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
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25835 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1374 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-16 04:20:09 PM  

Surpheon: 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?


I did specifically mention that there would be no need for a "slaughter of innocents" -- but political representatives engaging in acts of repression would not by definition be "innocents". (And no, I am not suggesting that we are in this scenario just yet).

Big Government" is ultimately made of people you know.

All of us may know census- takers and DMV workers, but that's obviously not who is being referred to here.

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.

Naturally. It just doesn't have to involve killing people who are otherwise minding their own business.
 
2013-01-16 04:21:12 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Right, since we have a constitutional right to operate a car. Oh wait..


Oh wait, we do have the right to operate a car, and to use any other lawful property. That's what ownership is, the right to priority of the use of property. The use of public roads (i.e. property I do not own) is another consideration all together. However, (in my state at least) there is no need for a license to operate motor vehicles on private roads.
 
2013-01-16 04:21:14 PM  
This article is fluff and says absolutely nothing about what he's going to do.

"Strengthen background checks" HOW?
"Include more data in background checks" WHAT DATA?
"Force background checks for private sales" MANY STATES ALREADY DO THIS.
 
2013-01-16 04:21:33 PM  

chrylis: mesmer242: 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.

Short example: Citizens who carry firearms defensively can usually only practically carry one magazine, though some large men and women who carry in purses could carry an extra. When assaulted by more than one attacker, five rounds each is entirely likely not enough to disable both of them. Unlike on TV, hitting a person once doesn't make him stop and drop to the ground, and there have been instances where police have emptied magazines into drugged-up attackers without stopping them.


It came up in the context of someone we know who has a fully automatic machine gun (yes, for real. It was... expensive). Making high-capacity-anything totally illegal would render it basically useless, but this is also not a gun that is ever used in self defense. We could debate whether or not the political will is there for capacity restrictions - I think it might come down the pipeline, and others might disagree - but it's possible that there will soon be a debate on if there will be reasonable exceptions to those limits or if we're looking a stop-manufacture or a turn-in type thing. Making sure the hobbyists have access at gun ranges in one way or another seems like a completely reasonable exception no matter how things turn out. That's all I was saying. I think an overhaul of the mental health system would be far more effective than changing gun laws, so mostly I was glad to see some of that starting to get addressed in the plan.

And in my uninformed opinion, if you shoot someone five times and hit them, and they're still not stopping, the likelihood is high enough that they're a zombie that you should probably just run.
 
2013-01-16 04:22:12 PM  
Oh subby, you know better than that. Not only will they double down on the poutrage, the poutrage will be over stuff that wasn't even part of the executive orders.
 
2013-01-16 04:22:44 PM  
Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.
 
2013-01-16 04:22:58 PM  

Gdalescrboz: 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


Thank you.

These incidents won't stop. Each new one will be a starting point for a new round of regulations. It's the world the gun fetishists made, so they can suck it.
 
2013-01-16 04:23:48 PM  

plewis: 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.


THIS.

I remember at the college I went to they were talking about arming our "campus police", the student body voted no farking way. The campus police were a bunch of idiots with power trips.
 
2013-01-16 04:25:00 PM  

wruley: 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.


So if the say yes then they get no treatment?
 
2013-01-16 04:25:36 PM  

plewis: Yes, armed guards at school are stupid. Cops, who are armed, at schools are not.


What's amusing is watching anti- NRA partisans pretend that these two proposals are entirely different, with one of them being allegedly moronic and beneath contempt, and the other one absolutely brilliant -- even though the cops would, by definition, be guarding the schools.
 
2013-01-16 04:26:20 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.


So far. But then you've got attacks like Aurora, and Oklahoma City. And 9/11.

And the nutbag that planned to shoot up a "Breaking Dawn" showing followed by a Walmart.

This kind of thing is probably, unfortunately, going to get -worse-. Especially now that the media are in "Quick, someone got shot! Get it on the air! He was black? Do it anyway for once!" mode.

Sensationalism sells, and right now, shootings are what people tune in to hear about whether they admit it or not. It engages people, drives pageviews, Neilsen ratings, whatever the benchmark is - shootings sell.
 
2013-01-16 04:27:21 PM  
I'd pay a 3-5% tax on my ammo purchases (sizeable), and guns to fund such...
 
2013-01-16 04:27:47 PM  

CADMonkey79: wruley: 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.

So if the say yes then they get no treatment?


