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  
•       •       •

25804 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 03:08:23 PM  

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

And the sad thing is most of you farkers are just as ape shiat crazy as he is just on the other side. Its becoming increasingly hard to be a centrist in this world
 
2013-01-16 03:08:37 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: LMFAO. H&K didn't say what you wanted them to say and only now is their stuff overpriced? News flash: H&K was overpriced when you bought whatever you're selling. I remember when posers went from Sig to H&K.


yes, overpriced then and stupidly overpriced now, and crap customer service. I have no idea what they say however, just how they act.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:40 PM  
He ain't mah preznint! I believe in Jeezus, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand! Now bring back King George II!
 
2013-01-16 03:08:42 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 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.


I could use that same standard for the rest of the bill of rights. Not sure you'd like the results though.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:09 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Duty to report blah blah blah...


So you agree there's precedent and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.

Click Click D'oh: A police officer can seize my firearm blah blah blah


So you agree that nothing changed and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.

But, no, you're right it's totally an outrage that they're going to check to make sure you're allowed to have a gun before handing one to you after they seized it in the process of a criminal investigation involving you. that just makes no sense at all.

Click Click D'oh: Yeah... because police would never abuse their authority... never... ever... Right Fark?


No, no. Totally legitimate fear. A cop going to the trouble and paperwork of putting together a formal investigation because they gave you a ticket for a violation most people never even get cited for. Absolutely legitimate concern and you don't sound completely off your goddamn rocker at all.

Click Click D'oh: o wait... you're telling me that Fark hasn't been flailing around about how silly the NRA was for suggesting police in schools?


So Fark is the president now?

Holy shiat guys! You hear that?! I wanna try that damn autopen thing!
 
2013-01-16 03:09:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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.

I could see the value in that. But if, for instance, I visited the doctor about say a leg injury and the good Doc asks me about whether or not I have firearms, I would just decline to answer.


And you're certainly be well within your rights. But the executive order relative to this matter simply clarifies that doctors are allowed to ask the question.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:27 PM  
Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:37 PM  

Endive Wombat: Chummer45: I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB?

The ban banned things that had NOTHING to do with gun violence and gun safety.  High capacity mags were banned - do you know what about them was banned?  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.  It banned barrel shrouds - these are the scary looking things around a barrel that prevent you from burning yourself.   It banned bayonet mounts - because so many shootings in the US involve a gun and a bayonet right?

The ban did nothing to address the root causes of crime, it was simply a feel good law.  It was a total failure, many liberals will agree with this.


So you're advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. Granted Obama's proposal isn't perfect, but you're batshiat insane.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 03:09:40 PM  

queezyweezel: Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.


Of course, I'm sure you realize that some definitions of "armor piercing" (and "metal piercing, etc") differ, and that some bullets are made specifically for penetrating armor (say Kevlar), even when fired from a less powerful rifle. If some guy is using those to down deer, even kevlar-protected deer, it probably wouldn't be all that bad an idea to let the DNR know that it takes him 3000 rounds to do so...
 
2013-01-16 03:09:42 PM  

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


Nope, it'd just bring the next civil war in the US that much closer -- a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


Not yet.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:15 PM  

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:19 PM  

SpectroBoy: * tagging of ammo


What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?
 
2013-01-16 03:10:53 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: 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.


Understandably nobody likes to acknowledge extremest on their side, but you can't ignore them and pretend they don't exist. That's dangerous for all parties.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:56 PM  

SpectroBoy: 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?


Ya cuz its a terrible analogy. Internet is a medium. Words are the 'tools.' Freedom of speech should be restricted to only words in the english language at the time, would be more apt a comparison.
 
2013-01-16 03:11:08 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!


With an Italian plumber, same as everyone else.
 
2013-01-16 03:11:14 PM  

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


First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?
 
2013-01-16 03:11:18 PM  

Surpheon: 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.


Sure, they seized a lot of high cap mags, but you cannot say that there was less gun violence or less crime involving guns due to the high cap ban portion of the AWB.

Yeah, I think the NRA/Right blocking such stats is silly to a certain degree.  But I can see their point, in that if a specific type of gun or ammo size is used in a majority of crimes, then politicians will try to legislate against it and get it banned...which does nothing in addressing the root causes.  They are fearful that the data will be used incorrectly, like being used for politicking rather than addressing social issues...
 
2013-01-16 03:11:19 PM  

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


Wait, are we talking exact models, types, or what your average citizen was able to legally acquire?

