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.

(AP)   President Obama has announced his new world order where Uncle Sam will now confiscate your gun...wait...what...those are, um, reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority. You may now cancel your outrage   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 1394
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25799 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1394 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
 
2013-01-16 02:40:04 PM
As a very pro-gun guy, I see no problem with these ideas. I do think that there needs to be more detail as far as reporting mental conditions to the authorities. Seems like it would make people less likely to come forward with their issues if they think they are going to get blacklisted.


This is A-OK with me as long as the AWB dies in Congress. Also, the New York gun law was clearly passed unconstitutionally and will hopefully be challenged in court.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:08 PM
Obama made pretty reasonable proposals, so I expect the hate machine to nearly burst a weld from excessive pressure.

- checks Limbaugh/Fox/etc.....Yep, seam burting, aneurism inducing rage well in progress.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:15 PM
tl;dr

So, how will this "ban" on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, or "assault weapons" work? You have 30 days to turn yours in, or what?
 
2013-01-16 02:40:18 PM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?

So you're saying we need to expand restrictions on hand guns too? Let's get on it.

No, it means that law-abiding people need handguns (or any weapon of their choosing, really) to defend themselves against the occasional spill-over threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.


What about from the white drug dealing gang members?

What Obama should really propose, in order to save the most lives, is a slate of proposals designed to eliminate the threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.

We have a few thousand laws on the books that should sate your racism.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:22 PM

lordjupiter: Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.


Hardly, by the time the long form version of these Executive Orders are revealed and the truth comes out it will be too late, the Feds would have rounded up all the law abiding gun owners and housed them in the empty boxcars that are lined up in the Dakotas.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:57 PM

Endive Wombat: Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.

Here's the thing.  It would be not impossible, but very difficult to stop private sale.  As it stands, in many states guns are not tracked, certainly not on a federal level.  So if this is a round about method in creating some kind of national registration system, I suspect that it will be extremely difficult to track and enforce, I mean hell...there's what... and estimated 300M guns in the US?

If they open the NICS to the public for free, that would be nice.  But if they do not get rid of private sale, the average citizen privately selling a gun has no compelling reason to use it.  Also, I sure as heck am not handing over a ton of personal information to some random dude I met off vaguntrader.com, that is just asking for all kinds of identity theft issues.


How is a private sale of a vehicle done? Should be the same method. All guns have a serial number, which means they are trackable the same as a vehicle's VIN.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:11 PM
Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:21 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Koalaesq: Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.

Well, yeah, but if he REALLY wanted to make gun violence drop like a stone he'd have to address out nation's drug laws. But that ain't happening in my lifetime or yours.

I may just be unreasonably optimistic, but the drug war seems to be receiving more and more negative attention.


Not as much as it deserves.
One can hope.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:38 PM
HE'S TAKING OUR GUNS!!!

BACK TO BENGHAZI!


these buffoons are quite predictable.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:48 PM
partiotic


Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up heroin methadone heroin.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:56 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Jim_Callahan: Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things.

Except it's not. The immensely influential NRA and its 4 million members have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep that loophole open repeatedly.


From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?
 
2013-01-16 02:41:56 PM
I occasionally barter for firearms. I wonder if the new regulations will require me to perform background checks before trading.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:02 PM

sodomizer: Still fascism


When do you start the revolution?
 
2013-01-16 02:42:05 PM

Jounville: He wants to get rid of armor piercing bullets?!? How am I supposed to hunt turtles now?

Thanks but no thanks O'Bummer!


And the packs of feral armadillos that freely roam Anson, Texas.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:19 PM

dennysgod: lordjupiter: Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.

Hardly, by the time the long form version of these Executive Orders are revealed and the truth comes out it will be too late, the Feds would have rounded up all the law abiding gun owners and housed them in the empty boxcars that are lined up in the Dakotas.


We can only hope.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:39 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.


I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?
 
2013-01-16 02:42:57 PM

USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.


He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner
 
2013-01-16 02:43:23 PM

Callous: It's not the dent in my wallet, it's that they won't use the money for what it's supposed to be for.  Just look at Massachusetts' temporary sales tax, cigarette taxes, and the Mass Pike tolls.  And I don't like putting requirements on constitutional rights.  We don't require permits and language courses before someone is allowed to speak in a vain attempt to prevent people from shouting FIRE in a theater.  We don't require writers to get permits and take mandatory courses before they can write a book.  We don't require people to get permits before they go to church.


