Do you have adblock enabled?
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 1376
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25815 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1376 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 03:46:52 PM  

Fart_Machine: Sandy


And, this is not a joke. Those folks at the Sandy Hook school massacre? They were actors, so Fartbongo could start taking away our guns.
 
2013-01-16 03:48:25 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: 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?


I was replying specifically to what you stated. Do i agree with the original statement? no, but i can recognize sarcasm when I see it.

I think I'll let you froth at the mouth over the extremely minute possibility anyone in our lifetime will see a civil war, which i'm guessing you very badly want. Thus, fulfilling your fantasy to be some kind of pro-'merica guns a' blazin doomsday prepper.
 
2013-01-16 03:49:56 PM  

Surpheon: Unlike two centuries ago, there is now simply no comparison between military hardware and civilian hardware.


This is quite true. But there's also no comparison between the number of armed agents of the State (whether military or law enforcement) and the number of ordinary people who could theoretically rise up against them; armed insurgencies using guerilla tactics have been amazingly effective all over the world during the past century. (It should be noted too that the US economy is in serious decline, and the ability of the government to indefinitely keep its agents paid to do their work is by no means guaranteed).

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.

You seem to be mixing up two different concepts here -- the idea that resistance is futile, and the idea that resistance is evil. There's no logical reason why they can't be both, but at the same time the one does not entail the other; i.e., there's no reason why a legitimate insurgency against a domineering government would have to involve the widespread slaughter of innocents. By invoking McVeigh, all you are doing is trying to portray those unwilling to reconcile themselves to the ever- expanding power of the State as bloodthirsty murderers -- which is ultimately the kind of attitude that writes a blank check for authoritarianism.
 
2013-01-16 03:50:01 PM  
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

This is the one that bothers me. The CDC puts out stats like "1/4 men will beat their wives," and "1/2 women will be raped." I don't trust the CDC to come up with reasonable gun violence stats.
 
2013-01-16 03:50:17 PM  
PunGent

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.

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.

The horror!


As I recall, it was a bit more than just this. I believe there were pediatricians refusing to treat patients whose parents owned guns in the house or something like that...
 
2013-01-16 03:50:20 PM  

mittromneysdog: 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.


That is the ultimate goal here. Not banning guns, but reversing the faddish explosion of gun sales and gun "enthusiasts" that is putting so many gun stashes in so many households, and potentially in the hands of so many schizo teenagers.

In the end, we want hunters to keep their guns and let people have a firearm for home defense, but people like Adam Lanza's mom end up going into quilting or bowling instead of recreational apocalypse hoarding. That was a really stupid fad, a very unwise idea, and a terrible way to sell more guns.
 
2013-01-16 03:50:39 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 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.


It seems pretty common that law enforcement is interested in who bought the bullet they pulled out of a guy in 'snitches get stitches' territory. While not like on CSI shows, it does seem common to try to identify what gun fired a bullet based upon marks made by the barrel.

I don't care about the ATF. I would like to identify what the most common source of guns used to murder people and see if there is a way to close that off. If all guns used in mass murders are bought online and none are bought at WalMart, then I'd say online sales need some regulation AND WalMart does not.

But moot point if the tech is not yet feasible.
 
2013-01-16 03:50:42 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.


Only on public land.  I can have as many people over to my house as I want as long as we don't disturb the neighbors.  What's being discussed is registration and licensing prior to any exercise of a second amendment right.  If I can't even possess never mind use a firearm without a government permission slip it's not a right, it's a privilege.
 
2013-01-16 03:50:57 PM  

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


That's Double Secret Order 24.

Also, Order 66 is coming. You'll see! All the Real Americans™ are going to be executed by Obama's clone troopers.
 
2013-01-16 03:51:20 PM  

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


Because prozac.
 
2013-01-16 03:51:24 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.


My Doctor carries a small 9mm in her purse when she is out (Sig, I think) and has a nice display cabinet in her office with some beautiful side by side shotguns in it.

Don't think this is going to be much of an issue with her.
 
2013-01-16 03:51:29 PM  

deanis: Thus, fulfilling your fantasy to be some kind of pro-'merica guns a' blazin doomsday prepper.


I'm not an American, you simpleton. But keep f*cking that strawman.
 
2013-01-16 03:51:40 PM  

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.


Yes, I was a it surprised. But largely relieved, he could've proposed a lot worse.