Or maybe he'll prescribe a different drug, or recommend a course of psychotherapy.
 
2013-01-16 04:28:02 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?


A president doesn't have that power.
 
2013-01-16 04:28:03 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.


You get the stupidest post award for the thread. That's like saying "durrr, the 1st amendment doesn't saying about the internets".
 
2013-01-16 04:28:15 PM  

CADMonkey79: wruley: 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.

So if the say yes then they get no treatment?


If the medication has really high odds of making someone violent or suicidal, I'd argue they should be under 24/7 care for the duration of the treatment. If the adverse reaction is so severe you worry about them shooting the place up after taking two pills, I don't want them around cars, knives, lead pipes, chainsaws, etc. So it seems kind of an odd edge case.
 
2013-01-16 04:28:16 PM  

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

You are one lucky farker. Don't ever forget that.


The secret is fiber. Fiber and caffeine. And if that fails I make like a genius and work it out with a pencil.
 
2013-01-16 04:28:29 PM  

TellarHK: Sensationalism sells, and right now, shootings are what people tune in to hear about whether they admit it or not. It engages people, drives pageviews, Neilsen ratings, whatever the benchmark is - shootings sell.


Put there are people who die from shootings everyday. 99% it doesn't make the news unless it's horrific.
 
2013-01-16 04:28:44 PM  

dennysgod: 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.


Then why the item about your doctor asking you if you have a gun? What does that have to do with treatment?
 
2013-01-16 04:29:06 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: 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?

A president doesn't have that power.


I know that. Tell the NRA they are wrong.
 
2013-01-16 04:29:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater

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

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.


It's not an analogy, it's a paraphrasing of the 1919 decision in Schenk v US. I can't link on my phone but wikipedia has more info.

The reason people keep bringing it up is that it is one of the specific examples given of non-protected speech.
 
2013-01-16 04:29:29 PM  

neversummer: 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.


You mean you know them? If you know of them, it isn't "first hand."
 
2013-01-16 04:30:06 PM  

TellarHK: 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.

So far. But then you've got attacks like Aurora, and Oklahoma City. And 9/11.

And the nutbag that planned to shoot up a "Breaking Dawn" showing followed by a Walmart.

This kind of thing is probably, unfortunately, going to get -worse-. Especially now that the media are in "Quick, someone got shot! Get it on the air! He was black? Do it anyway for once!" mode.

Sensationalism sells, and right now, shootings are what people tune in to hear about whether they admit it or not. It engages people, drives pageviews, Neilsen ratings, whatever the benchmark is - shootings sell.


Well, you have to impress Jodie Foster somehow. Taking the names and glory out of it is definitely a step in the right direction, but hard in the wired area.
 
2013-01-16 04:30:13 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.


Actually it says nothing specific about either.

The founders of our country were very, very specific, however in expressing exactly why they put it in there, however, in many letters and speeches of the time. The idea was that the people are not free unless they are armed, and a government with a disarmed populace has no reason to fear the people and cannot be trusted to obey their will. In the constant conflict between whats best for the people and whats best for the rulers, votes of the people can be easily ignored if those people are powerless.
We don't have it for hunting or sport, we have the amendment for defense from invaders and because our own government can't be trusted otherwise. That was the idea; no coups or invasions or dictatorial governments. Can't recall that happening 200+ years of our history.
 
2013-01-16 04:30:46 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.


The constitution says nothing about technology, which is a good thing. And the victims of accidental shootings often ARE members of the NRA, or family members. Accidental shootings are always a tragedy, and I say this having lost a cousin at a very young age to an accident with a shotgun being cleaned by her brother. A stupid, regrettable, avoidable, tragic accident that scarred the entire family forever.

I remember my cousin every time I clean my guns. Every time I check the magazine or clear the barrel. Every. Damn. Time.

And I'm not an NRA member because I think those people are batshiat.
 
2013-01-16 04:31:04 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.


And if you were expecting anything else, you're a fool. Obama was never going to seize dictatorial powers over this; he was always going to work within the framework of existing laws, and within that framework, this is about his limit.
 
2013-01-16 04:31:06 PM  

CliChe Guevara: That was the idea; no coups or invasions or dictatorial governments.


Well, I can tell you grew up north of the Mason Dixon line.
 
2013-01-16 04:31:48 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.


Excuse me 1st amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about using the Internet, TV or radio. Printed broadsheets satisfy the constitution.

I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.

