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  
•       •       •

25798 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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 04:05:13 PM
The NRA is just proving that they're a bunch of extremists with this bullshiat. It's been known to a lot of people for years, and believed by others for longer, but this is pretty much incontrovertible proof that the NRA is in no way interested in finding solutions. Nothing Obama signed today is a problem with me, and I have a safe full of "assault weapons" that would be banned by the legislation he wants. Does that bother me? Yes, it does. I don't want to see an "assault weapons ban" because I think it's a stupid law that would do damn little or nothing to *stop* crime.
 
2013-01-16 04:05:56 PM

Corvus: 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?


On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.
 
2013-01-16 04:06:24 PM

ha-ha-guy: Endive Wombat: 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.

You'd almost have to make it a blind one or something. Like tell the shrink the guy is just coming in for a check with regard to becoming a LEO, getting a security clearance, or just a general background check. Or perhaps a general neurological thing. For example when I was in a car accident, one neurologist thought I was faking the pain and sent me to a shrink for an evaluation. So tell the shrink the guy is coming in for that. Then take the shrink's report and if it says "This guy is normal", issue the permit. If it shows anything, don't issue. Of course then you get into the business of lying to doctors about the reason you're sending them a patient.

Basically don't tell the shrink that you're sending the guy with a specific regard to guns (after all it isn't like I have a specific reason to showing up for my physical aside from the fact a year has gone by). Then the shrink submits a standard form, which is done for all visits, and that depending on what was filled out on that form, you get a permit or you don't.

Although personally given the role of guns in suicides and rage shootings around the home, I think as a general rule gun owners should be encouraged to see a shrink for a general mental health checkup as a form of gun safety. An intelligent gun owners org would push their members in that direction. Plus your insurance covers it and ...


And shrinks being educated people, would just start marking all patients as potentially harmful by the mere fact that they own or want to own guns.  That way, no one can then sue them when a healthy individual who they cleared goes off the deep end.
 
2013-01-16 04:06:43 PM

CADMonkey79: 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?


I'm guessing that your opposition to this line of question is that you've already been asked this by a doctor.

He's only trying to help.

Take the medication.
 
2013-01-16 04:06:56 PM

ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.


Oh its still the dumbest idea.
 
2013-01-16 04:07:09 PM

Pride of Cucamonga: 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...


People should learn to lie more, say what you need to get on with it. I'm sure whatever you say was probably true at one point or another. If I can beat the system with a simple lie to a doctor, that was a flawed system. It amazes me that some people tell the truth just because they are asked.

or sworn in, whatever

/still amused people swear an oath to mother goose
 
2013-01-16 04:07:17 PM

ronaprhys: 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.


I didn't even need a prescription when I picked up my heroin and needles at Walgreens the other day.

Your unsupported empirical assertion can actually be entirely true, and still meaningless. You need to establish at least an estimate of their availability and price without the ban.

As far as the "readily available" question goes, we already have an answer. Before certain drugs like heroin and cocaine were banned, you literally could pick them up at a drug store. No prescription needed. Cocaine was famously part of the original formula for Coca-Cola. I'd say Coca-Cola is and was more "readily available" today than cocaine, so that pretty much blows out of the water your claim that cocaine is "more readily available than ever."

As far as price goes, I don't have reliable data on that. I can tell you though that your assertion flies in the face of classical price theory. So what are you, some kind of a commie?
 
2013-01-16 04:07:41 PM

ronaprhys: 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.


Wow so it's easier to get drugs now than just a few years ago when in my city (it was legal) and we had a marijuana dispensary on every corner and more locations than all the pharmacies in the city?

You want to go with that?
 
2013-01-16 04:08:08 PM
yes, more expansion. Thats always a good thing. Tell me, when does government power ever contract? How come its never a balance, and always only moves in one direction (out)?
 
2013-01-16 04:08:37 PM

ha-ha-guy: 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.


Lets collect data. If that scenario is REALLY where the bulk of guns used by thugs is coming from, it's not hard to say "ten of your rifles have been used to kill random people on the East Coast, no more farking guns for your careless ass". Basic attractive menace sort of stuff.