I do like a couple of the items listed (mental health reform, HIPPA ect...IMHO you're right to privacy ends when it threatens the safety of innocent people around you.) Those were good.

Some of them were not very good or at least need some explicit clarification. (ie: "dangerous people" slipping through the cracks is a very broad term. That would need to be refined so it isn't just the flavor of the week getting harassed about having guns. Also, researching "cause and prevention of gun violence"...just guns? Why not violence in general and then see how guns fit into it? This one just seems to waste money and be flawed from the beginning.)

But prosecuting gun crime? How does one say that with a straight face after fast and furious? ::sigh::

But I think most folks are right, this is just to say "He did something." Nothing will happen.
 
2013-01-16 03:52:57 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?


Like many other gun control ideas, it makes sense until you see how they wanted it implemented. They tried it years ago and iirc they also wanted listed in the bill very specific taggants for the powder, all of them listed being chemically unstable. The effect of this would have been to cause a degradation in the powder leaving ammo with a shelf life of only a couple of years. It would also have eliminated handloading, which was another big bugaboo of theirs.
Neither of these items limited crime or even really gave a credible tracking tool for that matter, but they did eliminate the ability to store ammo or remake it - a good first step to restricting ammo in civilian hands in the future.

If you listen to most of these groups ideas, they are very open about the fact that they are simply steps toward total elimination. Hence why gun owners are pretty rightfully suspicious of them.
 
2013-01-16 03:53:08 PM  

atomicmask: Since when has someone being sick been equal with a criminal?


On a Federal level? A little since at least a little over a year ago (not sure if there are older similar statutes).

Link

On a state level little it varies but for quite awhle.
 
2013-01-16 03:53:46 PM  

Xcott: mittromneysdog: 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.

That is the ultimate goal here. Not banning guns, but reversing the faddish explosion of gun sales and gun "enthusiasts" that is putting so many gun stashes in so many households, and potentially in the hands of so many schizo teenagers.

In the end, we want hunters to keep their guns and let people have a firearm for home defense, but people like Adam Lanza's mom end up going into quilting or bowling instead of recreational apocalypse hoarding. That was a really stupid fad, a very unwise idea, and a terrible way to sell more guns.


And where may I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
2013-01-16 03:53:51 PM  
Did the dumb ass realize he didn't have the juice to pull off the anti gun crowd's wet dreams? It's kind of sickening to see the media claim "Sweeping gun control measures", etc.


/lude
 
2013-01-16 03:54:07 PM  

Tomahawk513: 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 image 194x259]


FYI - there's decent evidence that illegal drugs are readily available and cheaper now than ever, when our efforts are at their highest to ban them. My guess is that firearms will be no different.
 
2013-01-16 03:54:22 PM  
I couldn't care less. What's the terrible problem with this? Yeah, I probably won't be selling any guns now, since I don't want to deal with the red tape, but is it really so bad? I don't really hear conservatives complaining about the normal background checks.
 
2013-01-16 03:54:40 PM  

Gdalescrboz: 14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

This is the one that bothers me. The CDC puts out stats like "1/4 men will beat their wives," and "1/2 women will be raped." I don't trust the CDC to come up with reasonable gun violence stats.


I'm more bothered by his proposal to weaken HIPPA's privacy protections. Especially since HIPPA is already pretty much a paper tiger.
 
2013-01-16 03:54:45 PM  

dahmers love zombie: 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?


The well thought out NYC gun control bill doesn't call for the outright banning of previously legal 10 round magazines, but makes it illegal to load them with more than 7 rounds of ammunition.  Pretty silly when you think about it.
 
2013-01-16 03:55:04 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: 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?


So you think the second someone shows any sign of have a metal problem the doctor should start interrogating him/her about what weapons they own? Oh, wait that's not what you said. According to you a doctor has the right to ask you about any dangerous items you might own just out of general concern for you health. Does that also apply if I go in for bad back or a cold? Should he itemize anything else I might have that is dangerous, power tools? cutlery?
 
2013-01-16 03:55:15 PM  

CptnSpldng: 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.


In most states, officiating a marriage is limited almost exclusively to government officials and ordained ministers, and the officiant must present their ordination certificate the county clerk in order for the marriage license to be recognized.

Not every religion requires the officiant to be ordained, but the state does. So yes, I'd say that does count as the government regulating one's relationship with their deity of choice.
 
