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  
•       •       •

11847 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 06:59:32 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: And I may suddenly mutate into a dragon that breathes lightning and shiats diamonds.

Come back when you morons have something more concrete than "May," "Might" or "Could."


"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
 
2013-01-09 07:00:35 PM

here to help: 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.


Personally I think most "reasonable" efforts should focus on the factors that lead to the majority of gun violence, not the isolated, sensationalized tragedies that delight the media.
 
2013-01-09 07:01:05 PM

Bontesla: 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.


You claimed that duffblue was "insisting" upon maintaining a "privilege" at a supposed cost of four-hundred deaths per year. duffblue issued no such insistence. Your claim, therefore, is demonstrably contradicted by established reality. No reason exists for you to have derived such a conclusion in error. Your claim, therefore, was a lie.

If you believe that your claim is in fact logically derived from duffblue's statement, then please demonstrate such, and you will show my accusation to be erroneous.
 
2013-01-09 07:02:01 PM

ThreadSinger: I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit [...]


Dammit, fire-retardant. Dyslexics of the world, untie!.
 
2013-01-09 07:02:39 PM

DORMAMU: 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.


I won't dissect everything in your post but we seem to agree on most points. You are the type of person I would like to see be able to own weapons if you so chose to. Thank you for being sane. I mean that.

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


I don't expect them to drop right away. In fact I think it will be pretty nasty for a while but slowly things will get better as the communal pool of firearms decreases and the responsibility level of firearm owners rises.

Things cannot stay as they are. That is the only thing that is for sure.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:10 PM

ThreadSinger: 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?

/serious question
//please be gentle


Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. A large quantity of guns has never really been used in a single shooting spree (I know a few shooters have owned quite a few guns, but you need to look at the number actually used to see if a restriction would do anything). Ammo is quite a bit trickier. What sounds like a large number of shots fired to a non-gun owner really isn't a large amount to purchase. I (and everyone I shoot with) don't go through less than a box of pistol ammo when I'm out practicing (and I consider that a minimum, for various reasons), and that's 50 rounds.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:10 PM

ole prophet: Biden


It does seem an awful lot like they are trying to bait someone into an assassination attempt. I sure hope not though.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:15 PM

duffblue: 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

200 children? Where are you getting your numbers from?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-strikes-are-c a us_b_2224627.html

Here's a link that says 178 children have been killed by drones in Pakistan since 2004. Since the vast majority of US drone strikes happen there, I roughly extrapolated that rate for the rest of the world. Here's a cite that shows how concentrated the drone program is in Pakistan:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/11/03/ok-fine-shoot-him-fou r -words-that-heralded-a-decade-of-secret-us-drone-killings/every-confir med-us-drone-strike-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia-recorded-by-the-bure au-2002-2012-2/

It's admittedly a rough estimate, but one that should be in the ballpark. I'm not arguing for or against drone strikes, or for or against any specific gun control law. I'm just arguing that trying to put the two on the same magnitude of "deadliness" is wrong.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:17 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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?


More like 2, 000 but let's not let numbers get in the way off a food flame war.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:44 PM

here to help: Things cannot stay as they are. That is the only thing that is for sure.


Not to someone who's politically conservative. It's rather the opposite.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:57 PM

justtray: pmdgrwr: justtray: pmdgrwr: here to help: HartRend: CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

OUTLAWING GUNS DOES NOT DO A DAMN THING TO THE BAD GUYS

ONLY THE GOOD GUYS FOLLOW THE LAW

OUTLAWING GUNS ONLY TAKES AWAY FROM THE GOOD GUYS

Less guns in the community pool make it more costly for the criminals. Stricter regulations on who can own firearms makes it harder for those with criminal inclinations or mental health issues to acquire weapons. If they acquire them through illegal means and get caught? PMITA prison for a huge chunk of their lives.. LOL... in what fantasy world do you live in? Drugs are outlawed and have gotten cheaper, more plentiful and better over the years. Drugs are easier to get than alcohol and cigs. So what fantasy are you living.

Stop lying. You just make you and every gun nut look like a total moron when you pretend to know facts.

I rather look like a moron than to keep convincing myself that govenment will always protect me.

That is your choice. Im just telling you its not helping your position. Please proceed.


Wow man you are in deep denial. Here is some facts to drug prohibition and explain how more gun laws will not produce the same affect. Over 80 yrs and continuing of pot prohibition, we now have states with legal pot laws. Anti-drug folks claim that pot is much stronger now than before. How can that be if it has been illegal for so long? Pot is grown south and north of mexican border, now making it more wide spread than ever. Teens can buy pot in high school. All this with laws against drug use. How are more gun laws going to be different.
 
