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.

(Guardian)   Obama may issue executive order on gun control, which will immediately triple the price of assault weapons and popcorn   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 1330
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, Biden, presidential executive order, for sale by owner, force of law, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

11846 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 06:42:37 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mr. Eugenides: OgreMagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.

I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.

I understand that if it was a legitimate home invasion her body would have had ways of rejecting that.

WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.


So what? You are arguing that the victim is at fault because the rapist didn't rape another woman who was wearing a burlap sack.
 
2013-01-09 06:42:38 PM

Dimensio: Empty Matchbook: Assault weapons /= all guns, but hey, don't let that stop the hyperbolic outrage.
[cdn.head-fi.org image 224x207]

"Assault weapon" is an entirely arbitrary classification based upon what a politician wishes to prohibit at a given time. The "assault weapons ban" currently proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein defines a substantially larger range of firearms as "assault weapons" than did the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban".


Yeah, no kidding. I just looked up the text of the bill after reading your post. Apparently my Winchester 190 is an assault weapon and would be banned. Not even the UK restricts such a firearm.
mossycreekcustom.files.wordpress.com

I should be thankful that there is at least something in the bill that I think would help get handguns off the streets.
 
2013-01-09 06:43:58 PM

Vectron: I can't have a gun in the house. I have a rat terrior.


I believe it'd be tough not to shoot the yappy little bastard.
 
2013-01-09 06:44:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?


The ATF.
 
2013-01-09 06:44:05 PM

justtray: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?

Youre making the mistake of assuming hes arguing from an honest position. He, like the rest of the gun nuts are not. They are simply shouting down all gun control under any disguise available at the time, regardless of the coginitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy required.


Readers should be aware that justtray himself is a known liar and an open advocate of an authoritarian police state.
 
2013-01-09 06:44:09 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?


Please don't be dense.
 
2013-01-09 06:44:16 PM

Mr. Eugenides: You are arguing that the victim is at fault


Never said that.
 
2013-01-09 06:44:42 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.


I'm sure she knew that.
 
2013-01-09 06:45:25 PM
I'm betting this is a bluff, to get congress off their asses.

Or a threat.
 
2013-01-09 06:47:21 PM
I've learned there is really no point responding to the replies I get on this topic. You guys rail against reasonable solutions. You rail against logical thought. You rail against anything that means less than you being able to own a napalm spewing tank that you can drive around your neighborhood mowing down anything freaking thing you see.

But your intentions are good. You are totally responsible and well meaning. YOU would NEVER do ANYTHING that could adversely effect another member of your society.

Right?

Yeah, well all the corpses filled with lead that keep piling up say otherwise.

Enjoy your cowboy fantasies while you can ya jag offs. The civil people are getting sick of your sh*t and it looks like your violent and deceitful ways might just be coming to an end.

I can't freaking wait.
 
2013-01-09 06:47:25 PM

Markus5: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

Your proposal is acceptable.


I saw what you did there.
 
2013-01-09 06:47:51 PM

Fubini: OgreMagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.

I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.

I've had drunk people come up to my apartment and try to get in, insisting that it was their friends place and they needed someplace to crash for the night (this was around 4AM). They weren't belligerent, but they were persistent, and there were a few of them. I've never seriously wanted a gun for self defense, but I can honestly see my wife or my grandparents getting one if she were living on her own, and I would not blame them one bit for brandishing a weapon at three drunk men who refused to leave. It's also not like you can easily call 911 while you're arguing with guys trying to pull your door open.



As I said upthread, one only needs to google: home invasion or burglary + homicide to see that some folks (I'm speaking Obama-ese now) like to mix in some murder with their burglary. You would be foolish to rely on the good intentions of people that break into your home.
 
2013-01-09 06:48:27 PM

HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.


So American criminals are obtaining their guns at the direction of the ATF?
 
2013-01-09 06:48:32 PM

HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.


The Wikipedia page says the ATF watched illegal gun transactions occur and didn't stop them. Not that they directed the sellers...
 
2013-01-09 06:48:32 PM

Fark It: Bontesla: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

So, it's better that we reach the maximum amount of deaths rather than reduce it? Got it.

What does that even mean?


You'll not consider the potential to reduce gun related deaths because there are other causes of death. That's your argument.
 
