, which has seen a 50% crime reduction and zero murders in the 30 years since enacting a law that requires residents to be armed. I also urge you to read about citizen gun ownership vs. violent crime in places like Switzerland and Israel.

I encourage you to read an article about the difference between correlation and causation.


I'd be more supportive of gun ownership rights if we had mandatory military service like the Swiss and Israelis do.
 
2012-07-20 05:50:33 PM

magusdevil: spmkk: LasersHurt: "spmkk:

Until you can prove, via statistics, that arming everyone would reduce the number of people shot, I will disagree with the idea. And since you can't prove that, I'm feeling pretty solid."

I'm glad you asked. I encourage you to read about the town of Kennesaw, GA, which has seen a 50% crime reduction and zero murders in the 30 years since enacting a law that requires residents to be armed. I also urge you to read about citizen gun ownership vs. violent crime in places like Switzerland and Israel.


magusdevil: "I am pro-responsible-gun-ownership as well and that puts me on the opposite side of the fence from the NRA."

Know how I know that you are completely oblivious to what the NRA actually does?

The NRA opposes licensing gun owners, the registration of guns and closing the gun-show and private-sale loopholes that allow buyers, who cannot pass a background check, to purchase any guns they want.


They also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law which isn't explicitly more right to have more guns in more places. They're an emotions-based group that uses fear to keep the outer systems in line.
 
2012-07-20 05:51:35 PM

qorkfiend: I'd be more supportive of gun ownership rights if we had mandatory military service like the Swiss and Israelis do.


Hmmmm... there'd probably be less military adventurism too. Could you imagine being pro-Iraq war if you had a 17 yr old son or daughter?
 
2012-07-20 05:52:20 PM

magusdevil: The NRA opposes licensing gun owners, the registration of guns and closing the gun-show and private-sale loopholes that allow buyers, who cannot pass a background check, to purchase any guns they want.



1) A license to exercise one of my most important rights? No thanks.

2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

3) If I want to sell a firearm to a friend of mine, I should be able to do so without a bunch of red tape. Just like when a friend sold me a handgun back in 2008.
 
2012-07-20 05:53:52 PM

The_Sponge: magusdevil: The NRA opposes licensing gun owners, the registration of guns and closing the gun-show and private-sale loopholes that allow buyers, who cannot pass a background check, to purchase any guns they want.


1) A license to exercise one of my most important rights? No thanks.

2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

3) If I want to sell a firearm to a friend of mine, I should be able to do so without a bunch of red tape. Just like when a friend sold me a handgun back in 2008.


See, this attitude is what makes me worry. One of your "Most important rights" is a deadly weapon, whenever and wherever? You're convinced that a registration will be used to come and take your guns? It's rote paranoia.
 
2012-07-20 05:54:21 PM

LasersHurt: They also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law which isn't explicitly more right to have more guns in more places. They're an emotions-based group that uses fear to keep the outer systems in line.



For all their faults, at they are better than the Brady Campaign.....an emotions-based group that seeks to restrict our rights.
 
2012-07-20 05:54:41 PM

The_Sponge: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Yeah, gun control. I went there. Control the f*cking guns already. The rest of the civilized world does it and they haven't been taken over by the Cowboys Gang yet. I'm sick and tired of this frontier mindset that the GOP and NRA folks have that we simply HAVE to be walking commandos. Does anyone really think we'd be safer with 250+ million people walking around absolutely strapped for combat? It's ridiculous.


Yes, by all means....take my rights away. Yeesh.

And if we're nominating the biggest idiot of the day, I would like to nominate Michael Bloomberg for using this tragedy as a political opportunity as soon as he could. Neither Obama or Romney did that.


Wow, what a typically distorted response. I said we should control the guns, not take your rights away. Like a lot of people, I don't have a problem with normal citizens who have no criminal record picking up handguns and shotguns, etc. We do tend to have a problem with people like you who equate ANY attempt and restricting deadly weapons ownership and availability as repealing the 2nd amendment.

Regular people don't need tear gas, AK-47's, RPG's, grenades, and god knows whatever else military ordinance gives you an erection for your oft repeated claim of innocent "home defense". I get that they're fun to take to the range, but let's not kid ourselves about what we need versus what we want.
 
2012-07-20 05:54:50 PM

The_Sponge: 3) If I want to sell a firearm to a friend of mine, I should be able to do so without a bunch of red tape. Just like when a friend sold me a handgun back in 2008.


Why? The rest of us have the right to life, which we're protecting by trying to prevent you from selling your gun to someone who is not legally allowed to own one.
 