You do have to have a permit for a rally. You do have to abide by certain restrictions when gathering for a protest (free speech zones). You do need to register a newly formed church with the government. You do have to register with the state to perform a marriage.

The first amendment isn't quite as absolute as some might believe.
 
2013-01-16 02:43:57 PM

Click Click D'oh: Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.


So, basically, you have no idea what duty to report is nor are you aware that care providers are already obligated by law under numerous circumstances to report certain types of injuries to law enforcement.

But you go ahead and pretend there isn't already a long-standing precedent for this type of law.

Click Click D'oh: A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.


They can already do that. They can seize virtually any of your private property if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred. A gun is not now and has never been exempt from that fact, all this does is change the rules so that law enforcement is allowed to check that you're actually allowed to own it before they give it back after the investigation.

But, again, why should you bother having any idea what you're talking about, right?

Click Click D'oh: If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello


Yea, there's going to be a criminal investigation because you got a jaywalking ticket you farking moron. I'll bet that happens all the time.

Click Click D'oh: Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer?


That's because you choose to listen to what the NRA says in its little dishonest soundbites instead of sticking with the words that, you know, actually came out of the president's mouth:

I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools


But, no, I'd hate to suggest you're completely full of shiat and just flailing aimlessly at a world that exists solely in your own imagination just because everything in your post proves that's true.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:03 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colin O'Scopy: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?

Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.

Maybe, depends on how it's enforced. Because, if you are talking about making even private sales require a background check, individuals (non-dealers) selling to another individual, you will need their 'voluntary' cooperation to make it happen. If they checks consist of a simple phone call, a quick response, minimal fee you will get a lot of cooperation. But, knowing how gun-controllers write regulations, I would expect 10 pages of paperwork, waiting periods, huge fees, etc., you will get far less cooperation and it will be useless.


Currently, it's a form and a phone call, about 10 minutes. It's not that big a deal, honestly. They ask some questions, you give some answers, and file some paperwork.

I don't see why this would be any different.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:11 PM

d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner


no you're a slashie fraud. I just heard him say it on farking tv.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:34 PM
img.youtube.com
I am the NRA!
 
2013-01-16 02:44:48 PM

LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: You contend that the majority of illegal guns ALL come from being stolen? By irresponsible gun owners who just let them lie around?

No, I do not have exact stats.  But some of the guns on the black market are stolen.  It matters not where I leave my guns in my house.  B&E is already illegal.  Theft is already illegal.  Me leaving my gun in my night stand is hardly irresponsible.

When your contention is that we shouldn't monitor sales, you're ignoring that source of illegal guns. By defending your need to keep guns lying around - and blaming that for the REST of the illegal guns - you're not making a strong point.


I see what you are saying, and I am not explaining myself well enough.  My issue is that this may nab a few people trying to by a gun when the cannot, but what it really does, (and I am speculating here, as we do not have any specifics), is that this has the very likely possibility in becoming massively inefficient and backlogged.  Especially if there are waiting periods, if there are high fees, it may be cost prohibitive for some...

Yeah, we need to do something about illegal weapons, but if you look at the recent mass shootings, all those guns were acquired legally by people who had passed background checks...just sayin'...so yeah, perhaps Sideshow Bob would not have been able to buy his cache of guns, but he made homemade explosives...so yeah...if the crazy and determined are ready to kill, they will use whatever means necessary.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:50 PM

USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.


Sandy Hook was a hoax! Wake up Sheeple! It's all part of the NRO!
 
2013-01-16 02:44:54 PM

orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.


Wish libs would just be honest about it. They want the 2nd, and the 4th at minimum to be at Obama's discretion. That is the real agenda. Quit hiding behind kids and emotions and just come out and say it.

I have a few 20 round magazines for my M1A. Under NY law, and pretty soon everywhere in blue states, I will be a criminal unless I turn them in? I will have to go get booked, fingerprinted and picture taken to keep weapons I own?

Oops, lost my weapons in the move officer.
 
2013-01-16 02:45:18 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.

I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


It's quiet.
Too quiet, kemosabe.

I think we are being pandered to.
 
2013-01-16 02:45:30 PM

abhorrent1: Ermahgerd! My Gerns


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-16 02:45:33 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: minoridiot: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.

I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?

