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  
•       •       •

25806 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 | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 03:33:28 PM  

Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...


I applaude you; you with your obvious grammar mistakes and uber-liberal stance now.

Awesome work.

I remember the old club we used to have off of Fark, and I never thought you'd accomplish all of this when you said you would :)

Bravo, dude.

10/10 for a couple of years now. You'll have food for the rest of ALL of your family's lives with your work.
 
2013-01-16 03:34:03 PM  
I think the details of Obama's plan in the submitted link were missing quite a bit of details. I'm reading an AP article that includes quite a bit more proposals, including an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

So what is it?
 
2013-01-16 03:34:06 PM  

mittromneysdog: Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...

I think we probably agree in principle on marijuana legalization. But we can reduce the prevalence of banned materials and actions in society. We'll never stop everyone who wants to commit murder either. But that's no good reason not to make it illegal.


yes but my point here is that it is logically inconsistent (or flat out intellectually dishonest) to support stupidly draconian drug laws, then turn around and claim that gun control is 'going too far'.  either you are in favor of freedom or you aren't.  you can't have it both ways.
 
2013-01-16 03:34:14 PM  
Impeach, Imprison and Execute today.

/because Hitler
 
2013-01-16 03:34:28 PM  
To: publius321

The children represent the zero information public. The zero information public has been endoctrinated by our schools and our state owned media how to think. The children are the zer0 information public in the beginning stages of this indoctrination process.

Once fully indoctrinated, The zero information public will not listen to anything that challenges their world view. Their minds are set. They will not listen to Talk Radio or Fox News because their ideas are set by the indoctrination they already have. This gives them more time to seek life's pleasures, watch American Idol and listen to music on their FM radio. Do not talk politics with them because their minds are set.

4 posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:22:38 AM by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2013-01-16 03:35:04 PM  
good luck with the enforcement.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:05 PM  
vpb
Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and weapons like it - are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban. Not even in Scalia's opinion.


An M-16 has either full -auto or three round burst capabilities, depending on version. Those weapons are already banned. Assault weapons like the AR-15 are semi-auto only. A pretty significant difference.

So Scalia's opinion does not read quite the way you represented it... I think he probably knows the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15.

Maybe not though.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:32 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 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).


I think it would be hilarious if we did this, but also required a signature from the applicant's spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend, or ex spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, attesting that you aren't a psycho or a loser.

I'd want this just because of the supreme levels of butthurt it would cause among all the Internet Tough Guys of the world. Want a gun? Have you successfully kissed a girl? Nevermind.

You could have a provision where a dateless wonder could still get a permit if his mother signed the form, attesting that he never had a girlfriend and why.

I only bring this up because Chris Rock joked that you should have a mortgage before you can have a gun (if it's about protecting your property, after all,) and far too many people on Fark took that dude far too seriously. Apparently the idea that you shouldn't have a gun if you live in your mom's basement pinched a lot of nerves. So I say, require applicants to own property and have kissed a girl. Also, put an entry on the bottom of the form that says 3D6+2: ______. An applicant who writes anything in there gets twice as much scrutiny.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: SpectroBoy: 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.

If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".

Ahhh, bring race into it when there is none. Classic.

Way to go, Hitler!


I bet you never use the word coon, right?
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 03:36:12 PM  

sunsawed: Impeach, Imprison and Execute today.

/because Hitler



It's like the Holocaust... for guns!
 
2013-01-16 03:36:27 PM  

Feltonl: good luck with the enforcement.


Of what?
 
2013-01-16 03:36:28 PM  

deanis: Nice bottom of the barrel troll attempt. If you want to talk "next civil war" shiat, go to one of your freeper sites.


I notice that you had no objection to the original comment that all conservatives and libertarians be forcibly disarmed.

