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.

(Politico)   "The gun lobby also says people need to be able to protect their property. But every mass shooting is done by guys who live with their mother. So I believe you should need to have a mortgage to buy a gun"   (politico.com) divider line 130
    More: Amusing, gun rights, mass shooting, gun controls, mortgages, Television Critics Association  
•       •       •

1776 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2013 at 3:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-10 03:33:29 PM
i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-10 03:47:14 PM
When you're down to writing about the not-even-slightly-serious filler bits of a stand-up comedian, maybe it's time to accept that everything that's been said about an issue has been said, thrice, and wait until something new actually happens relevant to the issue?

Like, say, how about we don't hear about this anymore until another bill is proposed, and by proposed I mean actually put up for consideration by a national house of congress, not mentioned offhand as a potential issue over a congressman's third lunch martini.
 
2013-01-10 03:47:47 PM
fark you, renter.
 
2013-01-10 03:47:47 PM
But now we have the right to be able to protect ourselves anywhere so a nogo on a mortgage restriction.
 
2013-01-10 03:49:14 PM
Oh, you paid off your mortgage? Turn in your guns.
 
2013-01-10 03:49:36 PM
Sounds good. Let's play these games with other civil rights too.
 
2013-01-10 03:50:44 PM

Jim_Callahan: When you're down to writing about the not-even-slightly-serious filler bits of a stand-up comedian, maybe it's time to accept that everything that's been said about an issue has been said, thrice, and wait until something new actually happens relevant to the issue?

Like, say, how about we don't hear about this anymore until another bill is proposed, and by proposed I mean actually put up for consideration by a national house of congress, not mentioned offhand as a potential issue over a congressman's third lunch martini.


So are you saying that this is not the time to be discussing gun control? Because i have heard that before...
 
2013-01-10 03:51:33 PM
No Guns for Poor People: Now that is something the GOP can endorse!!!
 
2013-01-10 03:52:14 PM
And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?
 
2013-01-10 03:52:39 PM
Headline: The gun lobby also says people need to be able to protect their property. So I believe you should need a gun to buy a house

FTFY
 
2013-01-10 03:52:49 PM
How about if it's only for white males as well?
 
2013-01-10 03:53:59 PM
What happens if your Mom is a midget porn start that rents?
 
2013-01-10 03:54:15 PM

Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?


It would allow the government to punish people who don't believe what I believe, and that's good enough.
 
2013-01-10 03:54:56 PM

for good or for awesome: How about if it's only for white males as well?


Can you buy 3/5ths of a gun?  Would that just be like a revolver with a couple chambers blanked out?
 
2013-01-10 03:55:19 PM

Saborlas: [i970.photobucket.com image 179x281]


Frickin' saved.
 
2013-01-10 03:55:33 PM
Well, except for Virginia Tech, Chris, just to name one.
 
2013-01-10 03:55:48 PM

LucklessWonder: So are you saying that this is not the time to be discussing gun control? Because i have heard that before...


My point is that we aren't, anymore. That was an entire damned article about a comedian making a one-liner, which is in no way a serious suggestion, just because it happened to be mildly topical. It wasn't even really a joke about gun control as such, it was a reference to the old "only white male landowners can vote" shtick that's served as the basis for some of his sillier bits in the past.
 
2013-01-10 03:56:25 PM

tricycleracer: Can you buy 3/5ths of a gun?  Would that just be like a revolver with a couple chambers blanked out?


I like the sound of that. Now we just need to determine which 2 are the assault chambers.
 
2013-01-10 03:56:34 PM
ok that stupid
 
2013-01-10 03:56:34 PM

Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?


A mortgage requires a true background check (for the mother of the Sandy Hook killer in this case).
 
2013-01-10 03:57:39 PM
We need more gun threads today.
 
2013-01-10 03:58:30 PM

Jim_Callahan: it was a reference to the old "only white male landowners can vote" shtick that's served as the basis for some of his sillier bits in the past


Yep. It's funny we don't hear more about the racial makeup of the areas that had the strictest (and now ruled unconstitutional) gun control.

But hey, systematically denying the civil rights of racial minorities is okay as long as it's a civil right I don't agree with.
 
2013-01-10 03:58:42 PM
Can you farkers post some pics of your guns? Just looking for some fun buying ideas when the dust settles on all this pandemonium and firearm prices plummet.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:30 PM
i49.tinypic.com.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:39 PM
The solution is more guns so actually we should make the government hand out guns and grenades to everyone. We should also encourage everyone to hate and distrust each other and shoot first and ask questions later. Your neighbor is your enemy; you must fear him.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:45 PM

Doom MD: Can you farkers post some pics of your guns? Just looking for some fun buying ideas when the dust settles on all this pandemonium and firearm prices plummet.


Good luck! By the time gun prices go down we'll have flying cars.
 
