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.

(New York Senate)   The actual new & crazy legislation from NYS. Fark might have to create a New York tag   (open.nysenate.gov) divider line 231
    More: Asinine, New York, aggravated murder, order of protection, for sale by owner, revocations, minimum sentence, third degree, registered owner  
•       •       •

3611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 02:31:05 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."
 
2013-01-15 02:31:28 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.


Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.
 
2013-01-15 02:33:15 PM

queezyweezel: So I can keep my 10-30 round magazine, but I break the law if I put more than 7 rounds in it. GOT IT.

/So f*cking dumb....


I can keep my car, but I'm breaking the law if I put more than 5 people in it. My car can seat up to 30 circus-folk; what gives, COMMUNIST States of Commierica?
 
2013-01-15 02:35:38 PM

queezyweezel: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)


Intelligent and entertaining, like iraqveteran8888 and the guys from Moss Pawn... and unlike FPS (I don't enjoy him anyway, to each their own)
 
2013-01-15 02:36:24 PM

flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."


The mag capacity just seems so... arbitrary... though.

10 was the old limit in NY state. Is there anything stating what kind of magazines the Sandy Hook shooter used? I'm willing to bet it's higher than 10, or 15 (what New Jersey uses, IIRC). If you're already on the low end, and no real shootings occurred under the old law... then why bother with changing? Furthermore, I can't think of a good source for 7 round magazines for any rifle, "assault weapon" or not. Five-rounders aren't easy to find, either.

It's just so... hackneyed. It's feel-good legislation, at least with the "assault weapon" provisions.
 
2013-01-15 02:38:20 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.

Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.


So... you're not going to try and get at the truth?

Why should I take you seriously, then? I want to, man.

thumbnails.hulu.com

Help me Alex... help me... help you. Help me... help you.
 
2013-01-15 02:38:42 PM

queezyweezel: Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)


I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness
 
2013-01-15 02:39:12 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Bans of cosmetic or superfluous firearm features are completely useless and an egregious trampling of our liberty.


Pretty much the definition of arbitrary and capricious. I guess the only benefit is that some politicans and folks that don't know any better now feel better about themselves.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:26 PM

Lost Thought 00: queezyweezel: Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)

I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Not quite sure where you're headed with that statement.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:45 PM

Marine1: If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.


So then they just spray bullets in the direction of the flashlight.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:47 PM

Lost Thought 00:
I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Only so long as you didn't miss the first time.
 
2013-01-15 02:41:46 PM

Gosling: Marine1: If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

So then they just spray bullets in the direction of the flashlight.


I'd rather get the target right.
 
2013-01-15 02:42:09 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.

Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.

So... you're not going to try and get at the truth?

Why should I take you seriously, then? I want to, man.

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 512x288]

Help me Alex... help me... help you. Help me... help you.


Oh I think we've established the truth that you would be willing to use your weapon under conditions that are unsafe and unwise. I Pity anyone who has the misfortune to leave near a hazard like you.
 
2013-01-15 02:43:25 PM

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00:
I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness

Only so long as you didn't miss the first time.


If you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense), then there won't be a second time. Cowboy style shootouts where you empty your clip and reload just don't happen
 
2013-01-15 02:44:27 PM

Lost Thought 00: If you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense)


Not always true
 
2013-01-15 02:44:50 PM
Like a lot of people, I've been thinking more and more about guns and laws to effectively limit the amount of damage a crazy person can do with them.

Honestly, I'm at a complete loss. Any state that passes a law is fine and good, but in all likelihood there's another state within a couple hundred miles that can legally sell whatever it is you happen to ban in your own state. The borders between states are pretty much non-existent from a security standpoint so the flow of whatever features so-and-so wants on his gun isn't so much a function of availability, merely tolerance for knowingly breaking the law.

I think the real problem, the big problem here is not the guns themselves. Nor is it the way that guns are portrayed in the media (movies, TV, videogames... you name it). You can watch and consume American style media anywhere on the planet... hell, in Canuckistan, where I am right now, you are almost purely are exposed to US media.