2012-07-20 05:55:15 PM

LasersHurt: See, this attitude is what makes me worry. One of your "Most important rights" is a deadly weapon, whenever and wherever? You're convinced that a registration will be used to come and take your guns? It's rote paranoia.



How is it paranoia when registrations were used to take away firearms in California?
 
2012-07-20 05:55:16 PM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: So gun massacres are in no way related to guns?

Not really. They're the sign of a sick mind who wants to go out and kill people. If they can't get guns, they'll use bombs, swords, whatever, just to kill people like they want. If you REALLY think the lizard jews are out to get you and you're the chosen one, you'll drown people in your tub and go joyriding through a school bus line.


So you're honestly saying that gun massacres have nothing to do with guns. Noted.

HotWingConspiracy: Please, educate us on what is really wrong with society today. Also, explain how it leads to gun violence that is no way connected to guns.

The incredibly shiatty perspective the country has on mental health issues - and the unwillingness to address them among ourselves - is one of the leading problems. People tend to know when someone's totally farked up, but nothing is done about it until after the fact, when they just give really awkward interviews. The raw medical issues as well - cost and other barriers to entry - are pretty significant as well.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if expansion of the health care bill to have an equally substantial effect on the mental health industry would be much more effective than spending twice that on gun laws/enforcement.


There are plenty of mental people that never commit gun massacres. Plus we have no idea what this guy's deal is yet. Just yesterday he was a grad student and responsible gun owner.
 
2012-07-20 05:55:32 PM
Late to this one, but Brian Ross and ABC "News" went so far off the deep end, no one will ever come close to them. Going on a TEA Party page, finding a similar name, then accusing that person of being the shooter was the most asinine thing I've ever seen.
 
2012-07-20 05:55:51 PM

The_Sponge: LasersHurt: They also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law which isn't explicitly more right to have more guns in more places. They're an emotions-based group that uses fear to keep the outer systems in line.


For all their faults, at they are better than the Brady Campaign.....an emotions-based group that seeks to restrict our rights.


No, they're just as bad. Maybe they could try to be honest about gun rights and ownership for once? That would be a refreshing change of pace.
 
2012-07-20 05:56:05 PM

qorkfiend: What are the protections against and penalties for straw purchasing?


If by straw purchasing, you mean private sales? You must have a valid Possession and Acquisition License to purchase both firearms and ammunition. All restricted firearms (handgun/semi-auto rifle etc) must be registered with the Federal Firearms Program. There is always a paper trail for legally purchased arms, and in theory the RCMP know where any restricted firearm is at any time. When a restricted firearm is sold privately, the registration papers must change hands and the Chief Firearms Officer's office must be informed of the change of ownership so that the registry is updated. Since the Firearms Act allows the RCMP (or other police) to inspect your firearms at any time, you had better have your ducks in a row and your registration papers matching your guns.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that everyone does this all the time, but the punishments can be quite severe. You can be fined, jailed and have your "right" to own firearms removed permanently.

None of this applies to non-restriced long arms any more though. Hunting rifles, shotguns etc no longer require registration. You are still required to have your PAL even if the firearm is not restricted. Possession of a firearm without a valid PAL is a felony.
 
2012-07-20 05:56:05 PM

The_Sponge: 2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.


You've brought this up before, and have been slapped down before. The only people who had their guns taken away were those who refused to get them registered through three amnesty periods. And in that case, the guns weren't "taken away" in any way that involved registration, the firearms were just illegal to own.

HRUERHERUIHEREHRERHERERRR
 
2012-07-20 05:56:39 PM

The_Sponge: LasersHurt: See, this attitude is what makes me worry. One of your "Most important rights" is a deadly weapon, whenever and wherever? You're convinced that a registration will be used to come and take your guns? It's rote paranoia.


How is it paranoia when registrations were used to take away firearms in California?


One specific type of weapon. You can still have lots of others. It's the "any control is bad" mentality.
 
2012-07-20 05:57:06 PM

shotglasss: Late to this one, but Brian Ross and ABC "News" went so far off the deep end, no one will ever come close to them. Going on a TEA Party page, finding a similar name, then accusing that person of being the shooter was the most asinine thing I've ever seen.


That's not actually what happened. We can look at the actual quote:

ROSS: There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo., page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year. Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo.
 
2012-07-20 05:57:16 PM

LasersHurt: The_Sponge: LasersHurt: See, this attitude is what makes me worry. One of your "Most important rights" is a deadly weapon, whenever and wherever? You're convinced that a registration will be used to come and take your guns? It's rote paranoia.