/I don't think you're going to like the answer to any of those
 
2013-01-16 03:12:07 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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.


And we're tired of hearing about how criminals dont obey laws. At least that one is the truth and not a logical fallacy.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:37 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.


see, I knew about many of those events of history, but for some reason, none of them came to mind when I mentioned requiring firearm registration.  Maybe because we don't live in a Bolshevik state, or Imperial China, or Nazi Germany.  Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests  over it
 
2013-01-16 03:12:49 PM  

justtray: SpectroBoy: 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?

Ya cuz its a terrible analogy. Internet is a medium. Words are the 'tools.' Freedom of speech should be restricted to only words in the english language at the time, would be more apt a comparison.


"Press" would have been closer.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:54 PM  

CADMonkey79: 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.


The doctor would then report you to the BATF, local police, Obama himself. He is a menace, and has guns in the house. And then you would get a visit from the nice policemen with "assault weapons" to take yours away.

There was an article about 4 or 5 years ago when a man told a doctor he drank 8 to 12 beers a day. The doctor called the DMV, and the man's drivers license was suspended.

Bottom line, the first rule of the gun club is don't talk about the gun club.

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:58 PM  

SpectroBoy: 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.


Yes but if don't bring the AWB back, the next school shooting could involve an AR-15 variant with bayonet mounted to it! OMG panic!

/people talk about the right having gun control issues, but the liberals have a big gun control issue in thinking that the AWB means jack and shiat beside annoying gun owners
//aside from some of the semi-auto pistol restricts that is, those actually did have an impact in that the street gangs couldn't by drive by ready machine pistols as easily for whatever it was worth
/the rifle and shotgun parts were absurd though
 
2013-01-16 03:13:17 PM  

Bf+: queezyweezel: Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.

Of course, I'm sure you realize that some definitions of "armor piercing" (and "metal piercing, etc") differ, and that some bullets are made specifically for penetrating armor (say Kevlar), even when fired from a less powerful rifle. If some guy is using those to down deer, even kevlar-protected deer, it probably wouldn't be all that bad an idea to let the DNR know that it takes him 3000 rounds to do so...


Yep.  the US govt has lots of it.  So do some police departments.  It's used all the time in crimes all across the country since it's cheap and easily available.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:22 PM  

Bf+: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Galileo's Daughter: Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Germans?

NevermindForget it, he's on a roll rolling.
/FI



:)

It was a quick and dirty. Thanks.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:32 PM  

chrylis: In China, yes. In the United States, no. You have to file paperwork if you want tax concessions on the basis of being a church, but any requirement to "register" churches would get smacked down faster than a violent-video-game ban.


You do have to register if you want your church to be anything larger than a gathering in your living room. Take donations to cover the cost of the facility? If you haven't registered for tax exempt status, prepare for a visit from the IRS for unclaimed income. Discuss certain 'banned' topics during your church service? Say goodbye to that tax exempt status. And depending on the state, you'll likely need a business license regardless of the size/location.

chrylis: Depends on the state, and the handful I'm familiar with don't require any such registration. They simply list classes of people who are qualified to "solemnize" a marriage, and in addition to broadly-defined ministers of religion, a Quaker assembly usually qualifies.


Many/most states require the officiant to provide copies of their ordination to the county clerk (or whatever local entity handles marriage licenses).
 
2013-01-16 03:13:45 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.


I would advise every law- abiding gun owner to do exactly that... "law- abiding" when it comes to guns means that you aren't committing violent crimes with your firearm, not that you are obligated to jump through every arbitrary hoop raised by the government. To draw an analogy you might find easier to understand, people who use drugs obviously break the law by doing so, but are generally "law- abiding" otherwise -- smoking pot doesn't turn you into a dangerous criminal, and neither does owning a "high- capacity" magazine.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:54 PM  

Surpheon: What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?


What's it going to do?
 
2013-01-16 03:14:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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.


Look, if you are in a crowded theater with gun nuts, the last thing you want to do is yell, "FIRE!"
 
2013-01-16 03:14:23 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.


If you make enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal.  How about we make the color blue illegal.  it'll do just as much to curb crime as the AWB will.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:39 PM  

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


Probably.
cdn.stripersonline.com
 
2013-01-16 03:14:40 PM  

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

First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?


Spectro, we are on the same page.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:52 PM  
THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE...
lather, rinse, repeat...
 