2013-01-10 04:00:32 PM
Based on the comments to TFA, and in this thread, there's a rather interesting correlation between lacking a sense of humor and fetishizing guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:00:52 PM
I have a pistol I was thinking of selling. I suppose now's the time to do it
 
2013-01-10 04:01:39 PM

Carn: The solution is more guns so actually we should make the government hand out guns and grenades to everyone. We should also encourage everyone to hate and distrust each other and shoot first and ask questions later.


You're overlooking the fact that handing someone a gun magically makes them a violent maniac. Firearms have mystical powers.
 
2013-01-10 04:01:48 PM
Perhaps only rich white landowners should own guns?
 
2013-01-10 04:03:23 PM
so, redlining gun ownership then?  the left would have a field day with that.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:23 PM

mrshowrules: Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?

A mortgage requires a true background check (for the mother of the Sandy Hook killer in this case).


Does "prepper" show up somewhere in the check? I'm all for increased restrictions and regulations, but when someone commits a crime with another's weaponry (as in this case), what would a true background check of the legal purchaser reveal to help prevent a tragedy like this?
 
2013-01-10 04:03:30 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Based on the comments to TFA, and in this thread, there's a rather interesting correlation between lacking a sense of humor and fetishizing guns.


Or at least between gun ownership and really bad hemorrhoids.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:49 PM

paygun: Carn: The solution is more guns so actually we should make the government hand out guns and grenades to everyone. We should also encourage everyone to hate and distrust each other and shoot first and ask questions later.

You're overlooking the fact that handing someone a gun magically makes them a violent maniac. Firearms have mystical powers.


So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:55 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Perhaps only rich white landowners should own guns?


It's just as the founding fathers intended.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:24 PM

Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?


None of the solutions that will eventually be implemented will prevent another tragedy, but they'll have gotten their stab at gun owners in, which is all they want. In that respect, Sandy Hook was a good thing for them.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:44 PM

Carn: So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.


Well, I take a pro-choice approach to gun ownership. I know there are lots of abstinence-only people out there but what can you do.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:46 PM

paygun: Doom MD: Can you farkers post some pics of your guns? Just looking for some fun buying ideas when the dust settles on all this pandemonium and firearm prices plummet.

Good luck! By the time gun prices go down we'll have flying cars.


It won't last that long.
With all the new money being dumped on the industry, and political support being essential to its future survival, I doubt an AWB has a chance in hell of sticking past the next election cycle.

/I'd give it a few months till the panic wears off and inventory returns to normal.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:00 PM

paygun: Carn: So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.

Well, I take a pro-choice approach to gun ownership. I know there are lots of abstinence-only people out there but what can you do.


Once again, the worst enemy of vocal gun advocates is vocal gun advocates.
 
2013-01-10 04:09:06 PM

way south: I'd give it a few months till the panic wears off and inventory returns to normal.


I think it will come down to whether or not they decide to do something like an executive order that they know will never fly (like an outright ban) but will score points with the prohibitionists, or if it's just more of the usual like import bans. Whichever one fuels more panic buying, we'll see.
 
2013-01-10 04:09:12 PM
Sounds reasonable.
How about we change the voting standards to something just as reasonable: Male, white, property-owner, and over 25.

It's what the Founders wanted.


[cryingeagle.jpg]
 
2013-01-10 04:09:31 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Perhaps only rich white landowners should own guns?


Isn't that kind of the intent behind the sort of gun control in cities like New York, Washington DC, and Chicago? To keep guns out of the hands of poor minorities?
 
2013-01-10 04:10:54 PM

CPennypacker: ok that stupid


I think it is very smart.  The analogy is satire but the point is simple in brilliant.

Require a true background check (like a mortgage) versus checking a mental health database that no one uses before giving a gun.  It is what I've been saying all along in may threads.

Let's say a bank had to give you a mortgage unless you were in database where another had decided to go on record as you being a deadbeat.   That would be stupid.

A real mortgage requires the banker to take exercise due diligence (background check and verify what the mortgage is for)  and accept a certain amount of risk before giving you a mortgage.

A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.
 
2013-01-10 04:10:54 PM

dittybopper: Isn't that kind of the intent behind the sort of gun control in cities like New York, Washington DC, and Chicago? To keep guns out of the hands of poor minorities?


Yeah but that's not one of the good civil rights so who cares.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:09 PM
Every racist, sister-farker in Alabama and Mississippi just shouted 'Amen!'
 
2013-01-10 04:11:10 PM

Citrate1007: No Guns for Poor People: Now that is something the GOP can endorse!!!


Bah, that's one of the most farked up platforms of the Democratic party, actually. Live in an urban shiathole? No gun for you. No connections or cronies or cash to get you your special dispensation? No gun for you. Can't afford a personal bodyguard? Call the cops and wait until morning to arrive because no way will they come to your neighborhood at night except in force, peasant.
 