So what's the root cause? I think it's the way that the 2nd Amendment is so romantically intertwined with modern "patriotism". There is a link in the minds of many Americans between freedom and guns. There is a fondness for guns that you really don't tend to see in any other nation. There's also a big swinging dick mentality that a lone citizen... inexperienced in real life at taking fire and returning fire on live opponents... can save a group of other citizens in a public place from a planned surprise attack by being armed with a handgun. I don't think that fantasy is as ingrained in average citizens of other nations.

Add to this a nation that has a rather lacking public mental health system and you've got a recipe for what's been happening. Availability, romance and mental illness... how do you legislate against that?

/And don't look at me, I don't have an answer for that...

I think all of this has made
 
2013-01-15 02:45:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: queezyweezel: So I can keep my 10-30 round magazine, but I break the law if I put more than 7 rounds in it. GOT IT.

/So f*cking dumb....

I can keep my car, but I'm breaking the law if I put more than 5 people in it. My car can seat up to 30 circus-folk; what gives, COMMUNIST States of Commierica?


What I'm saying is that this section of the bill is completely toothless.  (I'd personally rather have it this way instead of calling for the destruction of any magazines with a capacity of zeven or more rounds, but it will do NOTHING to cut down on crime)
 
2013-01-15 02:46:10 PM
I feel like taking away America's guns would do the same as lowering the drinking age to 13--we'd go full retard. We're a nation of irresponsible morons who acts like petulant children when asked to adhere to rules. The latter part of my analogy stands, however, in the sense that we simply lack the ability to act farking responsibly when it comes to, well, anything.

I loathe guns. It's too much power for any one person to have. Ever. And I mean principally you "responsible" guns owners--so don't give me the "Well, when someone breaks into your house..." argument--I wish they didn't have access almost as much as I wish you didn't. Since they've evolved from a tool to whatever you'd currently call them, they've frankly caused much more harm than good. And I'm frankly not sure you can do fark all about it.
 
2013-01-15 02:48:37 PM
Fark might have to create a New York tag

No. Florida is special. You are not. Deal with it.
 
2013-01-15 02:49:59 PM

Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),


? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?
 
2013-01-15 02:50:59 PM

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),

? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?


Both you and him blind gives you the upper hand how exactly?
 
2013-01-15 02:56:46 PM
De facto confiscation of magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds, criminal charges for anyone who puts more than seven rounds in any magazine, any so-called assault weapon can't be sold to another civilian in New York, gun registration (not that they would ever think to use said registry for future confiscation, right)...wow, just wow.

Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.
 
2013-01-15 02:58:36 PM

jst3p: HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),

? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?

Both you and him blind gives you the upper hand how exactly?


Hmmmmm... this would be an interesting case for mythbusters. As humans we are really visual creatures. What would be the likelihood of getting flashed across the eyes (when your eyes are adjusted for darkness) by a flashlight and then accurately returning fire?

I tend agree with Marine1, myself. Even if carrying a flashlight with you when you go in search of home invaders puts you at more risk than if you snuck around like some kind of gun ninja, I'd much rather take that risk to make sure I'm shooting at an honest to goodness prowler than little Timmy who woke up hungry and figured he could swipe a cookie from the kitchen.

Now, personally... I would probably yell out that I was calling 911 and any sane criminal would just leave the house. If it were anyone who was supposed to be there, they'd probably answer me back. If it's a super insane home invader, they'll either rush you (and NOW you use your gun) or they'll lie in wait where you actually call 911 and barricade yourself and your family in the bedroom.
 
2013-01-15 02:59:08 PM

Marine1: The mag capacity just seems so... arbitrary... though.


For most gun violence, yeah. But you can argue that requiring four mag changes for the number of rounds that can be fired with one current mag will have an impact specific to mass killings, especially when there's a pattern of the killers taking their own lives as soon as they hear sirens... a handful of seconds could mean a handful of lives there. And targeting mass killings may not have a measurable effect on gun violence overall, but mass killings do have a very different impact on the national psyche, and that matters.
 
