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 02:58:57 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph

snip

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at the anti ...


A well regulated militia...
How about all firearm owners be licensed.
For all firearms.
With a minimum age limit. (No owners under 12.)
With mandatory liability insurance on each piece. We can have a sliding scale from single shot .22 rifles through streetsweeper 12 ga. autoloaders.
As long as we're decriminalizing pot, the prison-for-profit folks need to be able to jail someone. Let's start enforcing each and every gun regulation.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:02 PM
Any gun control measure that has the slightest chance of passing now (and most that don't) is half-assed and as effective as damming half a river. Obama will give it some face time, but he knows his legacy is making Obamacare work, getting the budget under control, and fundamentally shifting America's international military posture (no one really notices that, but for good or ill the history books won't miss it).

He's not about to seriously stick his dick in a blender by honestly going after another assault weapon ban that will just be undone again in 4 to 12 years. He'll take the PR, smile for the cameras, put the Republicans on the spot, and then get back to business.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:05 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Hey the gun rights people let these loudmouthed lunatics do the talking...You get what you pay for


Boy howdy, is that the truth.

Just look at the threads on Fark, where gun control advocates and gun rights advocates both wasted their time arguing with the derptards, who kept saying stuff like "SO ARE YOU GONNA BAN CARS TOO, EVEN THOUGH CARS HAVE SECRET TITLES SO YOU DON'T REALLY OWN YOUR CAR BUT RENT IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT? HE COULD HAVE KILLED EVERYONE WITH A BOTTLE OF BLEACH OR A MUSKET BECAUSE A MUSKET CAN FIRE MORE THAN 20 SHOTS IN 20 MINUTES"

These people have deputized themselves as the defenders of the 2nd amendment, and they're probably the main reason gun rights advocates have gotten nowhere. Even official gun rights organizations like the NRA are infected by the derp virus, and their spokesmen just repeat more derp. The public hears derp, derp, and official derp. They have to decide where they stand on an issue with one side recommending limits on magazine size, and the other side making weird analogies to spoons.

Liberals act as though Obama is some super genius playing 6-dimensional chess, and every time the opposition steps in it, liberals act like the cowpie got there through brilliant political maneuvering. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating that the other side was allowed to become so permanently radicalized and derpy that a loudmouth derp brigade shouts down every legitimate argument they have, and convince the public that they are making a decision between informed policy and crazy uncle Sid.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:07 PM

xen0blue: says who, subby? obama?

fark him. Worst president in history. I can't believe you farktards voted for him.


You'll get over it. Or keep whining until 2017.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:13 PM

NateGrey: No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.


There were people saying that. They were a minority, but it was said. And it was retarded, hence why I called them retarded.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:20 PM

LasersHurt: The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.


One might almost say that he's being "uppity" what with having the sheer gall to thing that HE and HE alone can propose sone sort of reasonable, sensible, and practical compromise  to actually try to help fix a problem rather than stake out and extremist position and start poo-flinging.

Why it's downright disrespectful, is what it is, a slap in the face to the GOP Congress.  By taking all the GOOD ideas first, he leaves them with nothing useful to pass that they can claim credit for, thus FORCING them to obstruct even these common-sense reforms.

Why can't Obama learn to COMPROMISE and Work WITH Congress by insteading proposing ridiculous lawsand acting like the Liberal Boogeyman they paint him as so that the GOP can shoot down his agenda and play the hero by coming up with reasonable alternatives to it?  Is that so much to ask?
 
2013-01-16 02:59:23 PM

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

Nazi Germany (Hitler was quite proud of it), Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, without having to look anything up. I'm aware that in some cases the government has graciously deigned to permit a few people whom it considers to have a good reason to keep one or two firearms locked and unusable (DC-pre-Heller-style), but most of the firearms were seized from most of the people, most especially handguns, which are the most practical for everyday personal self-defense.


cryinoutloud: Almost every single registered gun in this country?