2013-01-16 03:14:56 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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.


Give USP a break. His mom is Chauchat.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:03 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

Nope, it'd just bring the next civil war in the US that much closer -- a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.


Nice bottom of the barrel troll attempt. If you want to talk "next civil war" shiat, go to one of your freeper sites.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:06 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.


He would huh? And you got that from his first 4 years in office in which he relentless lobbied for more gun laws (while actually expending the rights of gun owners)? Or was it for his campaign promise to "get the guns"? Or was it signing a few EO's that in no way ban guns? But you know, just KNOW, he wants to do more. Cause Beck told you so, huh?
 
2013-01-16 03:15:09 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.


What is it about "well regulated" that has your panties in a bunch? If you want to be a militia of one. that's fine, but don't expect to be able to do so without jumping through a hoop or two to prove to the general society that you are responsible enough to do so. Voting is a sacred right and we routinely deny that right to felons even after they have fully served their sentence.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.


Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:37 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Surpheon: What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?

What's it going to do?


add massive cost and make handloading illegal, thereby further increasing the cost.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:44 PM  

ha-ha-guy: //aside from some of the semi-auto pistol restricts that is, those actually did have an impact in that the street gangs couldn't by drive by ready machine pistols as easily for whatever it was worth


daily.greencine.com
Do.
We.
Have.
A.
Pro`lem?
 
2013-01-16 03:16:17 PM  

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


Here in Vermont, background checks are against a state database, not a federal one.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:04 PM  

I_C_Weener: Frank N Stein: 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.

Look, if you are in a crowded theater with gun nuts, the last thing you want to do is yell, "FIRE!"


lol
 
2013-01-16 03:17:07 PM  

USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.


Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:24 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.


If you think the US is headed towards any of your examples, it's already too late to change trajectory. I suggest you GTFO.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:47 PM  

NightOwl2255: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.

He would huh? And you got that from his first 4 years in office in which he relentless lobbied for more gun laws (while actually expending the rights of gun owners)? Or was it for his campaign promise to "get the guns"? Or was it signing a few EO's that in no way ban guns? But you know, just KNOW, he wants to do more. Cause Beck told you so, huh?


To be fair, we're going to find out the truth over the next few weeks. I tend to think the AWB is going off to die a horrible death in Congress. So Obama can at least to go tell the anti-gun part of the base he tried something and the Republicans blocked it. If he puts a lot of political capital behind it though, then that shows he does want to do more. Whereas if just shrugs and walks away at the Republicans kill it (while getting all the checks he want in place), then it is clear the AWB was just a move to placate part of his base and give the Republicans something to yell about beside the checks.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:49 PM  

bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...


And yet, we keep trying...
 
2013-01-16 03:18:12 PM  

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: How does that take a right away from you?  We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so.  And I really don't think a 0.2% tax on that box of shells is going to dent your wallet.

Not on public roads.  It's a privilege.  On private land you can drive anyway that you want, that's why you don't see licence plates and government imposed speed limits in Nascar.  But if it's on the street you have to be licensed, insured, vehicle has to be registered, follow speed limits, etc.

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.

If you need a permission slip from the government to exercise a right, it's not a right.


Well let's abolish all boards of election and voter registration then. Vote early and often.
 
2013-01-16 03:18:46 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 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.



The big issue here is with trying to make sure someone fits into a predefined set of criteria, and you run into the issue where the evaluator (the shrink) may be biased against guns or specific topics, and you now create a market where enterprising shrinks do nothing but "mental health screenings" and for a nominal fee, you get a clean bill of health - I would point to the doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I am having difficulty in coming up with an extensive enough mental health check that is totally objective and has zero room for the subjective interpretation by the evaluator.
 
2013-01-16 03:19:30 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.


That would be whichever side the military broke for. We're not fresh off the articles of confederation anymore, the military would go one way or the other not split by state. Unlike two centuries ago, there is now simply no comparison between military hardware and civilian hardware.

In the modern world, the '2nd amendment solution' could also be referred to as the 'Gabrielle Giffords solution'. Any thoughts of a militia-style uprising getting anywhere is delusional. Gun owner's defense against tyranny would be limited to assassination at best, terrorism at worst (like Timothy McVeigh, a right winger denounced even faster than GWB in an election year). Which is why the hard core '2nd amendment solution' folks are generally considered delusional, abhorrent assholes, or both.
 
Displayed 50 of 1394 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report