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 | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 08:11:19 PM

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


If you cannot define "military-grade weapons", then your question is without meaning. It is as reasonable as questioning why "perversion" is shown on television without defining "perversion".
 
2013-01-09 08:11:52 PM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.

That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that what I meant was "This is an absolutely retarded thing to worry about, because nobody is TRYING to take your guns, and there is no popular support for the idea of taking your guns."

Then you should have stated such, rather than stating the much more generalized (and demonstrably false) claim that no such desire exists.


Again, we're talking about "things important enough to react to." I legitimately didn't think "one person said something once" was on the list. I'l try to spell it out in childlike terms in the future.
 
2013-01-09 08:12:13 PM

Dimensio: whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.

Assault rifles are already federally restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not readily available to civilians.


OK so everything's fine and dandy.

What is it exactly you're afraid of losing the right to use? Is this a hunting issue? Is this a target-shooting issue? Enlighten me.
 
2013-01-09 08:12:19 PM

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


I'm pretty sure most firearms have been used by some military, including the American one, at some point.

If you mean ordinance, ICBMs, and battleships, then I agree with you completely.
 
2013-01-09 08:12:21 PM

whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


Define "military-grade"

The military uses bolt-action rifles, shotguns, 22 rifles, and certain branches use the 1911, a 101 year old handgun as their primary duty weapon.
Just come out and say that only flintlock muskets should be legal.
 
2013-01-09 08:13:03 PM
Obama is systematically going about taking our money and guns and Fark progressives rejoice.

Tell me, were you born with a natural need for a government to control everybody and everything or were you trained to be pussies?
 
2013-01-09 08:13:17 PM

whidbey: And you don't really come across as someone who's cool with gun regulation, not in this thread, anyway.


It's because most of the regulation being discussed in this (and every other thread) does nothing to address what I consider the two biggest factors in gun violence: the ability of someone to illegally obtain a gun (something that making legal purchases more restrictive does nothing to address) and the motivations behind gun violence (for example, the crime surrounding the illegal drug trade).
 
2013-01-09 08:13:25 PM

whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.

So you'll support legislation that you can't be bothered to educate yourself on then?

The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.

They don't.
 
2013-01-09 08:13:31 PM

Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

If you cannot define "military-grade weapons", then your question is without meaning. It is as reasonable as questioning why "perversion" is shown on television without defining "perversion".


This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.
 
2013-01-09 08:14:14 PM
Ahem.

This is a civilian hunting rifle.

upload.wikimedia.org

This is a military-grade precision sniper rifle (bottom example).

upload.wikimedia.org

The difference between the two? Well, when the Army went to the M24 (not pictured), they went with a longer action to support a longer cartridge, such as a .300 Winchester Magnum. Otherwise, that gun's built off the same platform as the Model 700 above. And for all intents and purposes, the original M40 sniper rifles fielded by the Marines were store-bought Model 700s. Even the latest iteration of the M40, the A5 variant, still uses the same exact action as a store-bought 700.
 
2013-01-09 08:15:11 PM

cchris_39: Obama is systematically going about taking our money and guns and Fark progressives rejoice.

Tell me, were you born with a natural need for a government to control everybody and everything or were you trained to be pussies?


you_arent_helping.jpg

Go away.
 
2013-01-09 08:15:17 PM
"If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."

www.motherjones.com
 
2013-01-09 08:16:13 PM

LasersHurt: GoldSpider: Government Fromage: Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?

Or that many (most, even?) hunting rifles can pierce armor?

And how most of them are designed to fire 30 rounds as fast as you can fire, because that's how you hunt.

No, wait, no...


There are a huge plethora of magazine-fed hunting rifles on the market. A quick followup shot can mean the difference between successfully dropping an animal humanely or having a mortally injured one escape.

And if you'd ever had to deal with bears or wild pigs, you'd understand that you want as many shots as you can get because even several frequently won't stop them. 500lbs of angry pig or 900lbs of pissed grizzly doesn't give a flying frak about the "why" behind you fumbling to get another round into your federally-mandated single shot rifle. All it knows is that you are about to experience a world of pain.