Fair enough. I should have specified "seized or required disposition of". How are those 15-round magazines working out for you in California and New York?


The city of New York used a firearm registry to enforce an "assault weapons ban", mandating that previously legally owned and registered firearms newly classified as "assault weapons" be destroyed or removed from the city.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:30 PM

Fail in Human Form: HotWingConspiracy: Fail in Human Form: 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".

Exactly. Which demonstrates that the NRA, their members and the politicians that they own have been lying their asses off ever since LaPierre's Sandy Hook press conference.

It'll just get tied up with other bills and forgotten about when the debt ceiling disaster gets going. Nothing to do with the NRA.


No, the NRA will ensure that this isn't forgotten about. They can't help themselves.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:35 PM

Stone Meadow: 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?


I think if you have the M9 with a 15-round magazine, you are now supposed to transition over to the M1911 or a Glock 10mm or .45 with single stack mags.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:42 PM
Reasonable legislation that targets gun sales to criminals rather than infringing on law abiding citizens' rights?

2.bp.blogspot.com
On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:44 PM
This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:44 PM

moanerific: 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.


A very big problem is what gets defined as a "mental condition"; you may have noticed that over the past few decades the number of alleged mental disorders has been growing ever more numerous, while at the same time the left- liberal establishment has increasingly attempted to pathologize political dissent as being motivated by irrational hatred or "phobias" (whether homo-, Islamo-, trans-, xeno- or whatever else is handy). There has also been a growing trend for the federal government (FBI, DHS) in the US to diagnose "extremism" even in those who appeal to the Constitution as a supreme authority or who like to stockpile MREs.

The convergence of these tendencies will make it much more difficult in the future to obtain a firearm unless you meet an arbitrary and constantly shifting standard of what the powers that be consider "mental health." Of course, to express anything less than complete faith in the eternal benevolence of government will itself be regarded as a sign of paranoia, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of innocent people have been murdered by their governments over the past century (a far larger number than those killed in spree shootings). Perhaps we should consider all of this before we sign away ever more of our traditional freedoms to keep us safe from law- abiding gun owners who never posed any threat to us in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:06 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: The White House calls background checks the most efficient and effective way to keep guns away from dangerous individuals.

/Sounds reasonable, except the fact that criminals don't generally worry about getting a guy legally, they just steal them. And since there is no magic crystal ball that tells us when a law abiding gun owner will go bugshiat crazy, we are back to where we were before. Even if a gun owner has legal guns, gets them legally, crazy people steal them and use them. Look at the last mass shooting. The guns all belonged to his mother, and he killed her and stole them to go on his rampage. This law does NOTHING to address this issue. If anything, should make a law that people keep their guns locked up, but that is unenforceable, and useless for home defense.


Aaaannnd, once again the perfect solution steps to the fore.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:18 PM

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?


By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:35 PM

Zerochance: Cancel outrage? My Paultard buddy is on the verge of an aneurysm.

[img.photobucket.com image 433x616]


You really should out your buddy here. The comments would generate enough energy to power the entire planet.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:50 PM

vpb: bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.

The sane ones yes.  The provisions aren't enough but they are a good start.

We can improve things with future legislation and tighten the laws up.


bradkanus is right. This was nothing more than a photo op. Not one of the 23 "orders" requires anything concrete: they're all ephemeral "recommendations". If I was a gun control advocate who supported Obama, I'd be embarrassed.

As far as passing legislation? Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:53 PM

Bilgewater: What's wrong with a little regulation? Even my bowels movements are regulated. 7:30 am every morning. -- like clockwork.


You are one lucky farker. Don't ever forget that.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:06 PM

AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.


There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:17 PM

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


And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:19 PM

Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.