2013-01-09 07:03:59 PM

CPB: 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


Don't fight the fark.

Just roll with it...
 
2013-01-09 07:04:00 PM

DORMAMU: I also want to take a look at WHY these shootings are happening, not solely focusing on HOW or WITH.


I don't know why it is VEBOTTEN to mention mow-em-down video games and Hollywood movie violence.
A number of the mass murderers including the Sandy Hook guy were into those games. Both the movies and the games dehumanize foes. Is this subject off the table because they donate to the Democratic party?

If I were to cite one thing that has changed in our society since these recent mass killings began it would be media not guns.
 
2013-01-09 07:04:43 PM

ThreadSinger: 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?


You're the one who has to decide what's reasonable and what's not. In America the problem with that proposal is that it would explicitly require tracking gun purchases, which is currently prohibited by law. Another problem I see is that the quantity of ammunition is a highly variable thing. Some people use a ton, some people don't, and you'd need a whole bureaucracy to watch over ammunition purchases and make exceptions. Even then, anything but the most draconian limits on ammunition consumption wouldn't make much of a difference. It's hard to go to the range and NOT shoot at least 50-100 rounds of ammo for most people, and 100 rounds of ammo is plenty enough to commit another Sandy Hooky style shooting. Even with severe restrictions, history shows us that there are plenty of psycho murderers willing to wait on their killing sprees if they think it'll give them better odds.
 
2013-01-09 07:04:59 PM

Fubini: 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.


Same here...in fact if he was threatening me while trying to break in, I can shoot him through the door.
 
2013-01-09 07:05:45 PM

ThreadSinger: ThreadSinger: I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit [...]

Dammit, fire-retardant. Dyslexics of the world, untie!.


Sounds like a good photoshop challenge. What would a retard-fireant look like?
 
2013-01-09 07:06:35 PM
guns are more important than ANYTHING.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:31 PM

here to help: Things cannot stay as they are. That is the only thing that is for sure.


And if we're going to slog through this debate against the entrenched interests, I'd like to come out of the fight with more than simplistic, ineffective, symbolic gestures.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:38 PM

ThreadSinger: retard-fireant suit


That would be an amazing suit.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:49 PM

duffblue: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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?

More like 2, 000 but let's not let numbers get in the way off a food flame war.


Srupid touchscreen phones, why can't I buy a decent smartphone with a physical keyboard?


Here's a link worth reading:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17362933
 
2013-01-09 07:08:10 PM

here to help: I don't expect them to drop right away. In fact I think it will be pretty nasty for a while but slowly things will get better as the communal pool of firearms decreases and the responsibility level of firearm owners rises.


How are they going to go away? A ban can only stop new guns from showing up, it can't get rid of the existing ones (unless you are advocating house to house searches, in which case I say good luck with that. You have a better chance of a true 100% gun ban going through).
 
2013-01-09 07:08:16 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: ThreadSinger: 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?

/serious question
//please be gentle

Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. A large quantity of guns has never really been used in a single shooting spree (I know a few shooters have owned quite a few guns, but you need to look at the number actually used to see if a restriction would do anything). Ammo is quite a bit trickier. What sounds like a large number of shots fired to a non-gun owner really isn't a large amount to purchase. I (and everyone I shoot with) don't go through less than a box of pistol ammo when I'm out practicing (and I consider that a minimum, for various reasons), and that's 50 rounds.


It does not seem unreasonable to purchase several hundred rounds (or more) for a hobby, given the rate of fire. I played paintball once, probably ran through a 2500 box in no time. I'm not sure what "quantity" I had in mind to restrict, rather, just the concept that there might be a limit deemed suspicious that should be flagged by the seller...

Thank you for the reply!
 
2013-01-09 07:08:16 PM

pmdgrwr: How are more gun laws going to be different.


Guns!=pot
 
2013-01-09 07:08:23 PM

ThreadSinger: ThreadSinger: I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit [...]

Dammit, fire-retardant. Dyslexics of the world, untie!.


I was sure you did it on purpose.
 
2013-01-09 07:09:12 PM

ciberido: L82DPRT: If I were a selfish 1% with a warehouse full of semi-autos and my own private police I'd support a ban too.

That's cute how you're trying to turn that whole "1%" thing around on liberals.

