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 | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 04:52:05 PM  

Aphrodisiac: This is really really dumb politically. An assault weapons ban or high cap mag restriction type push from the Dems will hand the house and the presidency back to the republicans for the next decade. This back ground check thing is seriously treading on thin ice. This is probably the dumbest issue they could possibly tackle. I cant believe that the Dems could even be thinking about messing with this hornets nest. Dumb Dumb Dumb!


Background checks won't push anyone who still somehow manages to be on the fence politically, over it to one side or another. The background checks are a good, and honestly long overdue patch for a hole in the law. Unfortunately, they're largely toothless without one major component that *will* meet honest resistance, which is universal firearm registration.

Why? Because then anyone that wants to sell a firearm to someone without a check will just "agree" that it was sold before the law passed and absolve themselves of responsibility. Then, the burden of proof on law enforcement gets incredibly high.

Do I believe that any gun sales on the premises of a location hosting a "gun show", or possibly any premises where a licensed FFL holder (gun dealer) is conducting business, should be required to pass a background check? Yes, absolutely. Am I in favor of checking *all* transfers? To one degree or another, yes, but I admit that there are holes.
 
2013-01-16 04:52:07 PM  
Exploiting dead children for political points = a 100% piece of s***. Don't think for a minute you're fooling anyone into thinking you give a d*** about these children - it's all about taking shots at the other guy, just like all your bulls*** war protests that dried up the minute Obama took office. You cared about bashing Bush, not about any wars, and you certainly don't care about these children, at least beyond the extent you can exploit their deaths. 100% pieces of s*** liberals.
 
2013-01-16 04:52:16 PM  
www.grolschfilmworks.com
 
2013-01-16 04:53:17 PM  

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

Then your freedom of speech should be limitted to what was available then too:

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 225x300]



This 2nd = 1st rebuttal seems awfully popular all of a sudden. I wonder why? Must be a new talking point.

Regardless, there is no "gotcha" analogy here. The context of BOTH Amendments should be taken into consideration, as is appropriate for each. Bullets are not words or thoughts. Self defense is not communication. You can't simply apply materials involved in a 1 to 1 relationship and retain the meanings, or intents, or histories of their development.

So farking tired of these dumbass, bad comparisons.
 
2013-01-16 04:53:25 PM  

MythDragon: How's this for a scary gun?
[world.guns.ru image 597x168]

9mm Calico Carbine. Magazine holds 100 rounds. Standard

Also make a pistol version
[calicolightweaponsystems.com image 444x184]

Calico: Because scaring libs with range toys is fun!


You want to scare me? Do it with a pic of something that doesn't jam.
 
2013-01-16 04:53:37 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: CADMonkey79: Uranus Is Huge!: 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.

So you don't think a AWB might drive some of the gun loons to commit an OKC like attack? I'm not saying that is necessarily a reason not to do it (AWB) but it might be a good idea to consider the likelihood of that being a consequence.

I think a serious chemical imbalance might cause someone to commit an atrocity. You're suggesting basing our decision making on the reaction on the unhinged. That's not a plan for governance.


I didn't say that is what should dictate the decision. I said it might be a consequence of making the "unhinged" feel as thought they are being backed into a corner.
 
2013-01-16 04:54:05 PM  
(eats popcorn, waits for first reported story of lawyers for mentally ill suing to allow their clients to buy guns)

/you know it's going to happen
//USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-01-16 04:54:09 PM  
The plan (from this link, along with my comments:

1 - Require background checks for all gun sales: Good in theory, probably won't work in practice. If they make it free and either require firearm shops to offer the service for free, maybe. I don't like requiring it (I'd likely do this voluntarily if I could if I were to sell to someone I didn't know well), but as long as both parties had to be present, submit ID, and have the check done for no cost, I might be able to support this. I'd still rather see it as voluntary and I still think it'll do absolutely nothing to stop homicides. Enough firearms exist from prior sales that people won't bother with the check, especially if it's a hassle.
2 - Strengthen the background check system for gun sales: Again, good in theory. Especially if not everyone is submitting the data they're supposed to. Devil's in the details, though - do those submitters actually have quality data to submit? More needs to be explored here, but if it's limited to what currently exists this could be supportable. Probably will have absolutely minimal impact on homicide rates, though.
3 - Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons: And now the stupid starts. They actually call the recent firearms used assault rifles when they are not. Period. This isn't a discussion - it's factually incorrect. They used semi-automatic rifles that do not have the capability for automatic or burst fire. Lying is absolutely not an acceptable tactic to use and they are doing that. What this should be labeled as is "ban scary looking black rifles because they scare us". This will have no impact on homicide rates whatsoever and will do nothing but inconvenience legal shooters. Two points to that - enough of these rifles exist that they won't dry up anytime soon. Secondly, many non-black rifles have exactly the same capacity (and sometimes in even more powerful calibers), so folks will just switch over to those. Straight up idiocy, this.
4 - Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: Another non-shooter coming up with silliness. Yes, they have been used in these shootings, however, now they're legislating to the exception rather than the rule. Also, enforcement. If they were legal before, you can't make them illegal (in spite of what NY thinks). Enough of these exist that they'll be highly available for quite some time.
5 - Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets: Is this actually a problem? Did any of the recent shootings us "armor-piercing" bullets or is this some sort of nonsense? How are they defining armor-piercing. Devil in the details here - would a fully-jacketed round be considered AP by their standards? This worries me as the details are lacking.
6 - Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime: What the shiat? Since when did LE lack the tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime? I'm pretty sure we do a good job of prosecuting this all of the time. Another very worrisome issue here. What restrictions exist that they want to eliminate? Does this violate 4th Amendment? Also, this sounds like a cry for more funding (something about keeping 15K cops on the street).
7 - End the freeze on gun violence research: A bit of a misnomer. Anyone who wanted was free to research the hell out of this subject if they desired. The only difference is that they couldn't use Federal funds to do so. It'll be interesting to see if the POTUS can actually issue the directive to do the research or if he's going to run into a legal wall. The only thing that's prevented those who want to introduce additional controls from doing the research is their own lack of funding. Those who support firearm rights have no real problem getting the money.
8 - Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates: Maybe having new folks would be good, but nothing about allowing teachers who've taken CCW classes to actually carry in school. My guess is that this is more "feel good" stuff that will do nothing to actually stop a mass shooting, but will cost more.
9 - Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people: Sounds great in theory, but what are the details?