Haha. Look at you pretending to be stupider than a four year old. Cute.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:35 PM
Background checks aren't the problem. The trouble comes from who sets the standards in regards to what is unacceptable in those checks and ecaluations. "You attended a Tea Party rally in 2011. The government has declared them a hate group. No gun for you." Just using that as a hypothetical.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:39 PM

Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.


In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:41 PM

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


Be more efficient to repeal the 13th.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:07 PM
They mad in freeper land:

To: chessplayer

Quite a few rich queers coming out of the closet to get hysterical against our Constitution.


I have to admit I chuckled at this one:

i931.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 03:02:15 PM
Things Obama did NOT propose (and good on him)

* Banning semi automatics
* Confiscating any guns
* Registration of guns or gun owners
* tagging of ammo
* regulation of ammo amounts


Not that bad overall. Take out the AWB and mag limits and we got a deal.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:20 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


I also listen to Limbaugh on lunch and throw out nuggets to my FB folks. A couple of weeks ago he said Obama wants to mandate changes to text books to blame Reagan for AIDS. You can listen for five minutes and usually come across something that, in context, is absolutely ludicrous.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:54 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Reasonable legislation that targets gun sales to criminals rather than infringing on law abiding citizens' rights?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x331]
On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.


The children will be fine. The smaller magazines will be easier for their small hands and how much could be found in their short little background checks??
 
2013-01-16 03:03:16 PM

jigoro: 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?

By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.


Ahead? Not likely. Become a noticable statistic, yes. Get more media attention yes. But pulling ahead? Not likely. Watch your local news, every broadcast seems to start with a shooting if you live anywhere near a major city.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:24 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.


But enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws was a bad thing with SB1070.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:49 PM
it's funny to come here and read... all the republicans this... all the conservatives that... yet, working for a hunters' advocacy group here and the nearly hundred employees aren't jumping off the roof or spitting any such hatred. Rather the opposite, pointing out the obvious in that these are items that should have been the focus of our attention long before Sandy Hook. Oh and harsher penalties wouldn't have had any consequences on the Sandy Hook murderer or most of the other mass shootings. The Tucson, AZ shooting could have been avoided completely but since the Pima Community College Police didn't share their concern with the Tucson Police, the shooter, who was pulled over before the shooting was allowed to continue to hid destination without question.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:55 PM
I like the BBC reporter's take on the whole thing I heard last night:

Obama knows that he will NEVER get new, sweeping legislation through this Congress, so ALL he has is executive orders...and all they can do is increase enforcement of existing laws, and expand the data sharing among the various governmental agencies. Surprised he even asked for Congress to force background checks on private sales (which will probably never happen either)

He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:10 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


He's a slut.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:39 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.


Freedom of speech should be limited to communication techniques available when the constitution was written.

I trust you will be leaving FARK, giving up your computer, telephone, cell phone, and any radios asap.


/See how it sounds?
 
2013-01-16 03:04:52 PM

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

And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.


But this is America.  That can't won't happen here.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:25 PM

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.


Don't fall for it, it's a technically unanswerable question.
1) Party A doesn't have a gun, question doesn't apply
2) Party B has a gun, question doesn't apply

The only conceivable "right" answer would be something like mandatory full-body armor for everyone.

/Learn to recognize trolls
//It could save your life
 
2013-01-16 03:05:29 PM

Chummer45: I haven't heard a single person make a reasonable argument why assault rifles should be freely available for anyone to purchase.


And I haven't heard a single reasonable argument for banning them.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:36 PM

Endive Wombat: During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell. All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect. This accomplished nothing.


Or, you know, actual facts and data indicate that the number of large capacity magazines seized during arrests steadily declined over the whole period of that ban. But that's just reality, which is nothing in the face of a Fark Expert.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/news/36272948_1_magazin e s-and-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-33-round-magazine

The biggest step Obama made towards eventually curtailing gun ownership is getting data collection going on them again. There is surprisingly little data on questions like if assault weapons are ever used for defense versus shotguns, most commonly used weapons for homicides versus suicides, etc. And the lack of data is not an accident.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:40 PM

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


They are the authority.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:50 PM

aegean: Where are the reasonable limits to the first amendment? Would they include outlawing all liberal retarded lying speech? Hey, maybe that isn't a bad idea!