This is the insanity of the Left in a nutshell: people who have never hurt anyone in their lives but happen to own guns are portrayed as evil monsters deserving death, while the responsibility of the actual shooter is played down or even denied altogether. You people really are living in Bizarro world.
 
2013-01-16 04:32:26 PM  
But let me just say Pew had research and said gun owners support these types of regulations 50-80% (depending which ones they are) so there are many gun owners who are not "gun nuts". It just seems we have some vocal ones on fark who make it sound like every gun owners is against every regulation..

And please don't do that trick where you say "I am not against all regulation" and then fail to give any regulation that you support like I have seen in many of these threads. OR only support regulation that you know would never ever happen.
 
2013-01-16 04:32:38 PM  

muck4doo: grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.

You get the stupidest post award for the thread. That's like saying "durrr, the 1st amendment doesn't saying about the internets".


Nah i defeated that analogy a few pages back. More like it not saying anything about ebonics.
 
2013-01-16 04:32:50 PM  

Corvus: Put there are people who die from shootings everyday. 99% it doesn't make the news unless it's horrific.


It still makes the news, but has a far shorter shelf-life. It's all anecdotal of course, but I've notice a LOT more talk in the last two or three weeks about shooting incidents all over the country that probably wouldn't have been notable six months ago.
 
2013-01-16 04:32:55 PM  

CliChe Guevara: grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.

Actually it says nothing specific about either.

The founders of our country were very, very specific, however in expressing exactly why they put it in there, however, in many letters and speeches of the time. The idea was that the people are not free unless they are armed, and a government with a disarmed populace has no reason to fear the people and cannot be trusted to obey their will. In the constant conflict between whats best for the people and whats best for the rulers, votes of the people can be easily ignored if those people are powerless.
We don't have it for hunting or sport, we have the amendment for defense from invaders and because our own government can't be trusted otherwise. That was the idea; no coups or invasions or dictatorial governments. Can't recall that happening 200+ years of our history.



Puhlease. They keep your ass in line with a TV and you didn't do anything when they shipped half the economy to communist China or created the DHS. And you won't do anything now. Go back to your Fox.
 
2013-01-16 04:33:26 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.


Hey, prohibitionist douchebag, the first amendment doesn't say anything about protecting your free speech rights on the internet, STFU.
 
2013-01-16 04:33:27 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: This is the insanity of the Left in a nutshell: people who have never hurt anyone in their lives but happen to own guns are portrayed as evil monsters deserving death,


[citation please]
 
2013-01-16 04:33:37 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.

Excuse me 1st amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about using the Internet, TV or radio. Printed broadsheets satisfy the constitution.

I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.

This is the insanity of the Left in a nutshell: people who have never hurt anyone in their lives but happen to own guns are portrayed as evil monsters deserving death, while the responsibility of the actual shooter is played down or even denied altogether. You people really are living in Bizarro world.


They really can't stand it when people don't "bend a knee" to their idea of "utopia"

/The real world is violent and ugly, get a helmet
 
2013-01-16 04:33:37 PM  

NightOwl2255: 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.


According to a local CBS affiliate, some of Arpaio's posse members have criminal records.

Their investigation "uncovered a number of posse members with arrests for assault, drug possession, domestic violence, sex crimes against children, disorderly conduct, impersonating an officer - and the list goes on."
 
2013-01-16 04:34:41 PM  

TellarHK: Corvus: Put there are people who die from shootings everyday. 99% it doesn't make the news unless it's horrific.

It still makes the news, but has a far shorter shelf-life. It's all anecdotal of course, but I've notice a LOT more talk in the last two or three weeks about shooting incidents all over the country that probably wouldn't have been notable six months ago.


Maybe for 5 seconds on that local news but not nationally. If you reported on every gun death in the US it would take up the news every day.
 
2013-01-16 04:35:27 PM  

Corvus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: This is the insanity of the Left in a nutshell: people who have never hurt anyone in their lives but happen to own guns are portrayed as evil monsters deserving death,

[citation please]


Dude, his username is "EvilRacistNaziFascist". Why are you even acknowledging his troll posts at all? Stoppit!
 
2013-01-16 04:35:45 PM  
My question based on the 23 points, is what will this exactly do and how much will it cost to do? Obviously the 23 points look reasonable and not extreme, but is this necessary and how will it be enforced? I could put a bill together to end world hunger. Ok, well you are either going to be paying out the ass for that, or it won't really end world hunger or have any noticeable effect on world hunger despite costing a ton. I think that is what a lot of people miss. It might be something with great intentions, but the results and plan suck.