It's almost as funny as when conservatives call liberals "elitists."  That usually gets a chuckle out of me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some popcorn to make.


As big a chuckle as equating being elitist as actually being elite?
 
2013-01-09 07:09:21 PM
I've always suspected that gun and ammo manufacturers love it whenever there is a Democratic president. OMG they are gonna take away our guns! Buy Mortimer, buy!
 
2013-01-09 07:09:53 PM

GoldSpider: And if we're going to slog through this debate against the entrenched interests, I'd like to come out of the fight with more than simplistic, ineffective, symbolic gestures.


Complex is hard. Effective is hard. Symbolic is easy. What do you think we are going to end up with?
 
2013-01-09 07:10:30 PM

ThreadSinger: 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


I believe the point is that regulation does not, can not and will not work. Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work, the WAR on Drugs didn't work, Illegal immigration laws DON'T work, nor will this. This is an attempt to make law abiding, responsible gun owners criminals when in fact, they've broken no law. About hoarding... WHO'S reasonable judgement is going to be used to decide the quantity of a hoard? As you can see their is a decided lack of good judgement on both sides of this. The ANTI-Gun crowd are slapping at the waters surface in an attempt to force the sharks into a feeding frenzy. Any self respecting shark would wait until the water calms down and the swimmers return. Sit back, relax, pop some corn... enjoy the show.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:25 PM

pmdgrwr: All this with laws against drug use. How are more gun laws going to be different.


Well for starters, it's hard to grow guns in your basement.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:46 PM

Needsun: I believe the point is that regulation does not, can not and will not work. Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work, the WAR on Drugs didn't work, Illegal immigration laws DON'T work, nor will this. This is an attempt to make law abiding, responsible gun owners criminals when in fact, they've broken no law


False analogies much? Playing the victim much?
Much much?
 
2013-01-09 07:12:00 PM

Fubini: ThreadSinger: retard-fireant suit

That would be an amazing suit.


I read that retard-fireant slut.
 
2013-01-09 07:12:33 PM
All I know right now is that I want that retard-fireant suit.
 
2013-01-09 07:12:49 PM

Dimensio: Bontesla: 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.

You claimed that duffblue was "insisting" upon maintaining a "privilege" at a supposed cost of four-hundred deaths per year. duffblue issued no such insistence. Your claim, therefore, is demonstrably contradicted by established reality. No reason exists for you to have derived such a conclusion in error. Your claim, therefore, was a lie.

If you believe that your claim is in fact logically derived from duffblue's statement, then please demonstrate such, and you will show my accusation to be erroneous.


No.

I asserted that he was framing the argument incorrectly and then reframed it for him.

I'm glad I could clarify your confusion.
 
2013-01-09 07:12:53 PM
My goodness... are we actually having a reasonable discussion on this topic... finally?

Okay, so you guys who own guns and are open to figuring out solutions PLEASE take the conversation out of the hands of the idiots. I know you make up the majority but we only hear from the lunatics. You HAVE to shout them down.

Most of the so called "gun grabbers" (the reasonable ones anyway) are not trying to outright outlaw firearms. They just want some accountability and make sure the things aren't going to be abused.

They are designed to kill. That seems like a good enough reason to warrant a bit of restrictions. Hell... I'm not allowed to drive a car. Why? Because I don't have a license and I could bloody well kill someone with the thing. Why should something equally dangerous, if not more so, not require the same type of respect and accountability?

Seriously... sane people, thank you. This is the first thread since the Conn. thing where I've seen gun owners stand up for the reasonable side of this debate. You are our only hope.
 
2013-01-09 07:13:10 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mrbogey: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Check the link, dipsh*t.

I did, dumbass. Read what I said, farktard. I responded to your comment with clear knowledge of what was said in the article, moron. Do you have a decent retort, loser?

I'm glad you're not on my side.

Well, given you're on the side of home invaders I'm glad too.


How so?
 
2013-01-09 07:13:14 PM

Vectron: I read that retard-fireant slut.


You're wanted in the ginger thread on Main.
 
2013-01-09 07:14:37 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pmdgrwr: All this with laws against drug use. How are more gun laws going to be different.

Well for starters, it's hard to grow guns in your basement not really any body with the right tools and knowledge can make a gun just like anybody with the knowledge and tools can grow plants.

 
2013-01-09 07:15:20 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Complex is hard. Effective is hard. Symbolic is easy. What do you think we are going to end up with?