I'm sorry to introduce an unwelcome dose of reality to your world, but -- in case you hadn't noticed -- civil wars do occur in countries with deeply polarized and mutually hostile populations, especially when large numbers of the inhabitants are already armed. Thinking that the US is magically exempt from this possibility (why?) is dangerously naive; if anything, the US at the moment is as precariously balanced as 1920s Spain. But by all means, keep scapegoating your enemies for all the problems of the country and imagining that there will be no adverse consequences -- who am I to deprive you of your illusions?
 
2013-01-16 03:37:12 PM  

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: 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.

OK, I feel better already(puts another clip in belt)

Just make sure you only put 7 rounds in that 10 round magazine, lest you be a law breaking psycho killer.


Qu'est-ce que c'est?
 
2013-01-16 03:37:15 PM  

neversummer: I think the details of Obama's plan in the submitted link were missing quite a bit of details. I'm reading an AP article that includes quite a bit more proposals, including an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

So what is it?


Well he can make the executive orders happen. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the NRA went full retarded and sued over them. As for the bans, I assume some Congressional drone will introduce them. Or maybe Feinstein in the Senate in hopes it can at least pass the Senate before Boehner buries them. As for how critical the bans are to Obama's plan, we'll see how far he backs them versus just uses them as a distracting action.
 
2013-01-16 03:37:50 PM  

USP .45: add massive cost and make handloading illegal, thereby further increasing the cost.


Interesting. Is handloading of handgun and rifle ammo common? Seems pretty easy to exempt shotguns.

Looking around, it sounds like the technology may not be there yet. I thought they had managed to make the 'nanotags' in the charge powder work, but it doesn't sound like it. One serial number per bullet is not workable.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/ammunition-accountability-act/
 
2013-01-16 03:38:05 PM  

Endive Wombat: 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.


I don't think doctors are being  required to ask about guns in the home. I think they're being  allowed to ask without having to worry about legal repercussions.
 
2013-01-16 03:38:14 PM  
Can we get a focus on creating the ID tech of the Dredd Lawgiver?
 
2013-01-16 03:38:30 PM  

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


No, duty to report only covers very specific statements or actions that would cause a health care provider to believe that their patient is intent on causing harm to themselves or others. It does not cover anything that HIPAA would protect.


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


No. Current law does not allow an officer to keep a firearm seized for his protection until a full background check can be completed.


Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


So, you think it's completely paranoid and unbelievable that a police officer with a bend would find a minor offense and use it as an excuse to seize and run a gun that a person was lawfully carrying? You must not pay much attention if you think that's beyond the realm of belief.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Holy shiat guys! You hear that?! I wanna try that damn autopen thing!


I don't even know what you are on about.
 
2013-01-16 03:38:50 PM  
 
2013-01-16 03:38:52 PM  

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


They should. If 'title' to a firearm is being transferred then the person receiving the firearm should be vetted to insure that they have the right to bear arms. (ie., not at felon)
 
2013-01-16 03:38:59 PM  

queezyweezel: mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.

Right over yer head, huh?


Nope. Evidently over yours.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."--Adolph Hitler.

Now, in context, it's clear Herr Hitler--wait, did I say Hitler? I meant Reagan.

Anyway, in context, it's clear Herr Reagan didn't think we could ever eliminate all assault weapons. But by "drying up" the supply, we can make them less available.
 
2013-01-16 03:39:35 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Endive Wombat: 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.

I don't think doctors are being  required to ask about guns in the home. I think they're being  allowed to ask without having to worry about legal repercussions.


And why would that ever be any of their business either way?
 
2013-01-16 03:39:35 PM  

CliChe Guevara: CADMonkey79: Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.

How would that conversation even start? I mean I know how it would end with me telling to get farked.
Are there doctors out there that even want to ask this question? I don't get it.