This is all academic, though... given that the word "hunting" or "sport" is nowhere to be found in the 2nd amendment, and that if I have to defend my family or myself, I don't really care about being "sporting" with someone trying to harm them. I care about putting as many hits on the target as fast as possible to stop the threat.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:37 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

Define "military-grade"

The military uses bolt-action rifles, shotguns, 22 rifles, and certain branches use the 1911, a 101 year old handgun as their primary duty weapon.
Just come out and say that only flintlock muskets should be legal.


I am questioning whether a type of weapon that could cause mass death in a wartime scenario should be readily available. Again, this shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand the meaning behind my posts.

You must not really want to discuss the real issue. Fine. This is Fark, after all.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:49 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."

[www.motherjones.com image 466x625]


Congratulations. Dumb advertising is dumb. It's *not* what the professionals (assuming they mean soldiers) use.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:53 PM

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.

Assault rifles are already federally restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not readily available to civilians.

OK so everything's fine and dandy.

What is it exactly you're afraid of losing the right to use? Is this a hunting issue? Is this a target-shooting issue? Enlighten me.


My primary concern is that the lack of rational discourse and the lack of reasonable proposals from either "side" of the discussion -- as prominent lawmakers who oppose firearm regulation oppose any regulation at all, and prominent lawmakers who advocate firearm regulation advocate entirely unreasonable and arbitrary prohibitions that are typically unrelated to the actual lethality or utility of the firearms that they seek to ban -- will result either in no new regulation at all, or will result in substantially restrictive legislation that impacts the rights of citizens who have committed no crime. Additionally, because such restrictive legislation is a blanket prohibition based upon arbitrary characteristics, rather than an effort to restrict access to any firearms to those who would misuse them, further high-profile violent crimes will continue to occur as those who commit them will merely use different, non-banned, firearms to commit them. Rather than accept their initial methodology of banning entire classes of firearms to be faulty, firearm regulation advocates will instead erroneously conclude that they simply did not ban a sufficient scope of firearms and they will still continue to entirely fail to address a problem of violent individuals obtaining weapons of any kind.
 
2013-01-09 08:17:16 PM

whidbey: This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.


You're the one making it difficult by being vague.

The EPA suggests fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. For vehicles over a certain weight, they require a certain MPG. Vehicles under a certain weight require a certain MPG. They dont come out and say "Cars should get pretty good gas mileage and trucks and SUVs and stuff should get decent but not bad MPG - There you have it auto industry - go comply.

When you are arguing for something to be legal or illegal or registered or unregistered, you should have easily-understood criteria.
 
2013-01-09 08:17:40 PM

Clutch2013: Ahem.

This is a civilian hunting rifle.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 573x310]

This is a military-grade precision sniper rifle (bottom example).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 720x374]

The difference between the two? Well, when the Army went to the M24 (not pictured), they went with a longer action to support a longer cartridge, such as a .300 Winchester Magnum. Otherwise, that gun's built off the same platform as the Model 700 above. And for all intents and purposes, the original M40 sniper rifles fielded by the Marines were store-bought Model 700s. Even the latest iteration of the M40, the A5 variant, still uses the same exact action as a store-bought 700.


Solution: mandate that all rifles are to be covered with wood paneling or veneers.

People won't have military-styled weapons and can hunt deer or the odd home intruder with class.
 
2013-01-09 08:18:55 PM

DORMAMU: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?

I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?

Any firearm duited to kill deer is also suited wuite well to killing humans since our body mass is approximately the same.

Just an fyi


Not to mention that the rifle used by the Sandy Hook shooter was a severely low-powered rifle.  Almost every hunting rifle is more powerful by default, because they fire just about anything larger than .223 Remington.

.223 Remington sucks for deer hunting.  Gimme .30-06 any day.  Oh wait, that's what I've already got.  Nevermind.
 
2013-01-09 08:19:08 PM

whidbey: You must not really want to discuss the real issue. Fine. This is Fark, after all.


I'd be happy to discuss the issue if you can coherently explain which firearms, or characteristics should be banned, aside from the criteria of "looks scary"
 
2013-01-09 08:19:20 PM

Government Fromage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."

[www.motherjones.com image 466x625]

Congratulations. Dumb advertising is dumb. It's *not* what the professionals (assuming they mean soldiers) use.


Only marketed as such.
 
2013-01-09 08:19:25 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.

