Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(LA Times)   Well, it's time to reset the "days until we can talk about gun control" counter back to zero again   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 741
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19292 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 04:08:17 PM  

whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


They. Are. The. Same. Gun. They don't just look or function the same, under the wood and plastic they are identical. The differences are purely cosmetic. Here's another example for you:

www.budsgunshop.com

Is this an assault weapon?

And holy damn that image was a lot bigger than I thought.

whidbey: Answer the question first. Then I might answer yours.


I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. I don't think my line for 'too dangerous' lies anywhere near yours though.

Batter up.
 
2013-01-10 04:09:00 PM  

chuckufarlie:
It is a simple and true statement. You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt.


What does 'need' have to do with anything?

When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?
 
2013-01-10 04:09:38 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: heypete: whidbey: I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

Please demonstrate that prohibiting the features of the rifle shown in the second picture would produce a demonstrable benefit. Explain how those features remaining legal causes harm.


I believe that there needs to be a strict legal definition as to the appearance and function of that firearm. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On the contrary: he may in fact be stupid.

Uncalled for. Your entire attitude in these threads is of a bullying nature. I seriously object to your posting style.
 
2013-01-10 04:10:35 PM  

whidbey: I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


upload.wikimedia.org

It's the same farking gun. It's the SAME FARKING GUN. IT'S THE SAME MOTHERFARKING DOGD@MNED FARKING GUN!

FARK!
 
2013-01-10 04:10:42 PM  

whidbey: the money is in the banana stand: whidbey: GoldSpider: GoldSpider: whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.

I'll wait.

So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?

If someone is mad or crazy enough to want to murder somebody or go on a spree, I am pretty sure that restricted access to "assault" weapons is not going to stop that. Another weapon will fill that niche.

Or not. He might forget the whole thing.

Running into a room with a shotgun or pistol will have probably the same outcome. I don't own any "assault" weapons or have the desire to.

Speculation.


As is your point of view. Except my "speculation" is more logical than saying it would be a deterrent and stop mass shootings and prevent murders.
 
2013-01-10 04:10:48 PM  

sugar_fetus: chuckufarlie:
It is a simple and true statement. You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt.

What does 'need' have to do with anything?

When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?


When one has nothing to back up their argument but emotions and hyperbole?
 
2013-01-10 04:11:09 PM  

whidbey: If the top example could really be justified in the use of hunting, then that is a reasonable exception to the ban.


Well, that model is marketed and most generally purchased for plinking and/or varmint hunting (in fact, that model is called a Ranch Rifle, the idea is to have a robust, reliable, versatile gun). The second example is what happens when people decide they don't like the looks of the first. It's a cosmetic change.
 
2013-01-10 04:11:28 PM  

chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.


By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?
 
2013-01-10 04:11:35 PM  

sugar_fetus: When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?


To each according to his need. Says so right in the constitution.
 
2013-01-10 04:12:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.


So you would ban both guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:12:12 PM  

3StratMan: in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government.


Where does the 2nd amendment say this?
 
2013-01-10 04:12:30 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: heypete: whidbey: I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

Please demonstrate that prohibiting the features of the rifle shown in the second picture would produce a demonstrable benefit. Explain how those features remaining legal causes harm.

I believe that there needs to be a strict legal definition as to the appearance and function of that firearm. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On the contrary: he may in fact be stupid.

Uncalled for. Your entire attitude in these threads is of a bullying nature. I seriously object to your posting style.


Your objections do not alter the fact that your advocacy remains unjustified.
 
2013-01-10 04:13:31 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Answer the question first. Then I might answer yours.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. I don't think my line for 'too dangerous' lies anywhere near yours though.

Batter up.


We should reinstate the AWB, allow it to be law for more than 10 years and then take it from there.

And yeah, if that means a huge rise in the use of other military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc) then yeah, we're going to be having this same discussion again.

The issue is whether we as a society should be attempting to limit dangerous weapons based on incidents like school shootings. And I say yes, it's only a natural progression at this point in our societal development.
 
2013-01-10 04:14:23 PM  

whidbey: I believe that there needs to be a strict legal definition as to the appearance and function of that firearm. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


What does appearance have to do with anything? How does the look of a gun affect its performance? The reason your argument is so hard to understand is that you're saying that when it comes to speeding, a 450 big block is acceptable in a Civic but not a Mustang. They are going to actually do the same damn thing, but one won't look like it will.
 
2013-01-10 04:14:41 PM  

Dimensio: Your objections do not alter the fact that your advocacy remains unjustified.


More like you don't care to acknowledge that particular advocacy.
 
2013-01-10 04:14:47 PM  

sugar_fetus: chuckufarlie:
It is a simple and true statement. You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt.

What does 'need' have to do with anything?

When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?