How is it paranoia when registrations were used to take away firearms in California?

One specific type of weapon. You can still have lots of others. It's the "any control is bad" mentality.


sprawl15: The_Sponge: 2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

You've brought this up before, and have been slapped down before. The only people who had their guns taken away were those who refused to get them registered through three amnesty periods. And in that case, the guns weren't "taken away" in any way that involved registration, the firearms were just illegal to own.

HRUERHERUIHEREHRERHERERRR


Also, this - dunno why I forgot that.
 
2012-07-20 05:57:36 PM

HotWingConspiracy: There are plenty of mental people that never commit gun massacres.


wtfamireading
 
2012-07-20 05:58:01 PM

LasersHurt: "They [the NRA] also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law..."


...because it's an issue of constitutional rights. That's like complaining that the ACLU opposes any "honest discussion" of free speech control, and ANY change in the law surrounding the 1st Amendment.
 
2012-07-20 05:58:10 PM

shotglasss: Late to this one, but Brian Ross and ABC "News" went so far off the deep end, no one will ever come close to them. Going on a TEA Party page, finding a similar name, then accusing that person of being the shooter was the most asinine thing I've ever seen.


Yeah, thinking it might be a guy with the same name from the same place is "off the deep end."

It was bad reporting, sure, but "off the deep end" is off the deep end.
 
2012-07-20 05:58:42 PM

Mouldy Squid: qorkfiend: What are the protections against and penalties for straw purchasing?

If by straw purchasing, you mean private sales? You must have a valid Possession and Acquisition License to purchase both firearms and ammunition. All restricted firearms (handgun/semi-auto rifle etc) must be registered with the Federal Firearms Program. There is always a paper trail for legally purchased arms, and in theory the RCMP know where any restricted firearm is at any time. When a restricted firearm is sold privately, the registration papers must change hands and the Chief Firearms Officer's office must be informed of the change of ownership so that the registry is updated. Since the Firearms Act allows the RCMP (or other police) to inspect your firearms at any time, you had better have your ducks in a row and your registration papers matching your guns.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that everyone does this all the time, but the punishments can be quite severe. You can be fined, jailed and have your "right" to own firearms removed permanently.

None of this applies to non-restriced long arms any more though. Hunting rifles, shotguns etc no longer require registration. You are still required to have your PAL even if the firearm is not restricted. Possession of a firearm without a valid PAL is a felony.


That answers the question, yeah; I was thinking more about people with valid PALs buying firearms for the express purpose of selling them to people without PALs.
 
2012-07-20 05:59:11 PM

spmkk: LasersHurt: "They [the NRA] also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law..."

...because it's an issue of constitutional rights. That's like complaining that the ACLU opposes any "honest discussion" of free speech control, and ANY change in the law surrounding the 1st Amendment.


No, it's nothing like that at all. Every topic should be open for discussion. This childish "NUH UH BUT THEY STARTED IT" shiat is dumb.
 
2012-07-20 05:59:24 PM
The right to ingest bath salts? One of my most important rights. If anyone tries to take this right from me then the libs will have hell to pay. I'm going to go sell some to a friend now. I am the Joker.
 
2012-07-20 06:00:06 PM

spmkk: LasersHurt: "They [the NRA] also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law..."

...because it's an issue of constitutional rights. That's like complaining that the ACLU opposes any "honest discussion" of free speech control, and ANY change in the law surrounding the 1st Amendment.


This idea that constitutional rights are sacrosanct and beyond discussion is insane. If anyone thinks we hit the pinnacle of culture 200 years ago, please fark off.
 
2012-07-20 06:00:08 PM

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Regular people don't need tear gas, AK-47's, RPG's, grenades, and god knows whatever else military ordinance gives you an erection for your oft repeated claim of innocent "home defense". I get that they're fun to take to the range, but let's not kid ourselves about what we need versus what we want.



1) It's spelled "ordnance".

2) I think it is amusing that you would lump in a rifle with explosive devices as a way of engaging in hyperbole. By the way, were you thinking of actual AK-47s that are capable of full-auto, or were you thinking of sem-auto AK variants?
 
2012-07-20 06:00:50 PM

The_Sponge: magusdevil: The NRA opposes licensing gun owners, the registration of guns and closing the gun-show and private-sale loopholes that allow buyers, who cannot pass a background check, to purchase any guns they want.


1) A license to exercise one of my most important rights? No thanks.