You're the one making it difficult by being vague.

The EPA suggests fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. For vehicles over a certain weight, they require a certain MPG. Vehicles under a certain weight require a certain MPG. They dont come out and say "Cars should get pretty good gas mileage and trucks and SUVs and stuff should get decent but not bad MPG - There you have it auto industry - go comply.

When you are arguing for something to be legal or illegal or registered or unregistered, you should have easily-understood criteria.


...furthermore, that criteria should be rational, feasible, and constitutional.
 
2013-01-09 08:20:00 PM

drmda: The right to bear arms is a natural right and enumerated in the Constitution.


It's actually not, but the way it's written, and other writings by Framers, seem to indicate this was the intent.

/are you in a well-organized militia?
 
2013-01-09 08:20:06 PM

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

If you cannot define "military-grade weapons", then your question is without meaning. It is as reasonable as questioning why "perversion" is shown on television without defining "perversion".

This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.


The M1911 handgun was initially designed for use by the United States military, and was used by the military for decades. Is the M1911 handgun a "military-grade weapon"?
 
2013-01-09 08:20:18 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Only marketed as such.


Buyer beware.
 
2013-01-09 08:20:31 PM

LasersHurt: I legitimately didn't think "one person said something once" was on the list.


It is when that person is a U.S. Senator.
 
2013-01-09 08:20:34 PM

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?

I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?


The rifle used at Sandy Hook isn't anywhere near as powerful as your typical hunting rifle. See why you should know what you are talking about before you start talking? God damn you are retarded.
 
2013-01-09 08:21:06 PM

whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point


I don't think the distinction is as large as you think it is. In reality, what you would call (or at least what I think you would call, because again, I can't get a definition for 'assault weapon' or 'military grade weapon') an assault weapon isn't that much different than a hell of a lot of other guns on the market that you would say you don't want to ban.

whidbey: especially if it looks


What does cosmetics have to do with anything?

whidbey: and acts like a military weapon.


Lots of guns act like military weapons. The biggest differences between what the military uses and what you would find in a comparable civilian gun (other than full auto, which you really don't see in civilian hands) are that the military tends to go with very versatile platforms. It's not that an AR15 type gun is better than what a civilian has (in fact it can be a lot worse when you look at individual uses), it's that it's suitable for many uses at once. That's one of the biggest reasons civilians like them, they can buy one gun that they can do many things with.

whidbey: I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used?


Depends on what aspects you are comparing.

whidbey: Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?


It's much more powerful, and more accurate. Rate of fire is lower though, I'll give you that. Of course, if we're going to talk rate of fire (and limits on it) you really ought to compare the actual rate of fire used, not what it is technically capable of. For instance, the Sandy Hook killer used about 150 rounds (from what I can tell anyway) in something like 15 minutes. That averages out to 10RPM, or not very fast I can easily hit that with my old bolt action 'hunting rifle'. In fact, the soldiers trained to use the Lee Enfield were trained to hit a minimum of 20RPM, aimed fire. That means 20 rounds hitting a target at 100yd, every minute. More than enough for a spree killer.

justtray: ROFL. Alt outed.


Not sure how misquoting two different people makes either an alt, but that seems to be about your level of logic.
 
2013-01-09 08:21:16 PM

GoldSpider: It's because most of the regulation being discussed in this (and every other thread) does nothing to address what I consider the two biggest factors in gun violence: the ability of someone to illegally obtain a gun (something that making legal purchases more restrictive does nothing to address) and the motivations behind gun violence (for example, the crime surrounding the illegal drug trade).


No response, whidbey?
 
2013-01-09 08:22:05 PM
I haven't seen this level of thoughtful dialogue since the "Who is your favorite Doobie Brother?" thread.
 
2013-01-09 08:22:17 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.

You're the one making it difficult by being vague.


No. I've explained my point a number of times. This is a "values" argument. Insisting on specifics is a delay tactic at best.
 
2013-01-09 08:22:24 PM

EatenTheSun: LasersHurt: I legitimately didn't think "one person said something once" was on the list.

It is when that person is a U.S. Senator.


No, it's not. Our people have also suggested that women's bodies can shut down rape, that islands might tip over. They say all kinds of stupid shiat. If you lose your shiat every time, you don't look credible.
 