It's the secret "Needs" amendment to the constitution. Little does the public know that the Bill of Rights no longer addresses rights, it is now the Bill of Needs. Those needs being arbitrarily defined by those who invoke the Bill of Needs' existence.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:09 PM  

whidbey: And yeah, if that means a huge rise in the use of other military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc) then yeah, we're going to be having this same discussion again.


Without a doubt anymore, we have all been trolled. Well-played, sir.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:10 PM  
Wow, I graduated from Taft High in 1983.

Trippy.
 
2013-01-10 04:15:40 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


Nope. But since gun bans didn't work in Chicago and D.C. either, I've come to assume neither do people who focus on the tools instead of the people who act so horribly.

You, good sir or madam, have just experienced the same kind of cognitive dissonance I experience every single time someone says banning guns will stop gun violence and I think to myself, "um, isn't the problem the violence part? Why do they focus on the gun part?".
 
2013-01-10 04:15:43 PM  

whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


Mossberg 464:
lh4.googleusercontent.com

Mossberg 464 SPX:
lh6.googleusercontent.com

Exact same weapon.
 
2013-01-10 04:16:23 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: Your objections do not alter the fact that your advocacy remains unjustified.

More like you don't care to acknowledge that particular advocacy.


I have in fact repeatedly requested a rational justification for your accuracy. You have consistently refused to provide such. You have provided absolutely no demonstration that prohibiting pistol grip, collapsing stocks or bayonet lugs on semi-automatic rifles is justified.
 
2013-01-10 04:16:40 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: I believe that there needs to be a strict legal definition as to the appearance and function of that firearm. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What does appearance have to do with anything? How does the look of a gun affect its performance? The reason your argument is so hard to understand is that you're saying that when it comes to speeding, a 450 big block is acceptable in a Civic but not a Mustang. They are going to actually do the same damn thing, but one won't look like it will.


To me there is a huge difference in the purpose of either of those weapons. I don't think I can convince you otherwise.
 
2013-01-10 04:16:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: why not? It is not what the gun looks like, it is what it does that matters. Both guns are capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time.


Just making sure you were being consistent. Hard to find that 'round these parts anymore.

How many rounds do you suppose are in those magazines?
 
2013-01-10 04:17:01 PM  

dr_blasto: 3StratMan: in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government.

Where does the 2nd amendment say this?


Right next to "right to keep and bear muskets and only muskets."
 
2013-01-10 04:17:01 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.

By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?

Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.


Thank you for admitting that you are in fact an authoritarian fascist in addition to a liar.
 
2013-01-10 04:17:37 PM  
This wouldn't have even been news six months ago. Mods are just greenlighting anything that will keep the libs in a tizzy. Stay classy, mods.
 
2013-01-10 04:17:48 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: Your objections do not alter the fact that your advocacy remains unjustified.

More like you don't care to acknowledge that particular advocacy.

I have in fact repeatedly requested a rational justification for your accuracy. You have consistently refused to provide such. You have provided absolutely no demonstration that prohibiting pistol grip, collapsing stocks or bayonet lugs on semi-automatic rifles is justified.


Well then you're not reading my posts.
 
2013-01-10 04:17:58 PM  
I don't think the problem is guns. I think the problem is American culture.

This isn't going to stop unless you change the culture.

And I don't think that's possible.
 
2013-01-10 04:18:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.


Ya see, the police will be confiscating the illegal guns while rounding up all the illegal immigrants.
 
2013-01-10 04:18:20 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.

By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?

Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.


So, drugs are legally purchased and then become illegal? Nice apples and oranges there, buddy.
 
2013-01-10 04:18:59 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: And yeah, if that means a huge rise in the use of other military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc) then yeah, we're going to be having this same discussion again.

Without a doubt anymore, we have all been trolled. Well-played, sir.


Just stop it. Nobody's trolling you, or anyone.

Maybe you should just lurk the rest of the thread.
 
2013-01-10 04:19:02 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: Your objections do not alter the fact that your advocacy remains unjustified.

More like you don't care to acknowledge that particular advocacy.

I have in fact repeatedly requested a rational justification for your accuracy. You have consistently refused to provide such. You have provided absolutely no demonstration that prohibiting pistol grip, collapsing stocks or bayonet lugs on semi-automatic rifles is justified.

Well then you're not reading my posts.


You are mistaken: I have read your postings. In absolutely none of your postings have you demonstrated a rational justification for prohibiting such features on rifles. You have asserted that such a prohibition is justified, but your assertions are not themselves a demonstration.
 
2013-01-10 04:19:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: sugar_fetus:
What does 'need' have to do with anything?

When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?

If you had not been so dishonest that you removed my explanation, you would not have to ask this question. I already explained why you do not need one.

If you miss, the animal will be long gone before you can shoot again, unless you want to send three or four slugs down range from the start.