2013-01-15 03:02:02 PM
Do admins greenlight these headlines in order to shame wingnut submitters, or are they themselves shameless?
 
2013-01-15 03:04:39 PM
Mercutio74:
Now, personally... I would probably yell out that I was calling 911 and any sane criminal would just leave the house. If it were anyone who was supposed to be there, they'd probably answer me back. If it's a super insane home invader, they'll either rush you (and NOW you use your gun) or they'll lie in wait where you actually call 911 and barricade yourself and your family in the bedroom.

What you describe is actually the right and safest thing to do(especially if you have a family to protect), but most gun nuts would never do it because they just want to kill someone legally. House intruder stories are like wet dreams to gun nuts.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:12 PM

State_College_Arsonist: De facto confiscation of magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds, criminal charges for anyone who puts more than seven rounds in any magazine, any so-called assault weapon can't be sold to another civilian in New York, gun registration (not that they would ever think to use said registry for future confiscation, right)...wow, just wow.

Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.


Yup.  And people are looking down on us for the simple act of wanting the Government to leave us alone.  Some want the Government to protect them from everything that COULD go wrong.  I just want them to provide me with infrastructure.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:36 PM
And given that the AWB itself is way, way more contentious nationally than just limiting magazine capacity, I really wish they would try to pass a mag cap law on its own, THEN try to craft and pass a ban on certain weapons and features of weapons, instead of trying to package it all together. I think the mag cap alone has a much higher chance of passing. And then, at the very least, if the AWB goes nowhere, you've at least got what I think is the effective part already in place.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:39 PM

State_College_Arsonist: Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.


I don't know. You could run it so that you don't have to run a separate check everytime someone buys ammo. You could simply start a database and then if you're registered in that "safe to buy ammo" database simply use picture ID everytime you buy. The start up cost would be front loaded so there shouldn't be a long term issue with ammunition cost. If the ammo companies and retailers don't have to fund the database themselves (for example, maybe the state is paying for it) then the price shouldn't go up at all.

And I don't know, but this bill seems to not infringe on the ability of people to run a well regulated militia. You just can't do it with a lot of bullets in your gun at one time nor with a selection of bells and whistles that you generally find on military-purposed guns. I guess unless you happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment should allow for unrestricted use of armaments.
 
2013-01-15 03:06:30 PM

DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongerin

g

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.
 
2013-01-15 03:15:52 PM

Mercutio74: And I don't know, but this bill seems to not infringe on the ability of people to run a well regulated militia. You just can't do it with a lot of bullets in your gun at one time nor with a selection of bells and whistles that you generally find on military-purposed guns. I guess unless you happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment should allow for unrestricted use of armaments.


By defining the Second Amendment as essentially worthless, of course the new bans and regulations won't infringe upon the right to bear arms. What a surprise.
 
2013-01-15 03:18:59 PM

SlothB77: DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.


Both side in this one are fearmongering.

"OH noes! You might get shot!"

vs.

"OH noes! They gonna take all the guns then we can't protect our other rights!"
 
2013-01-15 03:19:08 PM
About farking time. While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it.

This bill should be a national standard for all gun bills. I for one have had enought of crazy wackos and your creepy fetish leading to the deaths of thousands of americans.

fark you. And suck my big fat gun hating dick.
 
2013-01-15 03:22:53 PM

electronicmaji: While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it


How weird is it that we can say that now? I haven't seen the words "Albany" and "functional" in the same sentence in years.
 
2013-01-15 03:22:55 PM

Marine1: t's already a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus, and has been for quite a while at the national level.


Could you point me to something that says that please?
 
2013-01-15 03:24:10 PM
I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.
 
2013-01-15 03:25:04 PM

spickus: Could you point me to something that says that please?


Agreed. Citation needed indeed.

/Can carry perfectly legally on school grounds, just not in the actual building (in TX, at least).
//30.06 sign FTW
 
2013-01-15 03:26:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?


But of course it is. We'll FEEL better, doncha see?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 03:26:21 PM

SlothB77: DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.


Yep.
 