No, but you should have to register them regardless.  No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.  The serials will be checked just to make sure they weren't previously used in a crime (which if they were, you'd likely not have been aware of it), but assuming all is good, then you get your registration, and go home.

Heck, to encourage folks in your scenario to register, I'd even offer the registration for free for guns previously purchased privately.


the government needs to know which citizens own guns.
don't ask why, just do as you're told.
and gbtw so you can pay them taxes.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:06 PM

This text is now purple: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Jim_Callahan: Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things.

Except it's not. The immensely influential NRA and its 4 million members have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep that loophole open repeatedly.

From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?


upload.wikimedia.org

I gave it to them in Gonzales v. Raich! In your face, pot growers!
 
2013-01-16 02:46:07 PM

Weaver95: so far, all the right people seem to oppose Obama's plans.  if the NRA or Rush Limbaugh are against something then it's probably a plan worth following.


Generally, I stand with the NRA, SAF, JPFO, GOA, etc. Most of the stuff they have backed and recommended has been pretty fair-minded, and they keep screaming that the issue is with the people who are using these guns, not the guns themselves. I think if people would stop and listen for a moment, and took some personal responsibility, things would be a lot different.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:09 PM

d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner



Don't bother, he chose the model number of a handgun as his screenname. That means he is a real, live American Internet Badass.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:15 PM
If you give B. Hussein an inch you know he'll take a mile. Background checks are his Sudetanland.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:20 PM
Oh, and I wonder why Cuomo threw away his chances for the White House in '16?

If the Administration really trades in its blue chips to try to get this passed, we will see a massive GOP resurgence in '16.

/can you say "President Good Hair Guy"?
//GOP extends lead in House
///retakes Senate
 
2013-01-16 02:46:28 PM

pottie: I occasionally barter for firearms. I wonder if the new regulations will require me to perform background checks before trading.


yes, it's TRANSFER a firearm to another individual. Doesn't matter if sale, trade, gift, inheritance, etc.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:32 PM
I am not too sure if GOP's plan of making it more of a pain in the ass to vote then it is to buy a damn guy will really work out well in their favor.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:33 PM

This text is now purple: From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?


You go ahead and put that in front of the Supreme Court and let me know how it turns out.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:52 PM

Kit Fister: Click Click D'oh: 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, if I get pulled over while carrying a gun, the police officer gets to keep it for six to eight weeks? Don't think so.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

You know... The NRA has been doing that for more than 100 years. Maybe if you would actually talk to them instead of vilify them at every turn...

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Yeah, okay sure. Wait, what kind of criminal investigations? If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello Fourth Amendment again. The firearm has to be pertinent to the crime to be searched and seized.

Bah, not like the Constitution stood a chance..

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer? Hang on... Did Obama just implement the NRAs suggestion? Obama must be the greatest troll ever. Not only does he get the whole left riled up against the NRA's "stupid" suggestion, he goes and implements it. LOL

Shhh, see, the idea is to get people like Weaver95 to feel like they came up with the ideas and get smug about it, so that we can watch them foam at the mouth when we explain they're agreeing with the NRA...


Many of those will end up being challenged in court and much of what he "requested" congress to fund is going to be answered by a polite " fark you".
 
2013-01-16 02:46:57 PM

Hagbardr: Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

That's why I've been sabotaging the invasion by moving road signs around. There have been a few fatal accidents from people blowing through intersections missing stop signs at 45 mph, but that is a small price to pay for freedom.


You are a true 'merican, sir. May God bake his face and shine apron you.
 
2013-01-16 02:47:00 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.


I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB? I haven't heard a single person make a reasonable argument why assault rifles should be freely available for anyone to purchase. The only arguments I have heard are nonsensical, completely disingenuous arguments like "assault rifles are impossible to define" and "an assault rifle is the exact same thing as a typical hunting rifle." Those arguments are bullshiat, and the progun folks know it. The only reason why anyone is arguing against banning ARs is because (1) they're really cool, and (2) some people are so deluded that they think they're going to be fighting a guerilla war some day.

I get it - assault rifles are really cool. I wouldn't mind owning an AR-15 to take out to the range every now and then. But there's no reason why I would need to own one other than the fact that it's my hobby and I like it. I'll happily give up that one small facet of my recreational shooting hobby, if it means that it will be more difficult for people like Holmes and Lanza to get their hands on an AR-15.
 