2013-01-16 03:55:25 PM  

Surpheon: 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?


If you're willing to revert to a non-smokeless powder, you can make it yourself with minimal effort to obtain it.

Really what you want to track are barrels. If you recover 100 bullets from a shooting and have some kind of machine that can spit out the serial number of the barrel they were fired out, you're in business. You already see some states trying to build finger printing databases for guns, but right now are getting poor results. If that became reliable it would mean when you find the bullets, you go find the owner of that barrel and have a talk with him.

They also talk about microstamping, but I'm less of a fan of that since it wouldn't be that hard to machine up a firing pin that didn't stamp it and replace the one in your gun with the blank one.

The issue that I continue to see with any of this though is that tracking the weapon isn't all that useful as someone selling to gang can just report the items as stolen. As in I buy a pallet of bullets, ten rifles, and go to the store. When I come home my garage door has been ripped open and the items are gone. I call the cops and at that point the chain of custody on the ammo/weapons is broken since they were stolen from me. The cops would then have to prove I was getting paid off to leave those items lying around and not an innocent victim.
 
2013-01-16 03:56:16 PM  

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


Read the signs, people!
rlv.zcache.com
 
2013-01-16 03:57:00 PM  
I've got a board with a nail in it.
 
2013-01-16 03:57:20 PM  

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

I can't say that your steps would be anything more than annoying and time consuming.  I would still have access, I'd just have some more hurdles to jump through.  It's preferable to a ban!  I'm just not sure we'll always be able to weed out the crazies.  I was astounded when the president said that only 1.4 million people have been kept from buying a gun because they didn't pass the background check.  For some reason I figured the number would be way higher.

What you have going for your suggestion is that it's not much different that what it takes to drive.  We manage to jump through a lot of hurdles in order to drive and other than the DMV sucking, it's okay.  I think that's the best argument for your process.  It also shows that car are as heavily regulated as guns, if not more so and that kills the argument of "if they ban guns, they should ban cars."


Right, since we have a constitutional right to operate a car. Oh wait..
 
2013-01-16 03:58:01 PM  

dmax: Fart_Machine: Sandy

And, this is not a joke. Those folks at the Sandy Hook school massacre? They were actors, so Fartbongo could start taking away our guns.


Sadly, these twerps are actually harassing people in Newtown, directly accusing them of being "crisis actors," which is a real term that means something in English so study it out. I can't imagine how that helps people who have just lost their child.

/Good to know that 9/11 truthers are keeping themselves busy with new projects, though.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:18 PM  

Gdalescrboz: 14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

This is the one that bothers me. The CDC puts out stats like "1/4 men will beat their wives," and "1/2 women will be raped." I don't trust the CDC to come up with reasonable gun violence stats.


It's true based on their definition of rape.  If the woman having sex had even a single glass of wine and the next day regrets farking that dude from the bar, it's rape.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:21 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: You seem to be mixing up two different concepts here -- the idea that resistance is futile, and the idea that resistance is evil. There's no logical reason why they can't be both, but at the same time the one does not entail the other; i.e., there's no reason why a legitimate insurgency against a domineering government would have to involve the widespread slaughter of innocents.


If a legitimate ARMED insurgency against a domineering US government did not involve murdering one of the ruling elite, such as one of the only 535 members of Congress, who would you be murdering? And if you aren't killing anyone, it's not an insurgency it's normal US politics and protest and does not require guns.

Would you be killing the police enforcing the laws instead? Killing the soldiers following orders? Maybe ATF agents? Who are you killing with your guns in a 2nd amendment solution situation?"Big Government" is ultimately made of people you know. From what we see of insurgencies the world over, from Mexico's drug war to the Palestinian conflict, armed resistance by gun involves killing people.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:27 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

I agree mostly with what you have here.  The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked.  The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful.  They will likely not have a vote on anything at all.  The president did himself a favor punting it over to them.  However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong.  When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about.  Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned.  Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless.  How people feel district by district is much more important.  Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race?  Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.


Here's one poll's view of the support levels for various things:
[s3.amazonaws.com image 298x480]

...


That's a dumb-ass poll conducted on dumb-asses.
Ban on semi-auto weapons: 39/58
Ban on 'assault weapons': 40/55
So people are more in favor of banning semi-auto weapons than they are of banning 'assault weapons'.