2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

3) If I want to sell a firearm to a friend of mine, I should be able to do so without a bunch of red tape. Just like when a friend sold me a handgun back in 2008.


Know how know you don't know what "responsible-gun-ownership" means?
 
2012-07-20 06:00:51 PM

shotglasss: Late to this one, but Brian Ross and ABC "News" went so far off the deep end, no one will ever come close to them. Going on a TEA Party page, finding a similar name, then accusing that person of being the shooter was the most asinine thing I've ever seen.



I hope ABC News fires his ass.
 
2012-07-20 06:01:07 PM

mongbiohazard: And I don't see anyone trying to ban cars, do you? Of course not. We ALL use cars. We're used to them, so no one wants them taken away even though they kill massive farkloads of people each year. Even though many people intentionally use them to murder other each year. Even though even more people negligently kill people with them each year. They're incredibly dangerous things.


What are cars built to do? What are guns built to do? Why persist with this shiat comparison?

But not everyone uses guns, not everyone is used to them, so it's a lot easier to feel justified in calling for the banning of something that doesn't matter to you personally, and would only impact other people.

Not getting shot at by some farking freak matters to me personally. And a ban wouldn't work, but the hurdles to get a gun should be high so only the truly responsible can get one. I'm talking dozens of hours of training, mental health checks, all of it.
 
2012-07-20 06:01:46 PM

sprawl15: The_Sponge: 2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

You've brought this up before


It's a gun thread. The odds that The_Sponge will bring up CA within 3 posts is pretty much 100%. If this thread makes 500 posts, he'll mention cigars.
 
2012-07-20 06:02:45 PM
www.opednews.com

Suprise, surprise, surprise!
 
2012-07-20 06:03:04 PM

HotWingConspiracy: What are cars built to do? What are guns built to do? Why persist with this shiat comparison?


Because 'danger to society' should be the measurement of danger to society, not 'how scary they look'. Eating shiatty food is much more dangerous to society than idiots with guns, yet the latter is emphasized grossly out of proportion to its impact.
 
2012-07-20 06:03:04 PM

magusdevil: Know how know you don't know what "responsible-gun-ownership" means?



I do and I am one, but thanks for playing.

sprawl15: The_Sponge: 2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

You've brought this up before, and have been slapped down before. The only people who had their guns taken away were those who refused to get them registered through three amnesty periods. And in that case, the guns weren't "taken away" in any way that involved registration, the firearms were just illegal to own.

HRUERHERUIHEREHRERHERERRR



They were taken away after California played games with the registration laws. So do you want to keep losing this argument, I should I stop being awesome?
 
2012-07-20 06:03:16 PM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: There are plenty of mental people that never commit gun massacres.

wtfamireading


You want to blame shiatty mental health care, no? That's what I took away. Just being crazy doesn't lead to gun violence.
 
2012-07-20 06:04:23 PM

shotglasss: Late to this one, but Brian Ross and ABC "News" went so far off the deep end, no one will ever come close to them. Going on a TEA Party page, finding a similar name, then accusing that person of being the shooter was the most asinine thing I've ever seen.


Really??? WOW!! I'd really like to see that transcript!!!
 
2012-07-20 06:06:18 PM

you are a puppet: The right to ingest bath salts? One of my most important rights. If anyone tries to take this right from me then the libs will have hell to pay. I'm going to go sell some to a friend now. I am the Joker.


Some men just want to watch the world derp.
 
2012-07-20 06:08:30 PM

The_Sponge: How is it paranoia when registrations were used to take away firearms in California?


You can still own an SKS in California.
 
2012-07-20 06:08:56 PM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: What are cars built to do? What are guns built to do? Why persist with this shiat comparison?

Because 'danger to society' should be the measurement of danger to society, not 'how scary they look'.


Who is applying the scary look standard?

Cars are built for transport. Guns are built for killing. Hand guns are built for killing people. It's a shiat comparison.

Eating shiatty food is much more dangerous to society than idiots with guns, yet the latter is emphasized grossly out of proportion to its impact.

I would have to disagree. The impact of frequent gun massacres on a society is far more damaging than having to look at fat people. The psychological impact alone. I mean, we've got members of congress angrily asking why the victims weren't armed, and it's not satire. We're in a farked up place.
 
2012-07-20 06:09:00 PM

qorkfiend: Mouldy Squid: qorkfiend: What are the protections against and penalties for straw purchasing?