2013-01-16 02:47:11 PM

USP .45: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner

no you're a slashie fraud. I just heard him say it on farking tv.


Thank you for proving my point.

\moron
 
2013-01-16 02:47:47 PM

themindiswatching: SphericalTime: I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.

Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID is unconstitutional to them.


Trolltastic!

In other news, "reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority"...except that there's nothing there that expands his authority.

I will go so far as to say if things were left at this, and Congress dropped the rest into the waste bin, it would defuse a very tense situation and allow Congress to focus on fixing the budget. Instead, some asshole Democratic senators will instead ram some emotional gun and magazine bans through the Senate, wasting many hours of time and the House will shred them. The states will be free to come up with odd, low numbers of bullets that people can put in magazines to look good to blue staters and the rest of us will point and laugh.

/meanwhile, proposals to provide better security for schools will go unheeded because Barry doesn't like them
 
2013-01-16 02:48:08 PM

Thunderpipes: orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.

Wish libs would just be honest about it. They want the 2nd, and the 4th at minimum to be at Obama's discretion. That is the real agenda. Quit hiding behind kids and emotions and just come out and say it.

I have a few 20 round magazines for my M1A. Under NY law, and pretty soon everywhere in blue states, I will be a criminal unless I turn them in? I will have to go get booked, fingerprinted and picture taken to keep weapons I own?

Oops, lost my weapons in the move officer.


We get it, you're an irresponsible law breaking gun owner.
 
2013-01-16 02:48:28 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.

I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

Think of it this way:  If I purchased an ATV years before ATV registration was required going forward, I don't have much incentive to register it.  Unless the penalties for having an unregistered ATV of any variety were stiff.  In that case, I'd either A)not use it at all or B) look for a way to register it.  If I am then offered a chance to do so for free, no muss, no fuss, then why would I not then do it?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:35 PM

WhoopAssWayne: It's fitting these two scumbags are using children as props for their announcement, given how they exploited dead first graders to get to this point in the first place. Absolute scum of the earth here. This is who you are liberals. Take a long look.


Have you considered decaf?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:38 PM

chrylis: I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


Almost every single registered gun in this country?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:45 PM

Insatiable Jesus: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner


Don't bother, he chose the model number of a handgun as his screenname. That means he is a real, live American Internet Badass.


Ironically H&K are elitist douches that sell overpriced hardware and don't give a rat's ass about civilian firearms ownership, since they cater mostly to LE and military. Anyone looking to buy in VA?
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 02:48:46 PM
How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-16 02:49:09 PM
I have no problem with any of the content.

But it exceeds his authority to do most of this on his own.

Not that anyone cares about separation of powers anymore.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:36 PM

Antimatter: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colin O'Scopy: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?

Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.

Maybe, depends on how it's enforced. Because, if you are talking about making even private sales require a background check, individuals (non-dealers) selling to another individual, you will need their 'voluntary' cooperation to make it happen. If they checks consist of a simple phone call, a quick response, minimal fee you will get a lot of cooperation. But, knowing how gun-controllers write regulations, I would expect 10 pages of paperwork, waiting periods, huge fees, etc., you will get far less cooperation and it will be useless.

Currently, it's a form and a phone call, about 10 minutes. It's not that big a deal, honestly. They ask some questions, you give some answers, and file some paperwork.

I don't see why this would be any different.


That depends entirely on what state you live in. That is the way it should work, tho.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:42 PM

susansto-helit: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.

So we should do nothing. Got it



...nothing more.   You left off an important word. Short of some seriously draconian security regulations for schools, or property seizures (all firearms), or both, you can't ensure that mass school shootings won't occur.

"Let's make 'assault weapons' illegal, so this won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use a shotgun.
"Let's make shotguns illegal, so this won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use pistols.
"Let's make pistols illegal, so thing won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use explosives/Molotov cocktails.

Guess what? Arson is already illegal. Come to think of it, so is taking any kind of gun onto school property. So is shooting people with it. So is murdering your mother so she won't stop you from taking a bunch of guns to a school.

Can you think of any scenario that will keep a determined psychopath from committing a mass murder?
When something this horrible happens, we all jump up and down and yell, "Something needs to be done!" And we're all correct: something does need to be done.
But what needs to be done has to address the real problem, not just be a "Look what we did!" change that accomplishes nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 1394 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 »






Report