2013-01-15 03:29:10 PM

queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.


Actually, flash suppressors are generally designed so the *SHOOTER* isn't blinded by the shot at night. It has pretty much zero effect on the other end of the gun.
 
2013-01-15 03:30:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.


I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA
 
2013-01-15 03:30:37 PM

Marine1: 10 was the old limit in NY state. Is there anything stating what kind of magazines the Sandy Hook shooter used? I'm willing to bet it's higher than 10, or 15 (what New Jersey uses, IIRC). If you're already on the low end, and no real shootings occurred under the old law... then why bother with changing? Furthermore, I can't think of a good source for 7 round magazines for any rifle, "assault weapon" or not. Five-rounders aren't easy to find, either.


The shooter at Sandy Hook used 30-round magazines (the standard for AR-15s for, what, 40 years now?). He fired something like 100 shots in 10-15 minutes, so his overall rate of fire wasn't terribly high. Reports indicate that he was changing magazines really frequently, often changing 30-round mags with 15 rounds still remaining.

The Virginia Tech shooter used 10 and 15 round handgun mags (standard for those particular guns) and reloaded frequently. The Aurora shooter has a 100-round magazine that jammed, so he switched to some other gun. The Columbine shooters used a mix, ranging from double-barrel shotguns to guns with larger magazines. In none of these cases did the shooters meet any sort of resistance when changing magazines or weapons until the police arrived. The only situation where it might be relevant was the Tucson shooter, where he fumbled a reload and dropped the magazine and some attentive person grabbed it. If he was slightly further away or simply backed up while grabbing a fresh mag it wouldn't have really made any difference.

Yes, restricting magazine capacity could theoretically have some effect on mass shooters...but there's not really any evidence that backs up such ideas so there's no real justification for restricting them other than saying "I'm doing something!". There's zero justification for restricting capacities from 10 to 7 rounds. That's just asinine.
 
2013-01-15 03:32:24 PM

electronicmaji: About farking time. While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it.

This bill should be a national standard for all gun bills. I for one have had enought of crazy wackos and your creepy fetish leading to the deaths of thousands of americans.

fark you. And suck my big fat gun hating dick.


Nice. +1.

"creepy fetish" is spot-on.
 
2013-01-15 03:32:58 PM

Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?
 
2013-01-15 03:34:31 PM

electronicmaji: I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-15 03:36:04 PM

sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?


Has there been a sensible any response to the reasoning behind banning bayonet lugs yet? Not to rehash if there has been, I'm curious.
 
2013-01-15 03:37:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.


>GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM! MENTAL HEALTH! MENTAL HEAAAAALLLLLTH!

>>Ok, here are some ways to address that end of it. Actual preventative measures, not after the fact check ups to verify that a killer had issues.

>OMG LIBERTIES
 
2013-01-15 03:39:30 PM

State_College_Arsonist: By defining the Second Amendment as essentially worthless, of course the new bans and regulations won't infringe upon the right to bear arms. What a surprise.


Well that's the problem when you're talking about a document written when "bearing arms" was limited by the very fastest guns firing at a rate of 2-3 shots per minute... and that was in the hands of a quality soldier who drilled on the loading and firing of the guns as part of his job.

Also, even a casual reading of the 2nd amendment clearly suggests that the intent wasn't for everyone to go around with two shootin' irons at their side. It's about protecting the citizenry from a tyrannical government... not about protecting your one bedroom apartment from someone coming in through the fire escape. The idea seems to be that citizens would run and arm an organized militia that would serve to defend the town or city or state or whatever from corrupt men exercising the unilateral and self-serving power of say... a monarch.

This is not to say that people shouldn't be able to own guns under controlled circumstances with a decent reason (like hunters or target shooters). It's simply that the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to suggest that the constitution protects any right of an individual to buy a gun just in case some crook tries to "make his day".
 
2013-01-15 03:43:50 PM

sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?


They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.
 
2013-01-15 03:44:30 PM

queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.


Um, look it up. The flash surpressor is not to help conceal the shooter, it's to help the visibility for the shooter in low light conditions.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report