If by straw purchasing, you mean private sales? You must have a valid Possession and Acquisition License to purchase both firearms and ammunition. All restricted firearms (handgun/semi-auto rifle etc) must be registered with the Federal Firearms Program. There is always a paper trail for legally purchased arms, and in theory the RCMP know where any restricted firearm is at any time. When a restricted firearm is sold privately, the registration papers must change hands and the Chief Firearms Officer's office must be informed of the change of ownership so that the registry is updated. Since the Firearms Act allows the RCMP (or other police) to inspect your firearms at any time, you had better have your ducks in a row and your registration papers matching your guns.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that everyone does this all the time, but the punishments can be quite severe. You can be fined, jailed and have your "right" to own firearms removed permanently.

None of this applies to non-restriced long arms any more though. Hunting rifles, shotguns etc no longer require registration. You are still required to have your PAL even if the firearm is not restricted. Possession of a firearm without a valid PAL is a felony.

That answers the question, yeah; I was thinking more about people with valid PALs buying firearms for the express purpose of selling them to people without PALs.


That is a major felony. Since the restricted firearms have a paper trail, if that gun is used in the commission of a crime (and the police find the gun), whoever bought it originally is in a world of hurt. There would be several offences you could be charges with in that case: illegal trafficking of firearms, conspiracy to commit [crime], reckless endangerment etc, not to mention never ever being able to own any kind of gun ever again.

It is more likely that the guy with the PAL would report the gun "stolen" after selling it to his buddy, but he'd better hope his buddy never gets caught with it. And you don't really want to have to report your firearms as stolen. All kinds of questions get asked and you might find it a bit difficult to renew your licenses. Improper storage of a firearm is also a felony.
 
2012-07-20 06:09:22 PM

The_Sponge: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Regular people don't need tear gas, AK-47's, RPG's, grenades, and god knows whatever else military ordinance gives you an erection for your oft repeated claim of innocent "home defense". I get that they're fun to take to the range, but let's not kid ourselves about what we need versus what we want.


1) It's spelled "ordnance".

2) I think it is amusing that you would lump in a rifle with explosive devices as a way of engaging in hyperbole. By the way, were you thinking of actual AK-47s that are capable of full-auto, or were you thinking of sem-auto AK variants?


Thanks for the tip. As for number two, I don't think it really matters. And, while we're trading corrections, lumping an AK-47 in with explosives when talking about deadly weapons that the average citizen has no real need for in terms of "home defense", isn't hyperbole.

Feel free to disagree, but don't act like you couldn't see my point through all that dodging and swerving you just pulled.
 
2012-07-20 06:09:24 PM

spmkk: LasersHurt: "They [the NRA] also oppose any honest discussion of gun control, and ANY change in the law..."

...because it's an issue of constitutional rights. That's like complaining that the ACLU opposes any "honest discussion" of free speech control, and ANY change in the law surrounding the 1st Amendment.


Maybe you should read the whole 2nd amendment sometime. It's not that long.
 
2012-07-20 06:09:31 PM

LasersHurt: One specific type of weapon. You can still have lots of others. It's the "any control is bad" mentality.



California has banned other models as well.
 
2012-07-20 06:10:39 PM
www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-07-20 06:11:43 PM

sprawl15: The_Sponge: 2) Given the fact that registrations can be used to take firearms away, no dice. Just look at what happened to gun owners in California who once owned certain SKS models.

You've brought this up before, and have been slapped down before. The only people who had their guns taken away were those who refused to get them registered through three amnesty periods. And in that case, the guns weren't "taken away" in any way that involved registration, the firearms were just illegal to own.

HRUERHERUIHEREHRERHERERRR




Attorney General Bill Lockyer decided on Tuesday to drop an appeal of a suit brought against the California Department of Justice by Handgun Control, Inc.

Former Attorney General Dan Lungren appealed a July 1998 ruling by a San Francisco superior court judge that he violated the state's Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) by allowing the registration of firearms after the March 1992 deadline prescribed in the law. The decision by AG Lockyer to drop the appeal paves the way for the Department of Justice to proceed with plans to force gun owners, who both registered firearms after the deadline AND who abided by the law as interpreted by the Attorney General, to turn them in.

Lockyer intends to ask the state legislature to appropriate funds to compensate those who have turned in their firearms. Gun owners who are affected by the Attorney General's decision will receive notification of their status from the DOJ and will have 90 days to comply. Those who do not comply within that time period will be identified from the registration list concerning the confiscation of their firearm(s).

http://nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/dropappeal.html



At the very least, can you agree that the ban should have never happened in the first place?
 
Displayed 50 of 615 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report