2013-01-09 06:49:07 PM
And he's still not "taking our guns," but of course that will be lost on the die hards who take any attempt at regulation to be an all out ban. It's not. I have to have a license to drive my car yet need nothing to buy a gun and even open carry it to the grocery store. And I would argue that a car is far more necessary than a gun. That's farked up. We need tighter regulations of firearms. Again, for the reading impaired, regulations, not bans.
 
2013-01-09 06:49:15 PM

justtray: Fark It: justtray: Fark It: justtray: Fark It: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?

How many of those kids were really teenagers involved in gang activity, and how am I in any way responsible for them? Why is it that whenever a bunch of ghetto animals shoot at each other as a result of the drug war or some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage we look to gun owners (80 million Americans) and say 'bite the pillow, for the children!'

Look how fast those goalposts move from a dishonest person. Amazing he had the strength to carry them. Just ignore this idiot please.

Get farked. That thing that Ben Franklin said about giving up rights for a little temporary security? It applies to the second as much as it does to the rest of the Bill of Rights. I share as much responsibility for the actions of perpetrators of gun violence as Muslims and Arabs do for acts of terrorism. Zero.

I couldnt help you didnt refute my argument.

Sorry but this is society. Every ammendment has limitations, including the 2nd. Dont like it? Go live in your dream land of Somalia. You dont get to enjoy the limitations of the other ammendments while expecting none on the one you really care about. Deal with it and grow up.

I already accept limitations on the 2nd. You seem to be of the idea that the bill of rights is really a list of privileges. What was your argument anyway, other than 'he must be a Fark Independent for not supporting Feinstein/Bloomberg, etal'

That you presented a bar, someone listed the facts that met that bar, then you moved the goalposts instead of admitting your understanding was wrong and therefore you should agree to disc ...


I was talking about 'my guns' not all guns. And how many of those kids were teenagers and adults involved in gang activity?

You want gun control and national licensing with registration of all guns? Repeal the Hughes Amendment, remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA (treat your 'assault weapons' as AOWs), and override state and local restrictions that are more restrictive than federal law. You can make the transfer stamp for machine guns go up to $500 too help implement the other measures, and charge $20 to register 'assault weapons', but only after you grandfather in existing weapons free of charge.
 
2013-01-09 06:49:22 PM

here to help: You guys rail against reasonable solutions.


Such as an inexplicable obsession with a type of weapon used in an insignificant fraction of gun violence? Those "reasonable solutions"?
 
2013-01-09 06:49:35 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.

I'm sure she knew that.


I wasn't speculating on what she knew.
 
2013-01-09 06:49:56 PM

morgen_benner: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.

You wanna take that chance? Do you really want to bet your life and the lives of your family on the goodwill of someone there to rob you? This line of logical always amuses me.

He's obviously there to commit a crime (as evidenced by the fact that he broke into the house). Can you really tell when someone is breaking in what their ultimate intentions are? How do you know that if you don't oppose the initial burglary he won't get greedy and see an opportunity for rape, murder, whatever?

HE BROKE INTO THE GOD DAMNED HOUSE!
When you cross that threshold, all bets are off.


mimg.ugo.com

It's OK. He just wanted his machete back.
 
2013-01-09 06:50:47 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-09 06:51:00 PM

occamswrist: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.

The Wikipedia page says the ATF watched illegal gun transactions occur and didn't stop them. Not that they directed the sellers...


Not all:

Although most weapons were purchased by suspects under investigation by the program, there have been reports of at least one instance of ATF agents being directly involved in the transfer of weapons. On April 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, with assistance from Agents Casa and Alt, directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Isaiah Fernandez, a suspected gun trafficker, and had taped the conversations without prosecutor approval.[19]
 
2013-01-09 06:51:07 PM
I bought Jiffy-stock 3 weeks ago and today I'm a billionaire.
Thanks to the idiots on BOTH side of this argument.

www.conagrafoods.com
 
2013-01-09 06:51:16 PM

here to help: I've learned there is really no point responding to the replies I get on this topic. You guys rail against reasonable solutions. You rail against logical thought. You rail against anything that means less than you being able to own a napalm spewing tank that you can drive around your neighborhood mowing down anything freaking thing you see.