2013-01-10 04:13:09 PM

mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.


But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?
 
2013-01-10 04:13:32 PM

give me doughnuts: Sounds reasonable.
How about we change the voting standards to something just as reasonable: Male, white, property-owner, and over 25.

It's what the Founders wanted.


[cryingeagle.jpg]


*reads thread*

Hmm....slightly redundant.

How about a post that points out many of the early gun-control laws were to keep Afirican-Americans unarmed?

Has that been done?
 
2013-01-10 04:14:24 PM
We should begin arming children in kindergarten!
 
2013-01-10 04:14:45 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?


Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:46 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: We should begin arming children in kindergarten!


We got rid of most of the apex predators, so this would work to thin the herd a bit.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:52 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?


The car owner carries his own liability insurance. It is a good idea to require that for gun owners in addition to mrshowrules' idea.
 
2013-01-10 04:17:55 PM
How about this:
For every $1000 you pay the IRS in taxes each year, you get to have 1 gun.

/not serious at all
 
2013-01-10 04:18:26 PM

Frozboz: mrshowrules: Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?

A mortgage requires a true background check (for the mother of the Sandy Hook killer in this case).

Does "prepper" show up somewhere in the check? I'm all for increased restrictions and regulations, but when someone commits a crime with another's weaponry (as in this case), what would a true background check of the legal purchaser reveal to help prevent a tragedy like this?


A psychologist probably would not have went on record as saying this women waiting for the end of the world was sane enough to buy a gun.

You don't get a drivers license unless they can prove you are a bad driver.  You get a driver's license by proving you can drive.  That is how I would flip.  Prove your sanity, lawful intent and proper training to get a gun (as if you were in an actual militia or something).

But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.
 
2013-01-10 04:19:06 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: We should begin arming children in kindergarten!


Already started.

The littlebopper around kindergarten age:

i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-10 04:19:51 PM

Carn: paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?

The car owner carries his own liability insurance. It is a good idea to require that for gun owners in addition to mrshowrules' idea.


I have several cars that I own that do not have liability insurance and they get exercised regularly.
 
2013-01-10 04:21:01 PM

Farker Soze: Citrate1007: No Guns for Poor People: Now that is something the GOP can endorse!!!

Bah, that's one of the most farked up platforms of the Democratic party, actually. Live in an urban shiathole? No gun for you. No connections or cronies or cash to get you your special dispensation? No gun for you. Can't afford a personal bodyguard? Call the cops and wait until morning to arrive because no way will they come to your neighborhood at night except in force, peasant.


Buy a bow?

Sure, I can't mow down a street gang, but my 40 lb @ 28" recurve is going to do as much damage as a .22, especially with a hunting arrowhead on it. And it's a lot cheaper. And needs no check at all.
 
2013-01-10 04:21:28 PM

CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.


I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.
 
2013-01-10 04:23:00 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.

I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.


Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.
 
2013-01-10 04:23:31 PM

Carn: The car owner carries his own liability insurance. It is a good idea to require that for gun owners in addition to mrshowrules' idea.


I don't have a problem with that. The cheapest way to do it is through NRA programs, but I think going forward the best way to do it is through some kind of government program like Obamacare.
 
2013-01-10 04:24:56 PM

dittybopper: Princess Ryans Knickers: We should begin arming children in kindergarten!

Already started.

The littlebopper around kindergarten age:

[i40.tinypic.com image 640x480]


I have been thinking about getting my 4 year old a bow... still not ready yet. Maybe next year.
 
2013-01-10 04:25:08 PM

Carn: So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.


I'm not seriously suggesting it but I do occasionally imagine a world in which all adults without a criminal history were issued some equivalent of a Smith and Wesson J frame .38 and 5 rounds of +P hollowpoint upon reaching the age of 30. That age is chosen because it gets you just beyond the curve of where most of the violence and crime occurs, greatly reduces hot-headedness, etc. No safety courses, no training, just issue one to everyone. Maybe there's a youtube video on basic maintenance and operation. I think the social impacts would be interesting to study. I'm sure it would have both positive and negative impacts. It's a shame this isn't like a game where you can do this stuff and then erase and start over. It's real people's lives.
 
2013-01-10 04:25:29 PM

mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.


Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.
 
2013-01-10 04:25:42 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?


I'm OK with a State performing a thorough background check and accepting liability as certifying someone as sane and part of a well regulated militia and issue a militia card etc...  That would be fine in my books.  If you could show the State did not exercise due diligence and should have know this citizen was a danger, they can be sued.   Put the responsibility on someone to at least take reasonable steps to ensure insane people don't get guns.

Saying, if he isn't in the crazy book, you can sell him a gun is ridiculous.  That's like letting a man adopt a child for no other reason than he isn't already a registered sex offender.
 
2013-01-10 04:25:52 PM

paygun: Carn: The car owner carries his own liability insurance. It is a good idea to require that for gun owners in addition to mrshowrules' idea.