I had my pediatrician tell me that his professional organization (American Academy of Pediatrics, notable for their vocal position on banning gun ownership) encouraged all pediatricians to ask this, and at one point even wanted their doctors to REPORT THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED YES TO BE PUT IN A DATABASE.
He refused to even ask, he didn't feel it was his place. Not all are that cool. When I moved recently, one pediatrician I looked into refused to treat my son at all due to my answer. I quickly found another one that refuses to ask, though there is more pressure recently for them to ask and report.
My understanding is that during some times in the past, they have turned over lists of 'suspected gun owners' to police. Remember Maryland when the police searched homes of 'suspected gun owners' and confiscated all the .223 rifles for testing during the DC Sniper thing? Last thing we need are more gun grabbers with lists of our addresses.


Yet you post, repeatedly, in a public form about your gun ownership. I have to give you a fail for your paranoia. You should think about dropping off "the grid". It's the only way to be sure they won't come for your guns, and they are coming!
 
2013-01-16 03:39:37 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.


Hypothetically, if you have a person developing a mental illness throughout a history of visits with a doctor, and the doctor realizes the patient is well on his way to becoming, for example, a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him... I don't have a problem with him asking the patient if he has guns at home.

And yes, he can ask about other weapons the person has a home. The problem was Obamacare specifically addressed the second amendment, and what could be asked. This EO merely clarifies that doctors are not prohibited from asking about guns.

Doctor/patient privilege is waived when the doctor has reason to believe the patient is going to commit a crime, or put himself or other in danger. You're saying that doctors are healthcare providers, and not law enforcers... so then, should the doctor just shrug his shoulders, do the best he can with medication and not express his concerns to law enforcement that an individual that is developing paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him, has high capacity weapons in his home?

You seems to be saying "Let law enforcement handle it." Which I guess is what happens nowadays... sometimes after the person has obtained active shooter status. What is so distasteful about allowing doctors to ask the question; to be a part of prevention?
 
2013-01-16 03:39:51 PM  
in case you hadn't noticed -- civil wars do occur in countries with deeply polarized and mutually hostile populations,

But you duopoly farkers hardly disagree about anything.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:02 PM  

miss diminutive: So....is it finally time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?


I'm still full from lunch. Maybe in a few hours...
 
2013-01-16 03:40:16 PM  
No matter what the president proposes, discusses, or talks about, the GOP will oppose it hand and foot. All of the conservative morons will stay in the echo chamber and be totally against it no matter what. That said, from what I saw, they are common sense ideas, but some may be open to interpretation.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:43 PM  

star_topology: I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!


That's because it was spoken in coded language.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:53 PM  

queezyweezel: Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US?



Wake me up when criminals are growing their own guns.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:13 PM  

Surpheon: Interesting. Is handloading of handgun and rifle ammo common? Seems pretty easy to exempt shotguns.


Not really. Bulk ammo so damn cheap and hand loading requires large amounts of gun power sitting around, so people don't bother it (I don't want a keg of gunpowder in my basement). However the general feeling in the gun community is that if ammo access becomes problematic, everyone will just run out and buy hand loading kits. Or you'll be able to drive to some shady backwoods farm and buy rounds using cash (even resale would be illegal). Basically while it might do something, you'd mostly just be pissing away money to enforce something that is easily circumvented. Society as a whole would get more benefit for their dollar by spending it in other areas of gun ownership/mental health regs.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:16 PM  
I'm always surprised at the people who think this doesn't affect them.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:51 PM  
Subby obviously doesn't understand how the conservative mindset works....
It's a prerequisite to being an conservative GOP supporter, that if you hear the name "Obama" you immediately see a hot-white light and go into a self-destructive red-faced wharrgarbl.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:03 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?


Allow for identification of who purchased the ammo used. That's useful information. If a bunch of ammo bought as part of that ATF fast and furious program, well I'd like to know that. Also opposing tagging on principal, as opposed to due to solid technical reasons like cost, makes it seem like even legitimate gun owners are trying to shirk any responsibility for keeping their weapons out of criminal's hands.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:32 PM  

Jake Havechek: To: publius321

Once fully indoctrinated, The zero information public will not listen to anything that challenges their world view. Their minds are set.


A Freeper is complaining about people that will not listen to anything that challenges their world view? That's hilarious.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:45 PM  

PunGent: This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.