If you wound the animal and it can still get away, it will do so at a speed making a second shot worthless. If it is disabled to the point that it staggers off, it is not going to go far. It is, for all practical purposes, already dead.


I'll ask the question that you ignored again:

When have we predicated Constitutionally-protected rights on a person's 'need'?


/Hey look! I can use markup, too
//sweet!
 
2013-01-10 04:19:37 PM  
TITLE XI--FIREARMS
Subtitle A--Assault Weapons
SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
SEC. 110104. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.
SEC. 110106. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18.
`
Subtitle C--Licensure
SEC. 110301. FIREARMS LICENSURE AND REGISTRATION TO REQUIRE A PHOTOGRAPH AND FINGERPRINTS.
SEC. 110302. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAW AS A CONDITION TO LICENSE.
SEC. 110303. ACTION ON FIREARMS LICENSE APPLICATION.
SEC. 110304. INSPECTION OF FIREARMS LICENSEES' INVENTORY AND RECORDS.
SEC. 110305. REPORTS OF THEFT OR LOSS OF FIREARMS.
SEC. 110306. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
SEC. 110307. NOTIFICATION OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF FIREARMS LICENSEES.

Subtitle D--Domestic Violence

Subtitle E--Gun Crime Penalties
SEC. 110501. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR USE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM DURING A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.
SEC. 110502. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR SECOND OFFENSE OF USING AN EXPLOSIVE TO COMMIT A FELONY.
SEC. 110503. SMUGGLING FIREARMS IN AID OF DRUG TRAFFICKING.
SEC. 110504. THEFT OF FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES.
SEC. 110505. REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AFTER IMPRISONMENT.
SEC. 110506. REVOCATION OF PROBATION.
SEC. 110508. POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES BY FELONS AND OTHERS.
SEC. 110509. SUMMARY DESTRUCTION OF EXPLOSIVES SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE.
SEC. 110510. ELIMINATION OF OUTMODED LANGUAGE RELATING TO PAROLE.
SEC. 110511. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING STOLEN FIREARMS WHICH HAVE MOVED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.
SEC. 110512. USING A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF COUNTERFEITING OR FORGERY.
SEC. 110513. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR FIREARMS POSSESSION BY VIOLENT FELONS AND SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDERS.
SEC. 110514. RECEIPT OF FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENT.
SEC. 110515. THEFT OF FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES FROM LICENSEE.
SEC. 110516. DISPOSING OF EXPLOSIVES TO PROHIBITED PERSONS.
SEC. 110517. INCREASED PENALTY FOR INTERSTATE GUN TRAFFICKING.
SEC. 110518. FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES CONSPIRACY.
SEC. 110519. DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.


The cosmetic changes section gets harped on over and over, but that was just one of 18 different sections that expired.

Fine I'll give it to you that one, the next AWB shouldn't contain that section. Lets put some of the others back in without the sunset provision.
 
2013-01-10 04:19:41 PM  

TerminalEchoes: keep the libs in a tizzy


Really? Seriously? "The 'libs' in a tizzy"? Mother of moose.
 
2013-01-10 04:19:44 PM  

whidbey: military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc)


It's statements like this that point out (not to you, I realize that) just how ignorant you are on the subject of guns. You want to ban certain models on their appearance. You want to ban 'military-style weapons', but you don't even know what they are. Once you get past 'guns can kill people', you don't have the slightest farking clue what you are saying, yet you think you are still qualified to speak on the subject. And when your ignorance is pointed out to you, you simply claim that it's irrelevant as if that makes it ok.
 
2013-01-10 04:20:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.

By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?

Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.


Read the Constitution, specifically the part forbidding bills of attainder and laws passed ex post facto. Also try the 4th adn 5th Amendments. There's an inherent flaw in your argument. Can you spot it?
 
2013-01-10 04:21:10 PM  
Did the shooter use an "assault rifle?"

BAN ASSAULT RIFLES!

Or did the shooter use a handgun?

BAN ASSAULT RIFLES ANYWAY!
 
2013-01-10 04:21:29 PM  

Ishkur: I don't think the problem is guns. I think the problem is American culture.

This isn't going to stop unless you change the culture.

And I don't think that's possible.


I believe one depends on the other. Yeah we have this amazingly violent culture, but we also have dangerous weapons readily available to the populace, and any attempt to regulate said availability gets jumped on by the NRA and other gun advocates.

We should be looking at having less guns in our society, period. But I'm willing to make concessions for hunters or those who need weapons to survive.
 
2013-01-10 04:21:34 PM  

whidbey: To me there is a huge difference in the purpose of either of those weapons.


That's because you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2013-01-10 04:21:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: CthulhuCalling: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

Mossberg 464:
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 625x150]

Mossberg 464 SPX:
[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 625x152]

Exact same weapon.

ban them both.