I don't have a problem with that. The cheapest way to do it is through NRA programs, but I think going forward the best way to do it is through some kind of government program like Obamacare.


community.us.playstation.com
 
2013-01-10 04:26:12 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for.   As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass.  Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses.  I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms.  That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?


Um, you DO KNOW that bartenders can get in trouble for that, right?

Someone with a suspended license can buy a car for somebody else.  If they test drive it without showing a valid license, then yeah, liability would be on the dealership.  If they test drive it with alcohol on their breath, likewise.

Someone can go down to the liquor store to get some liquor that they drink at home.

And if a bartender keeps serving someone who is noticeably drunk, especially if they know that person plans to drive home, they can be liable.  Same if you have a party at your house and the drunk guy keeps on drinking then grabs his keys and leaves your place.  If he hits someone on the way home, oh yeah, you're liable.

If you're a drug manufacturer, you can be liable for faulty product that injures or kills patients even if it was FDA approved, depending - especially if you knew about risks and hid the information, for example.  Except in Michigan.  F--k you, Engler.
 
2013-01-10 04:26:34 PM

paygun: Carn: The car owner carries his own liability insurance. It is a good idea to require that for gun owners in addition to mrshowrules' idea.

I don't have a problem with that. The cheapest way to do it is through NRA programs, but I think going forward the best way to do it is through some kind of government program like Obamacare.


I think that's a good idea. And they already have safety and aptitude courses. Tie them together and make that a prerequisite for purchasing.
 
2013-01-10 04:26:41 PM
Subsidized gun ownership is the answer.
 
2013-01-10 04:27:32 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.


Their are restrictions of free speech.  There are already restrictions on 2nd amendment rights.  Everyone agrees that crazy people should be able to buy guns.  I'm just talking about making it work (at least for guns more dangerous than a musket or lever action .22).
 
2013-01-10 04:28:02 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.

I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.

Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.


So we are talking about not allowing someone to buy a commercial item because of how they look... aint that like you ask someone for their papers because they look like an illegal....
 
2013-01-10 04:28:35 PM

paygun: Sounds good. Let's play these games with other civil rights too.


It's the damndest thing.  The Constitution says I have a right to free speech, but somehow those fascists will still give me a ticket for "distrubing the peace"  if I drive through a residential neighborhood at  3am with a sound Truck playing my speechof all the reason you should vote fro Romney.  I mean WTF is up with that?  And even though I have a right to Free exercise to religion, for Some reason the prosecutor is INSISTING on Trying to criminally charge me for my recent attempt to offer the proper sacrifice of immolated babies to Ba'al Moloch.  And do you know those farkers insisted I have a PERMIT when tryign to get 10,000 of my closest friends to "peacefully assemble" in a city park recently?
 
2013-01-10 04:29:49 PM

Saiga410: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.

I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.

Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.

So we are talking about not allowing someone to buy a commercial item because of how they look... aint that like you ask someone for their papers because they look like an illegal....


You people really are insufferable, you know that, don't you?
 
2013-01-10 04:29:51 PM

Granny_Panties: What happens if your Mom is a midget porn start that rents?


My mother sublets.
 
2013-01-10 04:30:01 PM

Frozboz: when someone commits a crime with another's weaponry (as in this case), what would a true background check of the legal purchaser reveal to help prevent a tragedy like this?


You've found a loophole, so let's do nothing at all.
 
2013-01-10 04:30:06 PM

Doom MD: Can you farkers post some pics of your guns? Just looking for some fun buying ideas when the dust settles on all this pandemonium and firearm prices plummet.


bestbathroombooks.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-10 04:30:17 PM

CPennypacker: Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.


I think you could, really. And you could be fine whenever you went through that process and then a few years later be completely off your rocker. Signs point to that being what happened with the theater shooter. When we get done with "making sure this never happens again" we're all going to live under a microscope. It's fascinating to me that some people believe that only other people would be subjected to the laws they want to put in place.

And no matter what your political leanings are, people seem to think that if all this would come to pass, the other party wouldn't ever be in power again and be able to take advantage of the system.

Remember when the Patriot Act was passed and that was bad because Bush was president?
 
2013-01-10 04:31:29 PM
Oh, yeah, and the liquor store down the street from me outright refuses to sell to certain people.  They're the only place that sells alcohol within a square mile (except before 9 when the drugstore and a Korean place are open and selling a very limited beer selection), but he straight up won't sell to certain people in the neighborhood.  Family business, and if they've had trouble in the past he doesn't want to be liable for providing them the means to get in more trouble (and trouble that might actually hurt someone).

Legally if someone buys a fifth from him who has already had a DUI, drinks it, and drives and hits a kid, would he be liable?  I'd say no, because you can't expect a shop owner to know the details of all their customers or what they're going to do with what they buy.  But since the liquor store guy here actually does know everybody somehow (been here a long while), he plays it safe.
 