Um, no. If it was just a discussion on gun locks the NRA would have supported them and supplied them with free locks to give out.

This is about when some pediatricians thought it would be a good idea to refuse farking treatment to gun owners children, to spend large amounts of time and money funding gun ban legislation, and coming up with the idea of reporting all suspected gun owners to police.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:57 PM  
So if someone goes to seek council when they hit a rough spot, suddenly they are equal to a felon and cant own a gun anymore?

Also at what point is this breech of patient/doctor right to privacy? Since when has someone being sick been equal with a criminal?

You farkers don't think anything threw.
 
2013-01-16 03:43:59 PM  
Because video games causing people to go on killing sprees is completely logical...
 
2013-01-16 03:44:08 PM  

the ha ha guy: 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.


Most of the government regulations regarding churches/religions have to do with their status as tax exempt charities and not with their supposed business of developing a relationship with a Higher Being and encouraging moral behavior.

You can start up any religion you want; you just can't presume that your actions are tax exempt.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:12 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: So what they have in common is guns. Again, I'm glad to have you on board to begin restricting hand guns.


No, what they have in common is running a business that falls outside the visible, governmental protection services. As a result, the business attracts and rewards the most ruthlessly violent members of society. This is what prohibition of alcohol did, and what prohibition of everything else does.

But, if the government is going to insist on creating a black market, and one that is operated largely by criminal gangs who perpetrate MOST of the gun crime in America, and then PRETEND to care about gun crime, then scumbag liars like Obama and his sycophants ought to spend MOST of their time focusing on cracking down on the drug-dealing gangs whose gun crimes they've helped foster.

HotWingConspiracy: No, honey, they're just number. You're a racist though.


Ooh, scary labels. I'm so inhibited now. I dare not even think about the correlation between gun crime and black and Hispanic drug-dealing gangs, much less talk about it!

Wait, what happened to the national dialogues we're supposed to be having? The one on guns? And the one on race?

We're not allowed to dialogue about guns and race at the same time?
 
2013-01-16 03:44:31 PM  

mesmer242: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

I was talking to my husband about this last night... he's somewhat to the right but mostly politically apathetic. He thought that making higher capacity mags legal only at (and possibly sold at) gun ranges would be a good compromise. There's something to be said for letting the enthusiasts have their fun, but in real life, if you can't shoot a deer with only a few shots, you should probably not be shooting at the deer at all. I couldn't find a whole lot of fault with that logic.


I usually fill the magazines the night before I head to the range.  That way I just shoot when I am there and then leave when they are all empty.  It saves a lot of time.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:42 PM  
Gun nut and lib here. Obama will undoubtedly be glad to know he's back in my good graces.

I'm curious to see how the mental health provisions shake out. I truly believe that better screening for the crazy could reduce spree shooters. Street crime will continue the same as before, but that's not really what today was about.

That being said, I hope the mental health provisions are reasonable. I would hate for someone to be scared of getting help with depression or anxiety for fear that they would lose their gun rights.

I'm very happy that the President decided to throw an Assault Weapons Ban to congress, where it is highly unlikely to pass.

All in all, a good day.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:44 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: queezyweezel: Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US?


Wake me up when criminals are growing their own guns.


Dont even humor the nirvana false equivilency.

Just ask him, does the ban on any drug lower the number of users of it?

The goal isnt removing it entirely.

End of stupid fallacy (lol yeah right ill read it again 5x more today)
 
2013-01-16 03:45:18 PM  

mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.

Right over yer head, huh?

Nope. Evidently over yours.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."--Adolph Hitler.

Now, in context, it's clear Herr Hitler--wait, did I say Hitler? I meant Reagan.

Anyway, in context, it's clear Herr Reagan didn't think we could ever eliminate all assault weapons. But by "drying up" the supply, we can make them less available.


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-16 03:45:25 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.


Anger is the natural state of mind for extremists like Limbaugh. They don't actually need any external factor to incite their anger.
 