But your intentions are good. You are totally responsible and well meaning. YOU would NEVER do ANYTHING that could adversely effect another member of your society.

Right?

Yeah, well all the corpses filled with lead that keep piling up say otherwise.

Enjoy your cowboy fantasies while you can ya jag offs. The civil people are getting sick of your sh*t and it looks like your violent and deceitful ways might just be coming to an end.

I can't freaking wait.


Have you any actual rational commentary to offer, rather than generalized personal attacks against opponents of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership?
 
2013-01-09 06:51:27 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I wasn't speculating on what she knew.


Then why mention details of the event of which she would have had no knowledge?
 
2013-01-09 06:51:37 PM

Infernalist: duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?

If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.


Ye hear that folks? Don't ever elect liberals.
 
2013-01-09 06:52:03 PM

CynicalLA: Vectron: I can't have a gun in the house. I have a rat terrior.

You are pretty farking stupid. A few times you've implied that it's only Republicans that own guns. You are a retard if you believe that.


b-but my rat terrior is a Republican.

Somebody help me out here.
 
2013-01-09 06:52:29 PM

Bontesla: Fark It: Bontesla: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

So, it's better that we reach the maximum amount of deaths rather than reduce it? Got it.

What does that even mean?

You'll not consider the potential to reduce gun related deaths because there are other causes of death. That's your argument.


For the anti gun crowd what would the level of gun violence have to drop to for you to not want to restrict guns?

For the pro gun crowd what would the level of gun violence have to rise to for you to accept gun restrictions?
 
2013-01-09 06:52:34 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.

So American Mexican criminals are obtaining their guns at the direction of the ATF?


In the circumstance I posted above, yes.
 
2013-01-09 06:53:13 PM

here to help: DORMAMU: To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate

And those who abuse alcohol in a way that physically impacts others should have that right stripped away and get locked up in rehab and if they cannot stop hurting others because of it be removed from society permanently.

Same sh*t. Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.

I got no problem with responsible gun ownership and reasonable weapons. The laws being suggested not only recently but for YEARS are not about that. It's about getting... sh*t... under... freaking... control.

Keep a revolver. Keep some hunting weapons. Get licensed. Register them. Take courses. It's not a big freaking deal.


Following your analogy, you get only beer & wine. No hard liquor. Also, before you drink, we need to see your alcohol consumption card.

Fyi - I am a permit holder. I have taken classes (and continue to do so). I also target shoot.

If it responsibly used, what is the difference of the type used? Also, I am assuming a vast majority of alcohol consumers do so very responsibly (I am one of them, like you). Same with firearm owners.

For what it is worth, even thought you are foaming at the mouth a little, you aren't going off the derp end. I appreciate that. Too many people are going ridiculous to support their view that it is infuriating (applies to pro gun as well). I personally am open to possible gun control measures that are:

stated simply to avoid confusion/loopholes
Are not based upon cosmetic accessories
Do not arbitrarily penalize
Are based in logic

I also want to take a look at WHY these shootings are happening, not solely focusing on HOW or WITH. I seriously doubt the gut thought "I can get a gun, therfore, I have to go and shoot someone now!" I doubt you think that you have booze, you have to finish the bottle now.
 
2013-01-09 06:53:38 PM

Dimensio: Bontesla: Mr.BobDobalita: duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice

YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.

No one is taking away your right to be armed. You're framing the conversation in a dishonest light.

There's a proposal to reduce the type of guns. You don't have a constitutional right to every gun. Now, you're insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year.

duffblue has stated no such insistence. Your claim is a lie.


Please proceed.
 
2013-01-09 06:54:09 PM

GoldSpider: here to help: You guys rail against reasonable solutions.

Such as an inexplicable obsession with a type of weapon used in an insignificant fraction of gun violence? Those "reasonable solutions"?


When many firearm regulation advocates claim their proposals to be "reasonable", they are not actually relying upon a fact of reasonableness; rather, they are attempting to imply that any opponent of their regulation -- regardless of how restrictive or irrational the regulation may be -- is "unreasonable" and thus their claims unworthy of consideration.
 