2013-01-10 04:32:51 PM

Magorn: It's the damndest thing.  The Constitution says I have a right to free speech, but somehow those fascists will still give me a ticket for "distrubing the peace"  if I drive through a residential neighborhood at  3am with a sound Truck playing my speechof all the reason you should vote fro Romney.  I mean WTF is up with that?  And even though I have a right to Free exercise to religion, for Some reason the prosecutor is INSISTING on Trying to criminally charge me for my recent attempt to offer the proper sacrifice of immolated babies to Ba'al Moloch.  And do you know those farkers insisted I have a PERMIT when tryign to get 10,000 of my closest friends to "peacefully assemble" in a city park recently?


Go ahead and tell me there are no restrictions on the 2nd amendment, this is going to be good. You've heard of the ATF, right?
 
2013-01-10 04:33:35 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.

I think you could, really. And you could be fine whenever you went through that process and then a few years later be completely off your rocker. Signs point to that being what happened with the theater shooter. When we get done with "making sure this never happens again" we're all going to live under a microscope. It's fascinating to me that some people believe that only other people would be subjected to the laws they want to put in place.

And no matter what your political leanings are, people seem to think that if all this would come to pass, the other party wouldn't ever be in power again and be able to take advantage of the system.

Remember when the Patriot Act was passed and that was bad because Bush was president?


You sound paranoid. I would feel better if paranoid people didn't have access to destructive weaponry.
 
2013-01-10 04:34:08 PM
I love all the snarky comments regarding muskets. My muzzle loader fires a .50 caliber 405gr hollow point dead-accurate to over a hundred yards, further if i put glass on it.
 
2013-01-10 04:35:05 PM

Magorn: paygun: Sounds good. Let's play these games with other civil rights too.

It's the damndest thing.  The Constitution says I have a right to free speech, but somehow those fascists will still give me a ticket for "distrubing the peace"  if I drive through a residential neighborhood at  3am with a sound Truck playing my speechof all the reason you should vote fro Romney.  I mean WTF is up with that?  And even though I have a right to Free exercise to religion, for Some reason the prosecutor is INSISTING on Trying to criminally charge me for my recent attempt to offer the proper sacrifice of immolated babies to Ba'al Moloch.  And do you know those farkers insisted I have a PERMIT when tryign to get 10,000 of my closest friends to "peacefully assemble" in a city park recently?


The Court has always upheld reasonable "time, place, manner" restrictions; typically when others are endangered, the exercises themselves are dangerous, or the rights of others are infringed by the exercise.
 
2013-01-10 04:35:56 PM
Why not just outlaw living with your mom after age 18. It makes just as much sense.

1 in I-dont-know-how-many thousands of men living with their moms turn out to be wacko killers.

1 in I-dont-know-how-many thousands of people owning guns turn out to be wacko killers.

And living with your mom is not protected by the constitution.
 
2013-01-10 04:37:19 PM

mrshowrules: Everyone agrees that crazy people should be able to buy guns.  I'm just talking about making it work (at least for guns more dangerous than a musket or lever action .22).


There are no guns that aren't dangerous. You can kill somone with a muzzleloader or a .22, you just pull the trigger.

If I had my way, it would somehow be magically impossible for guns to be used for murder. The problem is that the laws of physics don't have exceptions for intent. I want a nerfed world where no one ever gets hurt. Trying to make that happen by passing laws is so naive that's it's sad and comical at the same time.
 
2013-01-10 04:39:00 PM

CPennypacker: You sound paranoid. I would feel better if paranoid people didn't have access to destructive weaponry.


Uh huh, sure. And I oppose gay marriage because it's all about the sanctity, not because I just don't like gay people.
 
2013-01-10 04:41:41 PM

CPennypacker: Saiga410: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.

I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.

Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.

So we are talking about not allowing someone to buy a commercial item because of how they look... aint that like you ask someone for their papers because they look like an illegal....

You people really are insufferable, you know that, don't you?


You people?

Is insufferable code for "quit poking holes in my not so well thought out ideas"?
 
2013-01-10 04:43:02 PM

Saiga410: CPennypacker: Saiga410: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: Is the person drunk when they are buying the car? I'm ok with not selling cars to someone who is drunk.

I don't think you're going to find a case of someone walking into a gun store and telling the clerk they need a gun to use for a crime, and them walking out with their shiny new school shooter. I know that you're going to assume that's just what happens anyway, because you need to believe that in order to make yourself feel better.

Well no, but the analogy here is drunk to crazy. I think you can put yourself together enough to not pass for crazy for 10 minutes if you really want something.

So we are talking about not allowing someone to buy a commercial item because of how they look... aint that like you ask someone for their papers because they look like an illegal....

You people really are insufferable, you know that, don't you?

You people?