Probably some sort of option D that creates criminals out of law abiding citizens. For instance, if they implement a "gun free school zone" law (ignoring the commerce issues that have come up in the past with that), you wouldn't believe how many people would break the law just by driving their legally owned gun home from the range. Many of these laws will be like the one that 'almost' ensnared David Gregory. No criminal intent is necessary.
 
2013-01-09 07:15:26 PM

duffblue: duffblue: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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?

More like 2, 000 but let's not let numbers get in the way off a food flame war.

Srupid touchscreen phones, why can't I buy a decent smartphone with a physical keyboard?


Here's a link worth reading:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17362933


I've given up on that, too.
I purchased the last gen Sidekick and that was a huge mistake.
 
2013-01-09 07:15:30 PM

Bontesla: I asserted that he was framing the argument incorrectly and then reframed it for him.


You claimed that he was "insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year". No such "insistence" may be logically derived from his statements. Your attempt at "reframing" was therefore a lie.
 
2013-01-09 07:15:31 PM

nevirus: Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately... he's trying to get their heads to explode.


Lol. It is so farking hilarious our president is going to use an end around the legislative branch just to piss off some americans I hate lol. God damn bush was an asshole for it, but not obama. Lol.
 
2013-01-09 07:16:56 PM

here to help: Things cannot stay as they are. That is the only thing that is for sure.


Then have I got good news for you!

GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.

/wrote it multiple times so you just might get it through your thick skull
 
2013-01-09 07:17:01 PM

chapman: For instance, if they implement a "gun free school zone" law (ignoring the commerce issues that have come up in the past with that), you wouldn't believe how many people would break the law just by driving their legally owned gun home from the range.


Hey, ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
 
2013-01-09 07:17:29 PM
I remember all you libs saying that "Obama is NOT coming for your guns you're just being paranoid" before the election.

He was just biding his time until he could get away with it. That has always been obvious.

It comes down to liberal fear mongering. A little factoid: 10 times as many people are killed a year by knives (at least) than are killed by what the MSM calls "assault rifles".
 
2013-01-09 07:17:40 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: nevirus: Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately

It's one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the rest of America too. 20 slaughtered children will do that.


More kids die from pools. Why are we not focused on the true danger in america.
 
2013-01-09 07:18:15 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. A large quantity of guns has never really been used in a single shooting spree (I know a few shooters have owned quite a few guns, but you need to look at the number actually used to see if a restriction would do anything). Ammo is quite a bit trickier. What sounds like a large number of shots fired to a non-gun owner really isn't a large amount to purchase. I (and everyone I shoot with) don't go through less than a box of pistol ammo when I'm out practicing (and I consider that a minimum, for various reasons), and that's 50 rounds.


Agreed on ammunition. Some people would go bonkers if they heard me say I've got a little over 2,500 rounds of ammunition in my gun safe. Excessive? Not really. 3x500 round things of .22, and a case of 9mm that I picked up at a good price last summer.

It doesn't seem like so much if I go out once a week or so and go through 50-100 rounds. Twice that if I take my dad along.
 
2013-01-09 07:18:19 PM

evoke: I remember all you libs saying that "Obama is NOT coming for your guns you're just being paranoid" before the election


I remember you claiming that Romney would win the election before the election.
 
2013-01-09 07:18:23 PM

pmdgrwr: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pmdgrwr: All this with laws against drug use. How are more gun laws going to be different.

Well for starters, it's hard to grow guns in your basement not really any body with the right tools and knowledge can make a gun just like anybody with the knowledge and tools can grow plants.


There's a science to everything. A hobbyist metal worker could easily make a firearm in his garage just as a basic chemist or someone who spent time dealing drugs can probably figure out a hydroponic or meth lab in his garage. Those intent on breaking the law will choose to do so.
 
2013-01-09 07:18:26 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: How are they going to go away? A ban can only stop new guns from showing up, it can't get rid of the existing ones (unless you are advocating house to house searches, in which case I say good luck with that. You have a better chance of a true 100% gun ban going through).


I already stated it. You get caught with a weapon on your person, in your car, in your home for whatever reason and it is not registered it is removed. I do not advocate actively seeking them out but once they are found they are taken and perhaps that could be justifiable cause for a further search. This happens long enough the pool will diminish over time. Could take decades to see any real progress it's gone so far but it will, eventually, get better.

You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.
 
2013-01-09 07:19:02 PM

evoke: A little factoid:


Gun regulation!=prohibition
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report