2013-01-09 06:54:23 PM
I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit, but would some restrictions on the quantity of guns being purchased by a single individual be reasonable? Or munitions? I mean, there are certain non-projectile weapon materials out there that you can't buy in bulk without regulatory permission or a lot of raised eyebrows. It's not that I would want the aim to be to restrict the large majority of 'lawful good' folks who greatly enjoy their hobby (or practice regularly and thus need large amounts of ammo), but rather to limit instances where a violently minded individual or individuals might hoard a large amount of weaponry and ammo which could result in one of the more recent low-frequency, high-intensity tragedies?

(Full disclosure: Canadian, not a gun owner, I think I own one bullet, no problem with handguns, rifles, shotguns, but believes a line should be reasonably drawn at weaponry where its use, even in defense of self, would likely result in harm to others beyond the aggressor.)

/serious question
//please be gentle
 
2013-01-09 06:54:41 PM

HartRend: pmdgrwr: cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.

Says the poster who thinks that more gun control, more legislation, more governemnt is the answer.

At least I do not fool myself into thinking that morality can be legislated.

Where was the police when all of the shootings we have had. No place to be found.

If you do your own research, you will discover that SCOTUS has upheld the ruling that the police actually have zero duty to protect and or serve.


Then why have them at all? Oh, right..."protect and serve" only applies if you're wealthy and/or connected. The rest of us are target practice.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:05 PM

scatters: I reload a number of calibers. I use about 26 grains for a .223, 47 grains for a .308 and 94 grains for a .338. So, the .223 is no more packed with powder than other calibers. It is light and fast but lacks energy compared to other rounds.


right - my point was, even though it's the same caliber, it's not the plinking rimfire .22 round most of us grew up with.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:27 PM

Bontesla: Dimensio: Bontesla: Mr.BobDobalita: duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice

YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.

No one is taking away your right to be armed. You're framing the conversation in a dishonest light.

There's a proposal to reduce the type of guns. You don't have a constitutional right to every gun. Now, you're insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year.

duffblue has stated no such insistence. Your claim is a lie.

Please proceed.


My statement is concluded: you lied. No further commentary is necessary, unless you wish to challenge my accusation.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:57 PM

HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.

So American Mexican criminals are obtaining their guns at the direction of the ATF?

In the circumstance I posted above, yes.


It is amazing to me that people still continue to refuse to believe this happened.
 
2013-01-09 06:56:33 PM

GoldSpider: here to help: You guys rail against reasonable solutions.

Such as an inexplicable obsession with a type of weapon used in an insignificant fraction of gun violence? Those "reasonable solutions"?


I'm not talking about useless c*nts who pander because something bad happened. I am talking about REAL solutions that allow responsible people to own REASONABLE firepower for home protection.

The cocksuckers on the left who piss their pants are a problem as well but the LUNATICS who will not even attempt to see reason are way more frightening.

If the gun folk can't make event the slightest concessions on this issue they will end up losing EVERYTHING due to their belligerence. I don't want to see that. I WANT good guys to have guns. The problem is the current laws let far too many BAD guys get guns.

But yanno... nothing's wrong. Let's scream as loud as we can until the mean gun grabbers go away.

It's so damned stupid it makes me want to puke.
 
2013-01-09 06:56:38 PM

here to help: I can't freaking wait.


I can't wait to see what you excuse is when your new "reasonable" restrictions don't do anything at all to stop violent crime.
 
2013-01-09 06:56:52 PM

here to help: DORMAMU: To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate

And those who abuse alcohol in a way that physically impacts others should have that right stripped away and get locked up in rehab and if they cannot stop hurting others because of it be removed from society permanently.

Same sh*t. Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.

I got no problem with responsible gun ownership and reasonable weapons. The laws being suggested not only recently but for YEARS are not about that. It's about getting... sh*t... under... freaking... control.

Keep a revolver. Keep some hunting weapons. Get licensed. Register them. Take courses. It's not a big freaking deal.


Forgot this -

What do you consider a ridiculous amount of firearms? Genuinely curious.

I will be driving for about 45 minutes, but wil be back.
 
2013-01-09 06:57:24 PM

here to help: License every last person who wants to own guns. Any guns. They have to register every single one of their guns. Any guns found on people who a) do not have a license or b) did not register that gun gets their guns confiscated and depending on the circumstance get charged.