Libel, slander, incitement to riot, direct threats, "fire" in a crowded theater, and "provoking words" are all classified as unprotected speech.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:59 PM

Endive Wombat:
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 http://vaguntrader.com/, that is just asking for all kinds of identity theft issues.


Is that a "no animal products" gun store? Because vegans don't strike me as the right demo for a boutique gun store.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:00 PM

PsiChick: This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.


The background checks still require Congressional approval.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:11 PM

Chummer45: 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.


Firstly, what would you define as an assault weapon if it is indeed so clear cut? Anything with a detachable magazine? Anything semi-automatic? Anything over a certain caliber?

Second, you've got you telescope backwards. Its not "why should we allow this" its "why should we ban this". 400ish murders with rifles doesn't seem like a compelling need to me and that's for all rifles, not any 'assult' subset. That number can only drop.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:19 PM

queezyweezel: Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.


Do you know how I know you haven't read the laws and regulations that define armor piercing rounds? Because 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) states that the banned rounds must be able to be used in handguns.

(17)
(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:44 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.


My personal argument has always been that you should have to do a check every 4 to 6 years to buy guns. You get issued something similar to a driver's license that says "Ha-ha-guy has a clean bill of health, sell him guns". The first time in you actually have to take tests. After that you just need your primary care physician to sign off saying they've seen no emerging signs of mental issues/senility/etc since the full on check (and perhaps one a decade or so you have to go see a shrink and get a fresh clean bill of health). Plus with Obamacare we can make the entire thing covered by insurance.

That placates the fears over the government is coming for your guns types. The government knows you have a license to own guns, but they don't necessary know if you have 1 or 100 squirreled away. So when the government comes to take my guns al la post Katrina, I give them a few rifles and have the rest buried out back IRA style (just to play devil's advocate).

Of course the real issue is what do you do when a sane person is engaged in cohabitation with a mental ill person. Al la the Newton shooter taking his mom's gun or the Taft High one taking his brother's shotgun. That's going to be an interesting test case, if you can restrict the rights of the sane individual due to their association with a nutcase who can't pass the weapons check. That's the real area that needs to be hammered out, weapons ownership and security of the weapon when associated with a nutbag.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:53 PM
I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.
 
2013-01-16 03:07:24 PM

Oldiron_79: So they want to require all firearms be sold through FFLs. That would be the same as requiring you to sell all cars through dealersships. Im pretty sure it violates the Sherman antitrust act and the interstate commerce clause whether it violates the 2nd ammend or not.


It says no such thing. You are tilting at windmills
 
2013-01-16 03:07:42 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.



What he wants doesn't matter. It's what he will try to do, and what he can actually get done that matter.
 
2013-01-16 03:07:47 PM

NateGrey: Frank N Stein: the cretins on Fark that were saying "kiss your guns goodbye" or some similar shiat.

No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.


I was debating this issue in the comments section of a UK newspaper some weeks ago, and one poster on the thread expressed the hope that the billions of rounds recently purchased by the US government for domestic purposes would be used to exterminate all the legal gun owners. True, he was British, but it goes to show you that anti- gun extremists do exist.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:11 PM

maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater


Not that I agree or disagree with what you said, but can't someone PLEASE come up with different analogy? I'm really tired of hearing YELLING FIRE IN A MOVIE THEATER every time people discuss firearm regulations.

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:21 PM

CheatCommando: queezyweezel: Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.

Do you know how I know you haven't read the laws and regulations that define armor piercing rounds? Because 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) states that the banned rounds must be able to be used in handguns.

(17)
(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


Sorry, I was going with the media (and common gun control discussion) parlance.
 
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