Is insufferable code for "quit poking holes in my not so well thought out ideas"?


No, its a word that means intolerable, difficult to endure.

Because your arguments are so bad that they are annoying.
 
2013-01-10 04:43:24 PM

please: I love all the snarky comments regarding muskets. My muzzle loader fires a .50 caliber 405gr hollow point dead-accurate to over a hundred yards, further if i put glass on it.


How many kindergarteners can you take down with that in under a minute? Just one? Ok have fun.
 
2013-01-10 04:44:52 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: Everyone agrees that crazy people should be able to buy guns.  I'm just talking about making it work (at least for guns more dangerous than a musket or lever action .22).

There are no guns that aren't dangerous. You can kill somone with a muzzleloader or a .22, you just pull the trigger.

If I had my way, it would somehow be magically impossible for guns to be used for murder. The problem is that the laws of physics don't have exceptions for intent. I want a nerfed world where no one ever gets hurt. Trying to make that happen by passing laws is so naive that's it's sad and comical at the same time.


It's great that you think trying to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people is unreasonable.
 
2013-01-10 04:46:08 PM

Carn: It's great that you think trying to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people is unreasonable.


You want to keep black people from owning guns because you're a racist. See how that works?
 
2013-01-10 04:46:31 PM
If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...
 
2013-01-10 04:47:51 PM

mrshowrules: Require a true background check (like a mortgage) versus checking a mental health database that no one uses before giving a gun.  It is what I've been saying all along in may threads.


The background check isn't a "mental health database", it's a criminal/civil records check. It will turn up:

- Felony convictions
- Missed child support or alimony payments
- Court orders regarding mental competence
- Restraining orders

Conveniently, that's also the list of things that make you ineligible to purchase a firearm.

The only thing it doesn't test is whether you're buying the gun for someone else who _is_ ineligible, though I don't know how you'd go about finding that out. Albeit, if the gun is used to commit a crime, at that point the cops will find out, and at that point you will have a felony on your record, because providing a firearm to an ineligible person is a felony. Plus you'll possibly be charged as accessory to whatever.

pdee: Why not just outlaw living with your mom after age 18. It makes just as much sense.


Again, it's not an actual suggestion. It is a damned joke, man.

As I mentioned before, it's even a recycled joke, of the usual Chris Rock "any reference to suffrage once being limited to white male landowners is automatically funny" variety. And, in all fairness, the shtick works, I did chuckle. But it's still not a serious proposal being put forward here.
 
2013-01-10 04:49:24 PM
Moar training and mental health checks for firearms owners, plox.

Also can we charge firearms owners whose guns are used in mass shootings with manslaughter?
 
2013-01-10 04:51:15 PM

omgbears: Also can we charge firearms owners whose guns are used in mass shootings with manslaughter?


We should do the same thing if you sell a computer and then it turns out to be used for downloading child porn.
 
2013-01-10 04:52:08 PM

paygun: Sounds good. Let's play these games with other civil rights too.


Stop by a voter ID thread some time. You'll hear all sorts of folks champing at the bit to play these games with other civil rights.
 
2013-01-10 04:52:49 PM

penthesilea: How about this:
For every $1000 you pay the IRS in taxes each year, you get to have 1 gun.

/not serious at all


No way this would ever pass. The rich want access to guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:53:58 PM

netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...


The traditional weapon in the late 1800s and early 1900s when a good gun was beyond the budget of the primary people rebelling and the guns they did have were being confiscated by employers and cops, the preferred weapon was the firebomb.

Cheaper, more destructive, and ultimately easier to deploy in most cases.
 
2013-01-10 04:54:47 PM

HeartBurnKid: Stop by a voter ID thread some time. You'll hear all sorts of folks champing at the bit to play these games with other civil rights.


Yeah, but that's different. We're talking about people who do things that I think are immoral, like owning a scary gun and not hurting anyone with it. We should use the power of government to punish those people for their sin.

All I want is to have the government to enforce my morality on others. It's completely different when I do it, because my morality is the good one.
 
2013-01-10 04:57:37 PM

paygun: HeartBurnKid: Stop by a voter ID thread some time. You'll hear all sorts of folks champing at the bit to play these games with other civil rights.

Yeah, but that's different. We're talking about people who do things that I think are immoral, like owning a scary gun and not hurting anyone with it. We should use the power of government to punish those people for their sin.

All I want is to have the government to enforce my morality on others. It's completely different when I do it, because my morality is the good one.


That's what you're going with? Really?
 
2013-01-10 04:58:17 PM

netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...


...now that's a good argument for banning guns. Forget handguns, I want a disruptor.
 
2013-01-10 05:00:07 PM

HeartBurnKid: That's what you're going with? Really?


Actually, I had the voter ID thing in mind when I posted that.

Maybe we should force anyone who wants to buy a gun to have an ultrasound and listen to the baby's heart.
 