Is there a large proliferation of bolt action and black powder 'assault weapons' that I haven't heard of? By every definition of 'assault weapon' I've ever heard is that they are ALL semi-auto. Goes to show that people don't know dick about shiat about what they are being polled on.
Also, where was this poll conducted? How? Your polls will vary wildly depending on where you poll. Poll outside a Starbucks, and you get something close to the poll you posted. Poll out side Acorn, and 95% will be 'guns are teh bad', poll inside a gunshow and 99.999% will be 'moar guns'

According to a recent poll I took, 4/5 people enjoy gang rape.
/Hector says he enjoys it, but I know it heart wasn't in it.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:44 PM  

queezyweezel: dahmers love zombie: 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?

The well thought out NYC gun control bill doesn't call for the outright banning of previously legal 10 round magazines, but makes it illegal to load them with more than 7 rounds of ammunition.  Pretty silly when you think about it.


Well, actually I think that's far better.   Far far far far far far far far far far better.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:45 PM  

Ordinary Genius: I couldn't care less. What's the terrible problem with this?


The problem is what the article didn't state. Namely that Obama is still pushing for bans on "military-style assault weapons" and large gun magazines.
 
2013-01-16 03:58:50 PM  
I'm going on the record now to say that within a couple years, we're going to see a gas/poison based mass killing on the scale of Sandy Hook here in the US if there's an "assault weapons" ban. Or, we'll see one in a state that's already implemented those rules.
 
2013-01-16 03:59:24 PM  

moanerific: I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.


That's because Reddit is full of degenerates and assholes.

Just for the record, Fark is also full of degenerates and assholes.
 
2013-01-16 03:59:59 PM  

ha-ha-guy: he issue that I continue to see with any of this though is that tracking the weapon isn't all that useful as someone selling to gang can just report the items as stolen. As in I buy a pallet of bullets, ten rifles, and go to the store. When I come home my garage door has been ripped open and the items are gone. I call the cops and at that point the chain of custody on the ammo/weapons is broken since they were stolen from me. The cops would then have to prove I was getting paid off to leave those items lying around and not an innocent victim.


The other issue I see is the potential increase in violent crime as something we need to consider. As in right now a criminal can buy bullets or the like under the table in a fairly untraceable manner. If that changes they'll just start stealing them. Above I mentioned the potential for a fake robbery, but there is also the chance the criminal will take the gun and ammo he currently has and opt to go get more ammo by force (to avoid purchasing it in his name). So then you end up with more violent robberies of pawnshops, gun stores, etc.

Basically over tracking is going to cause a rise in the street value of untraceable guns/ammo. That means more junkies and low level thugs trying to obtain guns through illegal means. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and you want to be careful as to what that reaction is If your law makes it 40% easier to get the mob enforcer, but also leads to a spike in violent crime, it might not the greatest social trade and something to consider.
 
2013-01-16 04:00:14 PM  

ha-ha-guy: ferretman: The non-sense of passing 'gun  control' bills quickly without actually discussing them. In New York Gov. Cuomo  passed strict new guns laws:
[www.nypost.com image 525x300]

Rushing new stupid laws into effect just waste time and money.

We have caused minor ergonomic pain to criminals and annoyed a bunch of law abiding gun owners in the process, good job!


What pain do criminals suffer?
 
2013-01-16 04:00:24 PM  

PanicMan: moanerific: I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.

That's because Reddit is full of degenerates and assholes.

Just for the record, Fark is also full of degenerates and assholes.


Yes, but we're relatively nice.  And it's not goddamn impossible to follow a discussion thread over here.
 
2013-01-16 04:00:41 PM  

dahmers love zombie: queezyweezel: dahmers love zombie: 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?

The well thought out NYC gun control bill doesn't call for the outright banning of previously legal 10 round magazines, but makes it illegal to load them with more than 7 rounds of ammunition.  Pretty silly when you think about it.

Well, actually I think that's far better.   Far far far far far far far far far far better.


I agree.
 
2013-01-16 04:00:56 PM  

queezyweezel: dahmers love zombie: 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?

The well thought out NYC gun control bill doesn't call for the outright banning of previously legal 10 round magazines, but makes it illegal to load them with more than 7 rounds of ammunition.  Pretty silly when you think about it.


If you are loading up the magazine for your home protection piece, it's generally a good idea to not fill it to capacity so you don't wear out the spring by compacting it for an extended period.  Obama is just looking out for our best interests and wants us to properly care for our guns!  What a guy.
 