If let's say a machine was invented to bring an individual back to life, but the cost to use it was half a billion dollars, how often would it be used? Obviously everyone would want it used to bring their loved ones back, but could THEY themselves afford it? Probably not. So, you ask and plead with others to help bring back your loved one. Maybe individuals are so motivated, they are able to drum up 5 billion dollars and lo-and-behold 10 lucky individuals are brought back to life. Nevermind the fact that millions of people are still dead. There isn't anymore money to bring back anyone else. What happens then? We say lives are invaluable, that isn't true. Everyone has a price on their head. In the same vein, this 500 million dollar proposed bill might in fact prevent 100 people from dying, making those individuals lives worth 5 million dollars each. How many people would/could pay money to save 100 people's lives? What if it is only able to save 1 person's life? Would that be worth it?
 
2013-01-16 04:35:52 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.
I still say that the victims of accidental shootings should be NRA members or their family. They are ultimately responsible for the over abundance of friendly fire deaths.

Hey, prohibitionist douchebag, the first amendment doesn't say anything about protecting your free speech rights on the internet, STFU.


Oh so then having nuclear weapons is protected by the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-01-16 04:35:54 PM  

heypete: While online sales exist,


Can't high capacity magazines can be ordered by mail? I think only the frame is regulated.

Regardless, I'm not arguing against online sales. I'm arguing that we should collect hard data on gun use (and abuse). Currently we don't and so target gun regulation is shooting in the dark, basically making policy by anecdote. Fighting against collecting data will ultimately bite the NRA on the ass since eventually there will be a triple digit murder at some school and the majority will say fark it and just regulate blindly.
 
2013-01-16 04:36:12 PM  

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.


Meanwhile, you're a 1st Amendment douchebag.

Let me send some electrons your way before there is an executive order limiting electronic communication, because ink and parchment satisfy the constitution.

Here goes...

www.theantiliberalzone.com
 
2013-01-16 04:36:25 PM  

the ha ha guy: 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.


No, it only regulates your status as a married person in the eyes of the state. You wanna be married in the Church of Bob? Knock yourself out. You wanna claim Married on your tax return? Conform to the government's requirements.
 
2013-01-16 04:36:40 PM  

AFKobel: 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.


No I have never been asked. If I was, that would be the last time I went to that doctor. My point is that doctors treat illness, whether you own a gun or weapon is none of their business and should not be brought up unless there appears to be a serious risk of that person harming themselves or others, at that point the police should be involved and be the ones asking about weapons. A doctor mentioning a gun is going to scare off a lot of people that maybe trying to get help. Like others have said people with metal illness are not criminals and should not be treated as such.
 
2013-01-16 04:36:50 PM  
It appears many members of the Fark Militia have some extraordinary superpowers that enable them to both discern what the president is really thinking, and see into the future.

Others seem to be positively erect at the thought of an Oklahoma City-type attack happening in the near future. Stay classy, gun nuts.
 
2013-01-16 04:37:17 PM  
I'm kinda surprised we don't already do most of that stuff. Most of it seems pretty sensible.
 
2013-01-16 04:37:21 PM  
How's this for a scary gun?
world.guns.ru

9mm Calico Carbine. Magazine holds 100 rounds. Standard

Also make a pistol version
calicolightweaponsystems.com

Calico: Because scaring libs with range toys is fun!
 
2013-01-16 04:37:24 PM  

CliChe Guevara: We don't have it for hunting or sport, we have the amendment for defense from invaders and because our own government can't be trusted otherwise. That was the idea; no coups or invasions or dictatorial governments. Can't recall that happening 200+ years of our history.


Lisa Simpson has a rock you would just love.
 
2013-01-16 04:37:48 PM  

Corvus: 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?


TOTAL NUMBER OF K-12 SCHOOLS: 132,656 (http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-facts/)
x
Average Armed Security Officer Salary: $31000. (http://www.indeed.com/salary/Armed-Security-Officer.html)

= 4,112,336,000.00 - not counting overhead.
 
2013-01-16 04:37:59 PM  

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.


But isn't having a gun in the home supposed to prevent this type of crime from happening? Now you're saying that having guns in the home increases the risk of crime.

That's some fine reasoning, right there.
 
Displayed 50 of 1374 comments


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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