Now I know you're trolling.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:06 PM  

kombat_unit: Maestro1701: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

Yeah, let's just tell those 26 families in Connecticut to shut the fark up and smile, because overall, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, so they shouldn't be making a big deal out of it. That makes everything OK, right?

RIGHT?

My my, those are very large crocodile tears.


That level of douchebaggery can only come from New York or Los Angeles. [checks your profile]

Los Angeles, got it.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:16 PM  

whidbey: And yeah, if that means a huge rise in the use of other military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc) then yeah, we're going to be having this same discussion again.


Right here. This is the reason we can't have any discussion about guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:34 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: heypete: whidbey: I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

Please demonstrate that prohibiting the features of the rifle shown in the second picture would produce a demonstrable benefit. Explain how those features remaining legal causes harm.

I believe that there needs to be a strict legal definition as to the appearance and function of that firearm. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On the contrary: he may in fact be stupid.

Uncalled for. Your entire attitude in these threads is of a bullying nature. I seriously object to your posting style.


0/10 troll action.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:35 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Answer the question first. Then I might answer yours.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea. I don't think my line for 'too dangerous' lies anywhere near yours though.

Batter up.

We should reinstate the AWB, allow it to be law for more than 10 years and then take it from there.

And yeah, if that means a huge rise in the use of other military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc) then yeah, we're going to be having this same discussion again.

The issue is whether we as a society should be attempting to limit dangerous weapons based on incidents like school shootings. And I say yes, it's only a natural progression at this point in our societal development.


Ah so if we are at such an advanced stage in our societal development, why then is it not enough to use physical restraint to not abuse a firearm but instead you need to have the government actively take it away from citizens? If we as a society are progressing properly, then the need for firearms should dwindle and crimes involving a firearm should decrease. At which point, you should not need to take away anything because your "progressive" society has reached a point where violent crime almost ceases to exist. You and I both know that this is a utopian fairy tale.

There are already laws in place. You cannot stop somebody from choosing to break it. We have speed limits, does that limit the speed in which I can drive? No. So because I free-willingly can choose to ignore said limit and drive faster, should cars all be outfitted with governors disallowing them from exceeding the posted limits? What you and others advocate is the government taking anything potentially harmful or that does not fit within your realm of a perfect society and limiting freedoms.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:43 PM  

Ishkur: I don't think the problem is guns. I think the problem is American culture.

This isn't going to stop unless you change the culture.

And I don't think that's possible.


That is quite the case and yet, cultures constantly revise and redefine themselves along the lines of refined technology. Which technologies you refine and how you apply them has a lot to do with the culture that emerges. So far, we're stuck somewhere between "ooh, shiny!" and "what'r yew lookin' at, summab*tch?" It needs work.
 
2013-01-10 04:22:49 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.

By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?

Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.

Thank you for admitting that you are in fact an authoritarian fascist in addition to a liar.

You don't know what those words mean, do you?

If something is illegal, then it is illegal. What part of that do you not understand?


You are advocating depriving millions of law-abiding citizens of billions of dollars worth of their property without any compensation. Such a measure would result in substantially increased rates of noncompliance as compared to a system where fair compensation were provided, and would create a black market for firearm owners who wished to rid themselves of contraband property but who also wished to receive some compensation for their loss. Your proposal would substantially reduce any possible improved "safety" -- due to the larger rates of noncompliance and the substantial incentive for feeding a black market -- than would a compensation system. As such, you are demonstrably not actually interested in increasing "safety"; your proposal is specifically intended to oppress a class of individuals, which is consistent with authoritarian fascism.
 
2013-01-10 04:23:04 PM  

dr_blasto: Dynascape: You need to show an ID to buy ammo. Hell, you need to show ID to buy a cigarette lighter in my state.

Incorrect on the first part. You can purchase ammo by the case and have it shipped to your door without any ID.


Depends on the state you live in. In CA, you have to show ID, and sellers cannot ship it to you legally. The law obviously worked perfectly in this case.
 
2013-01-10 04:23:26 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: military-style weapons use (handguns, glocks, etc)

It's statements like this that point out (not to you, I realize that) just how ignorant you are on the subject of guns. You want to ban certain models on their appearance. You want to ban 'military-style weapons', but you don't even know what they are. Once you get past 'guns can kill people', you don't have the slightest farking clue what you are saying, yet you think you are still qualified to speak on the subject. And when your ignorance is pointed out to you, you simply claim that it's irrelevant as if that makes it ok.


I'm just as qualified as anyone else who opposes gun violence, F.A.T..

And if you really care about what I should know, then I would appreciate some links that deal with some of the specifics.

But to me, this is primarily a values argument.
 
2013-01-10 04:25:04 PM  

whidbey: And if you really care about what I should know, then I would appreciate some links that deal with some of the specifics.


Says the person who claims the AWB was a "huge deterrent" yet cannot produce any evidence to support said claim.
 
Displayed 50 of 741 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report