2013-01-09 08:22:44 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: Government Fromage: Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?

Or that many (most, even?) hunting rifles can pierce armor?

And how most of them are designed to fire 30 rounds as fast as you can fire, because that's how you hunt.

No, wait, no...

There are a huge plethora of magazine-fed hunting rifles on the market. A quick followup shot can mean the difference between successfully dropping an animal humanely or having a mortally injured one escape.

And if you'd ever had to deal with bears or wild pigs, you'd understand that you want as many shots as you can get because even several frequently won't stop them. 500lbs of angry pig or 900lbs of pissed grizzly doesn't give a flying frak about the "why" behind you fumbling to get another round into your federally-mandated single shot rifle. All it knows is that you are about to experience a world of pain.

This is all academic, though... given that the word "hunting" or "sport" is nowhere to be found in the 2nd amendment, and that if I have to defend my family or myself, I don't really care about being "sporting" with someone trying to harm them. I care about putting as many hits on the target as fast as possible to stop the threat.


My favorite would be the Remington 740.

Just look at how cute it is:

www.chuckhawks.com
 
2013-01-09 08:22:44 PM

umad: Xcott: I suspect instead that if it wasn't legal, she would have gotten into some other hobby.

I suspect all pot heads moved on to booze and cigarettes too.


Hey, great analogy: did the Newton shooter's mom decide to get into smoking pot as a hobby? Hmmm, why not?

I think it's a bit derpy to analogize recreational shooting to smoking pot, but even if you do, it only reinforces the point that banning something will probably discourage your mom from trying it out as an alternative to knitting.

Certainly some people get around the ban, but the goal is not to stop everyone, the goal is to keep something from becoming such a popular fad that every other psycho kid coincidentally lives in a house with a gun stash.
 
2013-01-09 08:23:18 PM

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

Define "military-grade"

The military uses bolt-action rifles, shotguns, 22 rifles, and certain branches use the 1911, a 101 year old handgun as their primary duty weapon.
Just come out and say that only flintlock muskets should be legal.

I am questioning whether a type of weapon that could cause mass death in a wartime scenario should be readily available. Again, this shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand the meaning behind my posts.

You must not really want to discuss the real issue. Fine. This is Fark, after all.


If you want mass death, a few stealth bombers and cruise missiles will always do the job.

If you're talking infantry, they they carry stuff from rocket launchers and automatic rifles that are already banned from civilian purchase to small arms similar to kind you'd see in a police station or shooting range.

So again, "military grade/style" is kind of vague and meaningless.
 
2013-01-09 08:23:47 PM

whidbey: Insisting on specifics is a delay tactic at best.


The "specifics" are what separate the informed participants from the intellectually lazy.
 
2013-01-09 08:23:48 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Government Fromage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."

[www.motherjones.com image 466x625]

Congratulations. Dumb advertising is dumb. It's *not* what the professionals (assuming they mean soldiers) use.

Only marketed as such.


Pretty much, but marketing goes a long way. An AR15 and it's military equivalent are about as similar as your Ford Taurus and the one driven by some Nascar guy.
 
2013-01-09 08:24:53 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: Because I can't kill an assailant with my penis at ten paces.


Sucks to be you, I guess :)
 
2013-01-09 08:25:00 PM

here to help: Yes... yes I have. With a revolver you can't reload as quickly.


The fastest shooter in the world uses revolvers because they are inherently faster than semi-automatics. Takes less time for the cylinder to spin than the action to cycle, you see.

Link

Don't let that stop you from believing whatever you want.
 
2013-01-09 08:25:09 PM

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

Define "military-grade"

The military uses bolt-action rifles, shotguns, 22 rifles, and certain branches use the 1911, a 101 year old handgun as their primary duty weapon.
Just come out and say that only flintlock muskets should be legal.

I am questioning whether a type of weapon that could cause mass death in a wartime scenario should be readily available. Again, this shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand the meaning behind my posts.

You must not really want to discuss the real issue. Fine. This is Fark, after all.


No offense, but that definition would cover over 100 years of firearms.

We didnt have this gun violence/mass casuality events problem like we do now until very recently. Guns were still widely available decades ago. What has changed?
 