F*ck this sh*t. If you truly ARE a responsible gun owner this should not be a problem. No more a problem than having a drivers license and owning vehicles... which by the way actually serve a purpose OTHER than destroying things.


Just so you know, I have no problem with this. And I am a responsible gun-owner/gun-nut/gun-fetishizer yadda yadda whatever. I would also add that a person must report if their gun is stolen. As well as a few other things about private legal transfer. I hope you acknowledge that there isn't a huge divide between the moderates on both sides of the conversation.
 
2013-01-09 06:57:51 PM

morgen_benner: HE BROKE INTO THE GOD DAMNED HOUSE!
When you cross that threshold, all bets are off.


Some places allow you to shoot someone to stop the commission of a forcible felony, and if that guy needed a crowbar to get into the house then he's at the least committed felony trespass and burglary in my state. She'd have been (legally) justified in shooting him even if he just came in to be warm.
 
2013-01-09 06:57:52 PM

HeadLever: occamswrist: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.

The Wikipedia page says the ATF watched illegal gun transactions occur and didn't stop them. Not that they directed the sellers...

Not all:

Although most weapons were purchased by suspects under investigation by the program, there have been reports of at least one instance of ATF agents being directly involved in the transfer of weapons. On April 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, with assistance from Agents Casa and Alt, directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Isaiah Fernandez, a suspected gun trafficker, and had taped the conversations without prosecutor approval.[19]


I'm on my phone and kept reading because of your post. You're right.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:04 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I wasn't speculating on what she knew.

Then why mention details of the event of which she would have had no knowledge?


Someone asked if Slater was armed in relation to a comment about guns for self-defense.

I said he had a crowbar and commented on his earlier behavior.

I did not bring Mrs. Herman into the conversation.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:26 PM

Dimensio: Bontesla: Dimensio: Bontesla: Mr.BobDobalita: duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice

YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.

No one is taking away your right to be armed. You're framing the conversation in a dishonest light.

There's a proposal to reduce the type of guns. You don't have a constitutional right to every gun. Now, you're insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year.

duffblue has stated no such insistence. Your claim is a lie.

Please proceed.

My statement is concluded: you lied. No further commentary is necessary, unless you wish to challenge my accusation.


You made an assertion. I'm asking you to elaborate.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:29 PM

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


Something something tiny penis.

That, or they're wingnuts who have masturbatory fantasies of a bunch of them strapped with twin AR's and unlimited ammo somehow pulling a Braveheart and overthrowing the government in a coup like it's 1789 France.

But mostly they've got tiny dicks and like blowing stuff up with big guns because they're simple-minded yokels.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:36 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mr. Eugenides: OgreMagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.

I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.

I understand that if it was a legitimate home invasion her body would have had ways of rejecting that.

WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.


EVERY OTHER BURGLAR IS GUARANTEED TO BEHAVE JUST LIKE THAT INDIVIDUAL BURGLAR TOO.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:58 PM

HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?

The ATF.

So American Mexican criminals are obtaining their guns at the direction of the ATF?

In the circumstance I posted above, yes.


Three guns?
 
2013-01-09 06:59:10 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?

To shoot American soldiers and police officers.

Of course, they don't say that until later in the conversation but they get around to it eventually.


This sounds so ridiculous to you? How many times do we read about an incorrect address on a no-knock warrant that ends in a para-military assault squad breaking down the door of a law-abiding citizen, shooting the family dog (or, in one famous case, a small child), throwing the owners on the ground, and threatining, mildly beating, and handcuffing the residents? If this were twice as common, would you see the need to have weapons in your home to defend yourself against the police? Ten times? One hundred times?

If you went back in time and told your great-grandparents that this was a fact of life in America, that Americans could be tracked nearly everywhere they went, that constitutional rights were ignored for certain classes of crimes, that American citizens had to remove their shoes and have their genitals fondled to get on an airplane, or any number of police-state tactics we've come to accept, they would call you a damned liar, because that could never happen in America; that was Soviet Russia. If you then told them that violence, murder, and terrorism were hundreds of times more common in this America, they would weep.
 
CPB
2013-01-09 06:59:21 PM
Well, I'm glad at least the matter is being discussed in a rational, civilized manner on Fark.

/Holy Christ, I hope some of you people are trolling
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report