But we need data. Getting a gun stolen is one thing, if you're regularly reporting having an arsenal stolen you are not a responsible gun owner and should not be treated as such.

It's about accountability. And many gun owners seem to take a deep pride in avoiding ever having to take any.
 
2013-01-16 04:08:38 PM

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


I am totally guessing, but maybe the doctor was going to prescribe a medication that had a side effect of making people violent or suicidal, he might want to reconsider if a person had easy access to a gun.

The only thing I can think of.
 
2013-01-16 04:08:39 PM
So are vets who get treated for PTSD going to not be allowed to have fire arms?
 
2013-01-16 04:08:45 PM

dahmers love zombie: 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.


I just can't get used to Reddit. I can't find anything or follow the discussions. Plus Fark isn't blocked at work.
 
2013-01-16 04:09:18 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.

Oh its still the dumbest idea.


I agree to a certain degree, in that the poor cop is likely just to be stalked and the first killed in a planned shooting. Wait for him to step outside for a cup of coffee away from the kids, snipe him, and go about your business. On the other hand, I suppose they're useful when the parent who lost custody shows up and starts ranting and raving like a moron.

/my town has always deployed at least one police officer to the school
//they're not tethered there, in that they can leave to respond to calls, but they sit around the lounge in the school as opposed to sitting around the lounge at the station, for whatever benefit that brings
 
2013-01-16 04:09:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.


It is dumb when the NRA said it because no one want's to pay for it. If the NRA is willing to tax guns and bullets to pay for this? If not then it's a BS position because they know it won't happen.
 
2013-01-16 04:09:37 PM

Endive Wombat: 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


Agreed. The only thing that changes is the tool applied to the task. I'm just waiting for the US arrival of things like the gas attacks that took place in Japan a number of years ago, like the subway killings there. Thanks to the wide spread of knowledge on the Internet, it's not hard at all to find out how to make that stuff, or something equally dangerous. And increasingly, you see that these mass killers have *planned* for things. And as soon as someone actually starts to *plan* an attack like these, they'll plan around whatever weapons or tools they have available.
 
2013-01-16 04:09:51 PM
yeah guise,
dont complain that you are depressed or have been feeling bad, or have anxiety.....

YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL.... PLEASE PROCEED DOWN THE YELLOW LINE TO PROCESSING FACILITY.... DO NOT MAKE SUDDEN MOVES
 
2013-01-16 04:10:01 PM
Other than #16, welcome to New Jersey.

/except we don't get only 1 background check.
//background & medical & "instant" that must go through the state and NOT directly to the feds.
///oh, and 30 day background checks that take 6+ months
////and a BS list of verboten guns
 
2013-01-16 04:10:25 PM
The problems they're going to have (at least here in NYS) in implementing any kind of database/registration system are going to be as follows:
1. The job is going to go to a donor or family member who may or may not have a clue as to what a database is.
2. Whoever gets the job is virtually guaranteed to abuse the office for their own personal gain in one way or the other.
3. Six months to a year after getting this plum job, they will have nothing to show for their efforts except for a largely empty database which they'll have either stolen outright from some company and refaced as state property, or they'll outsource it to another patronage crony who will in turn misappropriate the information for personal gain.
4. There will be a hue and cry, an 'investigation' will be announced, emotional statements will be made to 'protect citizen's rights' and yet another state government job(s) will be created.
5. The investigation will conveniently take just long enough so as not to interfere with Stahalter Cuomo's reelection or Presidential run.
6. After either event, it will sputter and die. Nothing of consequence will be found. Another investigation will be 'suggested', but will go nowhere.
7. The investigation team and the database team will eventually have lifetime employment, the right to join the public-sector unions, and proceed to bloat like every other agency and authority we have in this state.
8. Homicide levels will continue to rise among minorities, there will still be the occasional spree killings, only this time, they'll probably be using either firearms brought over from Africa, the Middle East, or our good buddies, the Chinese.