2013-01-16 03:45:38 PM  

Surpheon: 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?

Allow for identification of who purchased the ammo used. That's useful information. If a bunch of ammo bought as part of that ATF fast and furious program, well I'd like to know that. Also opposing tagging on principal, as opposed to due to solid technical reasons like cost, makes it seem like even legitimate gun owners are trying to shirk any responsibility for keeping their weapons out of criminal's hands.


You know the only part of a gun the ATF even tries to track is the lower. They don't consider it possible/worthwhile to track the rest. So I'm not sure if the idea that tracking on a per bullet level is useful is valid.
 
2013-01-16 03:46:11 PM  

CADMonkey79: Fuggin Bizzy: Endive Wombat: 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.

I don't think doctors are being  required to ask about guns in the home. I think they're being  allowed to ask without having to worry about legal repercussions.

And why would that ever be any of their business either way?


Ooh, good question! I don't know, why would the general health, well-being, and safety of his/her patients ever be a doctor's concern?
 
2013-01-16 03:46:14 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Surpheon: Interesting. Is handloading of handgun and rifle ammo common? Seems pretty easy to exempt shotguns.

However the general feeling in the gun community is that if ammo access becomes problematic, everyone will just run out and buy hand loading kits. Or you'll be able to drive to some shady backwoods farm and buy rounds using cash (even resale would be illegal). Basically while it might do something, you'd mostly just be pissing away money to enforce something that is easily circumvented. .


Seems like if the tech were around to tag gun powder it would be a feasible method of working to keep guns out of criminal's hands. Where would the shady backwoods guy get his untagged gun powder?

The storyline I typically hear is that most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally, hence gun regs are pointless and only hurt the law abiding. Well, lets work to identify those illegal channels and shut them down.

A bit of a moot point if there is not a legitimate technology out yet to track ammo.
 
2013-01-16 03:46:15 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: What about from the white drug dealing gang members?

They commit gun violence at a lower rate than black and Hispanic
drug-dealing gang members.

So what they have in common is guns. Again, I'm glad to have you on board to begin restricting hand guns.


HotWingConspiracy: We have a few thousand laws on the books that should sate your racism.

If it's racism, then gun crime statistics are racist.

No, honey, they're just number. You're a racist though
.



Makes more sense now.
 
2013-01-16 03:46:25 PM  

AFKobel: 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.

Hypothetically, if you have a person developing a mental illness throughout a history of visits with a doctor, and the doctor realizes the patient is well on his way to becoming, for example, a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him... I don't have a problem with him asking the patient if he has guns at home.

And yes, he can ask about other weapons the person has a home. The problem was Obamacare specifically addressed the second amendment, and what could be asked. This EO merely clarifies that doctors are not prohibited from asking about guns.

Doctor/patient privilege is waived when the doctor has reason to believe the patient is going to commit a crime, or put himself or other in danger. You're saying that doctors are healthcare providers, and not law enforcers... so then, should the doctor just shrug his shoulders, do the best he can with medication and not express his concerns to law enforcement that an individual that is developing paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him, has high capacity weapons in his home?

You seems to be saying "Let law e ...


I addressed this somewhat in another post. The doctor is there to determine/treat your health, mental or otherwise. Asking you what kind of weapons you might own is not any of his business. I don't have a problem with the police being involved if someone shows signs of being a danger to themselves or others, they can deal with any potential threat due to that person owning a weapon, that is what they are trained to do. Immediately criminalizing someone that shows signs of metal problems seems like a really bad idea when it comes to others that might be on the fence about seeking help.
 
2013-01-16 03:46:33 PM  

neversummer: The White House Plan


Let's see what we see. "The President strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms." Okay, that's weird, Farkers are fast to tell you he hates guns, hates the Second and wants to grab all the guns. Huh, must be lying. Let's read on and find the part where he want to eliminate the 2nd. I know it's there, the NRA told me it was. Weird, not in there. Must be coming later.
 
Displayed 50 of 1394 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report