2013-01-09 08:25:37 PM

GoldSpider: cchris_39: Obama is systematically going about taking our money and guns and Fark progressives rejoice.

Tell me, were you born with a natural need for a government to control everybody and everything or were you trained to be pussies?

you_arent_helping.jpg

Go away.


Nope. Most liberals have the mental capacity of hall monitors. They love a rigid set of rules set by government and government control over every bit of money and movement that they can help government get their hands on. They profess to be "progressive" and love freedom, yet cede as much as possible as often as possible. We should never stop point out that out. Maybe it will shame a few of them into growing a pair instead of whining for ever more government.

They may think we're crazy cowboys; we think they are hand-wringing "save us from ourselves oh glorious government!" little girls.
 
2013-01-09 08:25:38 PM
These threads always prove the same thing. That it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a gun nut. Bad analogies and trying to discredit people because of semantics. Bring on the bans if these idiots won't compromise.
 
2013-01-09 08:25:45 PM

GoldSpider: HeWhoHasNoName: Because I can't kill an assailant with my penis at ten paces.

Sucks to be you, I guess :)


My limit is eight paces. Such is my lot in life, I guess...
 
2013-01-09 08:26:52 PM

HeadLever: 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.

You can make them yourself for about 25 cents.


Depending on caliber, you're on the low side. It costs me about $125 per 1000 rounds in 9mm
 
2013-01-09 08:26:59 PM
By "military grade"... they mean "painted black".
because black things are scary
black guns,
black spiders,
black snakes,
black helicopters,
black people,

wait, what?
 
2013-01-09 08:27:51 PM

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: It's because most of the regulation being discussed in this (and every other thread) does nothing to address what I consider the two biggest factors in gun violence: the ability of someone to illegally obtain a gun (something that making legal purchases more restrictive does nothing to address) and the motivations behind gun violence (for example, the crime surrounding the illegal drug trade).

No response, whidbey?


You can't just go throwing logic and reason at these things man. Kids died. Something has to be done. Even if it is ineffective. Or restricts freedom. 9/11. Never forget!
 
2013-01-09 08:27:58 PM

whidbey: I am questioning whether a type of weapon that could cause mass death in a wartime scenario should be readily available.


That definition covers damn near everything.

o5iiawah: When you are arguing for something to be legal or illegal or registered or unregistered, you should have easily-understood criteria.


And easily defined criteria.

super_grass: Solution: mandate that all rifles are to be covered with wood paneling or veneers.

People won't have military-styled weapons and can hunt deer or the odd home intruder with class.


They'll still have AK-47s.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:08 PM

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: It's because most of the regulation being discussed in this (and every other thread) does nothing to address what I consider the two biggest factors in gun violence: the ability of someone to illegally obtain a gun (something that making legal purchases more restrictive does nothing to address) and the motivations behind gun violence (for example, the crime surrounding the illegal drug trade).

No response, whidbey?


As long as the US is the #1 manufacturer or firearms, we're going to have problems with enforcing the black market. There is a conflict of interest when we have a market so flooded with that particular product.

As for your second point, we're getting better at understanding why gun violence occurs.

But--Socialism. For a lack of a better term. Republicans want to cut social programs, and they were the ones who put a lot of mentally ill people back on the streets back during the Reagan Era.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:26 PM

cchris_39: GoldSpider: cchris_39: Obama is systematically going about taking our money and guns and Fark progressives rejoice.

Tell me, were you born with a natural need for a government to control everybody and everything or were you trained to be pussies?

you_arent_helping.jpg

Go away.

Nope. Most liberals have the mental capacity of hall monitors. They love a rigid set of rules set by government and government control over every bit of money and movement that they can help government get their hands on. They profess to be "progressive" and love freedom, yet cede as much as possible as often as possible. We should never stop point out that out. Maybe it will shame a few of them into growing a pair instead of whining for ever more government.

They may think we're crazy cowboys; we think they are hand-wringing "save us from ourselves oh glorious government!" little girls.


It's all in your head, man.

Lighten up, let it go. Smoke some weed.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:44 PM
Any of you that are not bothered by the Executive branch considering this... yet were bothered by the over-reaching the Bush administration did using Executive Orders (essentially... "Liberals")...

You are hypocritical, partisan assholes. Go fark yourselves.

We don't have a King.
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report