Welcome to the People's Republic of New York, comrade!

I could probably come up with more, but why spoil the non-surprise.
 
2013-01-16 04:10:45 PM

ha-ha-guy: On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.


Oh and the NRA positions was armed VOLUNTEERS not ARMED GUARDS.
 
2013-01-16 04:10:52 PM
Some of the suggestions for categorically banning assault weapons, or requiring psychological checks for all assault weapons, or requiring tracking of all assault weapons, are frankly ridiculous. A big part of this is that the definition of "assault weapon" is frankly ridiculous.

I've got an SKS that meet the Federal Assault Weapons Ban criteria for being an assault weapon... because it has a grenade launcher and a bayonet. Otherwise, it's a semiautomatic rifle with an integral 10-round magazine. Loading the rifle requires inserting each bullet by hand or using a 10-round clip (which is only slightly faster). The military claims the effective rate of fire is 35-40 rounds per minute, but evidently this assumes you're some kind of superman. It would equate to one second per shot and five seconds to reload each clip, which is unrealistic for most people.

The Federal AWB implies that this rifle is just as deadly as an AR-15 with 100-round magazines.
 
2013-01-16 04:10:58 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...


People will Just Not Stop having sex!
 
2013-01-16 04:11:16 PM

Corvus: ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.

It is dumb when the NRA said it because no one want's to pay for it. If the NRA is willing to tax guns and bullets to pay for this? If not then it's a BS position because they know it won't happen.


I bet we could solve the budget problem with a tax on TACTICOOL style accessories.
 
2013-01-16 04:11:22 PM

Antimatter: 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.


A person could spend some time researching and go to the nearest Dollar Store, and walk out with enough material to kill a hell of a lot of people. Common household chemicals can be combined in some absolutely _terrifying_ ways.
 
2013-01-16 04:11:44 PM

GarretSidzaka: yeah guise,
dont complain that you are depressed or have been feeling bad, or have anxiety.....

YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL.... PLEASE PROCEED DOWN THE YELLOW LINE TO PROCESSING FACILITY.... DO NOT MAKE SUDDEN MOVES


Psst. that's not how they are suggesting for it to work. But make up BS and not look into the actual facts.
 
2013-01-16 04:12:36 PM

PanicMan: I just can't get used to Reddit. I can't find anything or follow the discussions.


Same problem I have with that site. I have been there a few times and get frustrated really quickly trying to follow a single conversation.
 
2013-01-16 04:12:55 PM
Click Click D'oh: If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello

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


"We just put two more detectives on the case!"

i.ytimg.com

/leads!
 
2013-01-16 04:13:13 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: 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.


I don't always fark non-human objects, but when I do, I prefer your Mom
 
2013-01-16 04:13:14 PM

TellarHK: Antimatter: 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.

A person could spend some time researching and go to the nearest Dollar Store, and walk out with enough material to kill a hell of a lot of people. Common household chemicals can be combined in some absolutely _terrifying_ ways.


Really the saving grace is most nutbags have really poor delay of gratification skills, premeditation abilities, and not much imagination. Thus the guys who can rig a UHaul of fertilizer to blow up a building (and are crazy enough to do it) are few and far between.
 
2013-01-16 04:13:21 PM

ha-ha-guy: Corvus: ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.

It is dumb when the NRA said it because no one want's to pay for it. If the NRA is willing to tax guns and bullets to pay for this? If not then it's a BS position because they know it won't happen.

I bet we could solve the budget problem with a tax on TACTICOOL style accessories.


Well if the NRA thought it was such a great idea why weren't the willing to put a tax for it?

How much do you think it would cost to have armed guards at EVERY school in the US?
 
2013-01-16 04:13:37 PM

ronaprhys: 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.



It's a helluva lot easier to make this:
www.1stmarijuanagrowerspage.com

From this:
www.hempgrown.com

Than it is to make this:
cache.gawker.com

From this:
waseemsohailsteel.com
 
2013-01-16 04:13:45 PM

rrife: 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.