2013-01-10 05:02:38 PM
Why don't we slip a requirement that you need a psychologist note before you can have sex. Make sure you're not farking insane.
 
2013-01-10 05:21:22 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

...now that's a good argument for banning guns. Forget handguns, I want a disruptor.


It better not be a Varon-T disruptor. Those are banned.
 
2013-01-10 05:24:22 PM

Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?


It is not about stopping the shooting, it is about the body count. With automatic weapons body counts can be higher than with a hand gun or a rifle, so anti gun nuts believe.
 
2013-01-10 05:32:54 PM

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

...now that's a good argument for banning guns. Forget handguns, I want a disruptor.

It better not be a Varon-T disruptor. Those are banned.


Fortunately, the Breen run a really good gun show in Puyallup every year.
 
2013-01-10 06:32:37 PM

please: Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?

None of the solutions that will eventually be implemented will prevent another tragedy, but they'll have gotten their stab at gun owners in, which is all they want. In that respect, Sandy Hook was a good thing for them.


Ladies and Gentlemen: The gun lobby narrative summed up in one simple sentence.

/minus the part about five civilians keeping the force of the US government at bay
 
2013-01-10 06:33:29 PM

paygun: Carn: The solution is more guns so actually we should make the government hand out guns and grenades to everyone. We should also encourage everyone to hate and distrust each other and shoot first and ask questions later.

You're overlooking the fact that handing someone a gun magically makes them a violent maniac. Firearms have mystical powers.


Hey dumbass, just holding a gun causes a sudden boost in testosterone.
 
2013-01-10 06:42:45 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.


You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.
 
2013-01-10 06:45:32 PM

DoctorCal: paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.

You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.


How dare you infringe on his Freedom of Speech!!!
 
2013-01-10 06:46:37 PM

wildcardjack: Why don't we slip a requirement that you need a psychologist note before you can have sex. Make sure you're not farking insane.


I didn't say she was crazy. I said she was farking Goofy.
 
2013-01-10 06:47:57 PM

netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...


Maybe we SHOULD ban cars. Only then will we get our flying car!
 
2013-01-10 06:49:51 PM
Seung-Hui Cho didn't...
 
2013-01-10 06:54:08 PM
AMUSING tag to entire thread:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-10 07:11:51 PM

DoctorCal: netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

Maybe we SHOULD ban cars. Only then will we get our flying car!


That or kickass public transportation.

Personally, I'd go for the flying cars.
 
2013-01-10 08:30:27 PM
Or orphans. Orphans do not live with their mothers.
 
2013-01-10 09:10:31 PM

paygun: Carn: It's great that you think trying to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people is unreasonable.

You want to keep black people from owning guns because you're a racist. See how that works?


If those are equivalent in your mind, you may want to seek help. You realize there are people that when institutionalized are considered a danger to themselves and others, right? They try to keep any sharp or even pointed objects from these people. You're suggesting that also preventing them from owning weapons goes against the constitution, in which case I guess you suppose that the founding fathers were insane.
 
2013-01-10 09:34:07 PM

DoctorCal: paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.

You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.


Sure you can. You just cannot start yelling freedom of speech as the judge throws the book at you for disturbing the peace, tresspass, encitment of a riot, and so on. Similarly someone else cannot sart screaming 2nd amendment after an impropper carry bust.
 
2013-01-10 09:50:37 PM

Saiga410: DoctorCal: paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.

You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.

Sure you can. You just cannot start yelling freedom of speech as the judge throws the book at you for disturbing the peace, tresspass, encitment of a riot, and so on. Similarly someone else cannot sart screaming 2nd amendment after an impropper carry bust.

Get it?
 
2013-01-10 10:14:18 PM

DoctorCal: Saiga410: DoctorCal: paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.

You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.

Sure you can. You just cannot start yelling freedom of speech as the judge throws the book at you for disturbing the peace, tresspass, encitment of a riot, and so on. Similarly someone else cannot sart screaming 2nd amendment after an impropper carry bust.
Get it?


Doh, but what about these guys?

URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/flamethrowerw.jpg/]imageshack.us
 
2013-01-10 11:05:42 PM
Based on the replies here, I have a feeling that Chris Rock's joke hit some Farkers too close to home.

I guess if you really wanted to troll the Politics tab, you could also suggest that gun owners not only have a mortgage but also demonstrate proof a spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend---or an ex, but the ex has to confirm that you weren't a huge loser.
 
2013-01-10 11:16:10 PM

Saiga410: DoctorCal: Saiga410: DoctorCal: paygun: mrshowrules: But guns are right!  OK, fine.  You can get a musket if you are going to have that attitude.  Want something more, you have to prove you are not insane or are actually part of a well-regulated State militia.  Let the State assume some actual liability if you decide to go on a shooting spree.

Really I'm okay with this. I'll accept whatever restrictions people will accept for other civil rights like free speech or freedom of association.