2013-01-16 04:00:59 PM  

TellarHK: I'm going on the record now to say that within a couple years, we're going to see a gas/poison based mass killing on the scale of Sandy Hook here in the US if there's an "assault weapons" ban. Or, we'll see one in a state that's already implemented those rules.


Nothing is stopping someone from pulling another Mcveigh.  It will happen again.  Maybe not today, or next week, or in the next 3 years...but it will happen
 
2013-01-16 04:01:07 PM  

Surpheon: ha-ha-guy: 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.

It seems pretty common that law enforcement is interested in who bought the bullet they pulled out of a guy in 'snitches get stitches' territory. While not like on CSI shows, it does seem common to try to identify what gun fired a bullet based upon marks made by the barrel.

I don't care about the ATF. I would like to identify what the most common source of guns used to murder people and see if there is a way to close that off. If all guns used in mass murders are bought online and none are bought at WalMart, then I'd say online sales need some regulation AND WalMart does not.

But moot point if the tech is not yet feasible.


There's really no difference between buying at your local store or online... Only that online takes longer because after you pay for it, it's sent to your local ffl where you fill out the required paperwork just like you would have anyway.
 
2013-01-16 04:01:18 PM  

atomicmask: 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.


Unless you tell your shrink that are so depressed that you want to kill yourself and you want to take out as many people as possible before you do, you're fine.

Besides that's how the mental health field works now, your shrink can rat you out to the police if you threaten to kill people with out violating HIPPA, the Obama Executive Order just reiterates this fact and the new ACA doesn't change it that fact.
 
2013-01-16 04:01:45 PM  
Excluding the AWB, I didn't mind any of his proposals. The AWB doesn't make a whole lot of sense being that 1) they're easy to acquire (legally or not), 2) easy to build and 3) technically don't function any different they any other firearm (thus you can substitute an AW for any other firearm)...banning them will do nothing to reduce the the amount of gun violence and will only be taking away rights from law abiding citizens and pissing them off in the process.
 
2013-01-16 04:02:27 PM  

queezyweezel: dahmers love zombie: 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?

The well thought out NYC gun control bill doesn't call for the outright banning of previously legal 10 round magazines, but makes it illegal to load them with more than 7 rounds of ammunition.  Pretty silly when you think about it.


Heh, you know it's horrible when even the NY Times editorial pagetrashes it. Link
 
2013-01-16 04:02:28 PM  

CliChe Guevara: The effect of this would have been to cause a degradation in the powder leaving ammo with a shelf life of only a couple of years. It would also have eliminated handloading, which was another big bugaboo of theirs.
...
If you listen to most of these groups ideas, they are very open about the fact that they are simply steps toward total elimination. Hence why gun owners are pretty rightfully suspicious of them.


Is the generations-old ban on fully automatic weapons a step towards total elimination?

Paranoia is not a very compelling argument. If taggants make for an inferior product, that is a much more compelling argument. Although unleaded gasoline is also an inferior product; there are limits to that argument.
 
2013-01-16 04:02:43 PM  

TellarHK: I'm going on the record now to say that within a couple years, we're going to see a gas/poison based mass killing on the scale of Sandy Hook here in the US if there's an "assault weapons" ban. Or, we'll see one in a state that's already implemented those rules.


Such things already are regulated, IIRC.
 
2013-01-16 04:04:20 PM  
Wait I though Obama was going to ban armed guards at schools. That was what the NRA was telling me.

You mean it was a false dichotomy?
 
2013-01-16 04:04:49 PM  

Government Fromage: There's really no difference between buying at your local store or online...


I was just giving an example of the sort of data that might be useful, I have no data to really make a hypothesis (because the NRA is so good at blocking even the collection of data). But if see no difference between getting something online versus getting it at a store, as a 12 year old to get you some porn and see what method they use to acquire it (and then Take a seat over there...).
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 04:04:55 PM  

ronaprhys: there's decent evidence that illegal drugs are readily available and cheaper now than ever, when our efforts are at their highest to ban them. My guess is that firearms will be no different.


Drugs now are cheaper than ever? Really.
Remember during prohibition, when all that awesome/cheap liquor was widely available?
And don't get me started on how popular cigarettes have become lately.
 
Displayed 50 of 1376 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report