I'm in the same boat as you. I'm okay with most of his proposals aside from the AWB. Not thrilled about high capacity magazines being outlawed again, but it's not a huge issue to me. (I'd like to meet them half way and allow 15th rounds at least in my handguns)

The AWB is just still though, banning certain guns just for their looks. Hopefully common sense will prevail on that front, but I have my doubts. Perhaps they'll compromise and give up high capacity magazines in return for being able to have scary collapsible stocks and pistol grips.
 
2013-01-16 04:13:59 PM

ha-ha-guy: If that became reliable


It can't. It's too damn easy to change the barrel to the point that you can't reliably match it to any rounds fired. For instance, you could put a few bullets through it.
 
2013-01-16 04:14:47 PM

ha-ha-guy: Really the saving grace is most nutbags have really poor delay of gratification skills, premeditation abilities, and not much imagination. Thus the guys who can rig a UHaul of fertilizer to blow up a building (and are crazy enough to do it) are few and far between.


That and you need permits etc., to buy that stuff in bulk. That stuff is actually regulated.

Also delay of gratification is good reason then for waiting periods.
 
2013-01-16 04:15:03 PM

muck4doo: So are vets who get treated for PTSD going to not be allowed to have fire arms?


I am not sure if it would help or not, because when a veteran with PTSD wants to either become violent or commit suicide, a gun is just the easiest way, not the only way.

/Lost a great friend (former Marine Capt. who spent 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan) to suicide via hand gun. Not sure if taking his guns away would have stopped it, maybe only delayed it. Who knows.
 
2013-01-16 04:15:56 PM

minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?


How about requiring a title? That way, if it turns out, you sell a gun to a criminal and that gun is used in a crime, it's on you too.

It's a crime for a felon to possess a gun, so why shouldn't there be a penalty against selling a felon one?

Doesn't even have to cost anything. Consider it the "responsible" part of responsible gun ownership.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:13 PM

muck4doo: So are vets who get treated for PTSD going to not be allowed to have fire arms?



What have I been telling the gun derpers all along??? This "mental health" deflection you were handed by the NRA was a self-inflicted trojan horse, and it will never be accepted in its full implication by the gun lobby once they realize that it could mean THEY may not have access to guns based on their own plan. There's still this naive idealism (and bias) that "crazy people" are "the other", and all we have to do is exclude them somehow.

Right now we're in the uncertain period where the footsoldiers haven't been given their talking points and buzzwords for the Daily Outrage. Some are saying they're OK with the plan, others are cautious, some are picking at a few of the details.

By this time next week every single one of them will have amnesia and have forgotten what they've said today, and they'll all be in lockstep again with some new complaint/barrier.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:14 PM

Corvus: ha-ha-guy: On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.

Oh and the NRA positions was armed VOLUNTEERS not ARMED GUARDS.


Volunteers with guns guarding kids. That sounds like a dandy idea to me. This from a country that can't seem to keep its teacher from farking students.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:23 PM

Surpheon: 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.


While online sales exist, they have to ship the guns to a local dealer (the seller needs to have a copy of their license, which they verify, before shipping it) who then goes through the normal paperwork and background check. It's not like you can get guns mailed to your house[1].

It's basically a way for certain people to buy things that might not be normally stocked at a local shop. For example, I'm left-handed and my local dealer doesn't stock any left-handed bolt-action rifles. I can either have the dealer call his distributors and order the gun to be shipped to the store, or I can just buy it online and have it shipped to the shop. This is really handy if his normal distributors don't have exactly what I'm looking for.

Of course, if the local dealer is shady and selling guns to criminals, nail him to the wall. Fark him.

[1] Certain exceptions apply for very old antique guns, or a limited number of old, collectable guns sold to licensed collectors of curios & relics.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:28 PM

Xcott: 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.


I actually know first hand of some gun control activists who moved to Newtown that day, in order to establish residence and start the grass roots movement of Sandy Hook sympathy.