You can't shoot fire in a crowed theater.

Sure you can. You just cannot start yelling freedom of speech as the judge throws the book at you for disturbing the peace, tresspass, encitment of a riot, and so on. Similarly someone else cannot sart screaming 2nd amendment after an impropper carry bust.
Get it?

Doh, but what about these guys?

URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/flamethrowerw.jpg/][imag e shack.us image 590x332]


Aren't they sorta shouting fire?
 
2013-01-10 11:49:39 PM
ugh, this is stupid. I don't have a mortgage because I own my house outright. By TFA's standards, I would not be able to get a gun or a gun license simply because I am no longer in debt to a bank. Absurd.
 
2013-01-11 12:14:53 AM

DoctorCal: Aren't they sorta shouting fire?


+1 to you
 
2013-01-11 02:04:30 AM
I always thought that the best thing to do was to have a strict literalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

You see, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarentee the right to keep multiple arms, does it? Since we know that most guns crimes are comitted with stolen weapons, it seems that the solution here is simple -

1) You can own 1 gun of any make/model/type. Go crazy. It's your right.
2) If you want another one, or a different one, you have to turn the old one in.
3) If you lose your gun, that's it - you can't have any more. You should keep better watch on them.
4) If a gun is used in the comission of a crime, it's confiscated and destroyed. If it's stolen, then the owner doesn't get it back and is not given a waiver to purchase a new gun. He lost his. Too bad.

I can guarentee you that this will curb gun violence significantly.
 
2013-01-11 11:12:43 AM

TwistedFark: I always thought that the best thing to do was to have a strict literalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

You see, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarentee the right to keep multiple arms, does it? Since we know that most guns crimes are comitted with stolen weapons, it seems that the solution here is simple -

1) You can own 1 gun of any make/model/type. Go crazy. It's your right.
2) If you want another one, or a different one, you have to turn the old one in.
3) If you lose your gun, that's it - you can't have any more. You should keep better watch on them.
4) If a gun is used in the comission of a crime, it's confiscated and destroyed. If it's stolen, then the owner doesn't get it back and is not given a waiver to purchase a new gun. He lost his. Too bad.

I can guarentee you that this will curb gun violence significantly.


Actually it does.......The right to bear armS
 
2013-01-11 02:17:51 PM

mrshowrules:  Prove your sanity, lawful intent and proper training to get a gun (as if you were in an actual militia or something).


Would someone have to prove they are sane in order to vote? Or run for office?
 
2013-01-11 02:21:43 PM

HeartBurnKid: paygun: Sounds good. Let's play these games with other civil rights too.

Stop by a voter ID thread some time. You'll hear all sorts of folks champing at the bit to play these games with other civil rights.


Yep. Don't like those games with *any* of our civil rights.

/they all are important
//member - NRA
//member - ACLU, too!
 
2013-01-11 02:27:16 PM

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

...now that's a good argument for banning guns. Forget handguns, I want a disruptor.

It better not be a Varon-T disruptor. Those are banned.


Be careful buying one from a Klingon.

"These arms are of course all inexpensive sonics. No translator technology has been supplied. The sale is aided by the fact that Federation machines translate all vird'dakaasei. as disrupter, regardless of their actual operating mode. ..."
 
2013-01-11 10:46:54 PM

sugar_fetus: Would someone have to prove they are sane in order to vote? Or run for office?


If a schizophrenic gets his hands on a ballot, will two dozen fifth graders end up dead?

Restrictions on firearm ownership there to reduce the risk to the public. That doesn't mean we need to put equal restrictions on all other non-hazardous behavior, just to make some kind of derpy point.
 
2013-01-11 11:42:25 PM

Xcott: sugar_fetus: Would someone have to prove they are sane in order to vote? Or run for office?

If a schizophrenic gets his hands on a ballot, will two dozen fifth graders end up dead?

Restrictions on firearm ownership there to reduce the risk to the public. That doesn't mean we need to put equal restrictions on all other non-hazardous behavior, just to make some kind of derpy point.


Enough voters allowed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to happen. How many fifth graders were killed in those? Does that count as enough deaths?

/yeah, illustrating the absurd by being absurd
//what the hell? there's enough absurdity in this thread.
///the whole debate is absurd.
 
2013-01-12 09:22:13 PM

sugar_fetus: Xcott: If a schizophrenic gets his hands on a ballot, will two dozen fifth graders end up dead?

Enough voters allowed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to happen. How many fifth graders were killed in those? Does that count as enough deaths?


Oh ho? So when did we hold the election to decide whether to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

This is a ridiculous point, though: letting a dangerous schizophrenic vote does not, in any sense of the word, get someone killed. If we had banned all dangerous schizophrenics from voting, would we not have invaded Iraq? This is utterly unlike giving a dangerous schizophrenic a stash of firearms.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report