I know it's not the same as the false flag theorists, but I think it's telling and quite dishonest.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:29 PM

Skyd1v: My Doctor


She single? I need someone to show me a good time and provide a stable future for me.
 
2013-01-16 04:16:49 PM

TellarHK: Antimatter: 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.

A person could spend some time researching and go to the nearest Dollar Store, and walk out with enough material to kill a hell of a lot of people. Common household chemicals can be combined in some absolutely _terrifying_ ways.


Jason Vorhees could come at you with an ammonia bottle while Michael Myers threw baking soda on you.
 
2013-01-16 04:17:02 PM

rrife: 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.


Making some guns illegal would make those specific ones harder to acquire and since they are not easy to manufacture it would reduce the available supply. It goes without saying that there would still be some around and some of them would find their way into the hands of people who use them in crimes.
 
2013-01-16 04:17:03 PM
Out of all the articles and sources on this, subbey had to have picked the shortest, least informative one to link to. And of course, its the one that goes green.
I want to know why this new bill is going to cost and stimated $500 million? Which of course in actual $$'s is going to be more like $1 billion. All of the mechanics are already in place. Background checks for both criminal and mental are already being done. Perhaps it will be used more now. It will be expanded. But its not like a whole new system needs to be developed.
And so a few more guns and accessories will be added to a list of what is not allowed. But again, that whole system already is in place. We do not need to invent the wheel. Hell the assault weapons ban was already there. Just reactivate it.
Nothing I've seen is new. Its everything we already do, just on an expanded level.
 
2013-01-16 04:17:18 PM
The president knows these proposals wont do anything. But thats not why he did it. It's so the next time there is a mass shooting the gov't can say "look, we obviously didnt do enough, we have to do more." Rinse and repeat until guns are banned. The vast majority of Americans are too busy watching Honey Boo Boo or Desperate House Wives to even notice. Remember, its a process, not an event
 
2013-01-16 04:17:38 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: ha-ha-guy: If that became reliable

It can't. It's too damn easy to change the barrel to the point that you can't reliably match it to any rounds fired. For instance, you could put a few bullets through it.


I was thinking some like that pollen idea the Brits had, where the barrel bonds something to every bullet to go through it. Of course then you'd have to make it so the barrel wore out at the same time it ran out of material to bond to the bullets.

Really the solution is likely heuristics. Find dealers who are doing an abnormally high amount of cash sales, monitor them, and see who is selling under the table versus just happens to live somewhere that everyone likes to pay cash. Tougher reporting laws that help give the ATF a better idea whose places of business they want to nose around.
 
2013-01-16 04:17:52 PM

ha-ha-guy: Corvus: 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?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.


Yes, armed guards at school are stupid. Cops, who are armed, at schools are not. There is WAY more that goes in to being a cop than your standard issue "guard" and you can use a cop for, well, all the things that cops do. Obama isn't anti-gun, he's anti "here, hold my beer and watch this" stupidity level of people dealing with guns. Cops are a well regulated militia.
 
2013-01-16 04:18:23 PM

Surpheon: 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.


The generations-old ban on automatic weapons was suggested, and done, by the government well before modern special-interest lobbying groups came into play, and before politicians relied on those lobbying groups to actually draft legislation. Private lobbying groups with the stated purpose of total elimination, and a stated willingness to use disinformation and back door legislation to do it.
I don't see this concern over a conflict of interest as any more paranoid than say, letting energy companies draft the legislation for regulating the energy industry.
 
2013-01-16 04:18:55 PM
My opinion: this is a completely reasonable and needed step to limit transfers to criminals and the insane. How it is implemented may be good or awful and will determine its effectiveness and how much resistance there would be to it.

That said even if it was in place it would not have stopped Sandy Hook.
 
2013-01-16 04:19:11 PM

lordjupiter: By this time next week every single one of them will have amnesia and have forgotten what they've said today, and they'll all be in lockstep again with some new complaint/barrier.


Mostly revolving around the notion that this is just a step in the direction of total gun ban and turning over the US to UN control once they have grabbed all the guns.
 
Displayed 50 of 1394 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report