On the overall, I have to rate this a D-. It's got some potentially good points, but much of it isn't enforceable and some of it is plainly asinine, including one point that has absolutely nothing to do with recent history. Nor does it look like anything that would actually impact the homicide rate one iota.
 
2013-01-16 04:54:12 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: 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.


Don't you think, rather than playing the paranoid victim all the time, that IF your wet dream SHTF scenario ever happens, you have a much more likely chance of being on the side of the gov't, working to restore law and order? Wouldn't that be ironic??!!
 
2013-01-16 04:54:20 PM  
Folks know how erosion works yes?

First it begins like so... farm1.staticflickr.com

Not so bad.

Then...

media.away.com

You folks are just handing them the keys to your chains. This must be how the blacks felt when their own people sold them into slavery.
/hot like the the barrel of an assault weapon at daycare.
 
2013-01-16 04:54:21 PM  

Corvus: Oh so then having nuclear weapons is protected by the 2nd amendment?


I thought the 2nd amendment covered the right to "bear" arms -- can a nuclear weapon be borne the way a handgun or rifle is? If not, it isn't covered by the 2nd. In any event it'd be silly to imagine that the only reason people don't own nuclear weapons is because they are illegal -- why on earth would terrorists care about that? The real reason is because nuclear weapons are immensely difficult and costly to construct, transport, and deploy.

/"y-y-yeah well if you think the 2nd amendment allows you to have a nuclear bomb you should move to Somalia which is a libertarian country you NRA murderer"
 
2013-01-16 04:54:55 PM  

ha-ha-guy: TellarHK: MythDragon:
How weird is the balance on it with 100 9mm rounds loaded?


Awkward as hell from the get-go. I think the balance is almost better with the 100 round magazine, but I cannot stand the way it feels to try and shoot the thing. The weight of it makes you want to brace the underside of the front grip with your free hand, but the "magwell" looking bit in front of the trigger guard is actually the case eject port. So you need to be damn careful with stance to avoid getting hot brass on your arm. I've never liked shooting it, but it is one HELL of a thing to show off.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:03 PM  

Fail in Human Form: They really can't stand it when people don't "bend a knee" to their idea of "utopia"


Who are you quoting, there?
 
2013-01-16 04:55:16 PM  

Loadmaster: Of Obama's 23 orders, exactly zero of them would have prevented the Newtown massacre.


He is more interested in looking like he is doing something while pissing off the law abiding gun owners who will and have consistently voted against him and his party.
It's really more about keeping the country divided and fighting each other so he can use the excuse of executive orders.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:24 PM  

natmar_76: What pisses me off is the "mental health" garbage. That's pure pandering. There is no correlation between mental illness and increased violence. In fact, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence. What DOES correlate to violent behavior are things like drinking alcohol, being male, and being poor (go figure, people hate being poor). The one mental illness that DOES correlate to violence, psychopathy, is very difficult to diagnose. Well, that and Alzheimer's, but that's old people and we love those cuddly old farts even when they get irrationally angry, right?

Tell me, why are we confiscating guns from people who make threats and are mentally ill, but not people who make threats, especially without cause? Do some of us have less citizenry than others?

Any violation of rights lessens the power of our democracy for us ALL.

This is pure pandering. The media has scapegoated mental illness for decades, and politicians are willing to take advantage of a segment of our population who is unable to defend themselves, and we're willing to eat it up in the wake of a tragedy that's difficult to accept.

I find that abhorrent. I find the treatment of the mentally ill in this nation to be repulsive. We shun them. We push them away. We make mental illness terrifying. We paint it as a failure and a weakness. We make people who are mentally ill afraid to talk about it and to seek help. And that leads to a lack of preventative care and adequate care. Other countries, have far less prevalence of mental illness precisely because they are more social, more familial, more supportive, and encourage people with mental illness to go and seek help.

We need to change how we approach mental illness in this country, and how much money we dedicate to it.


I will agree with you that mental illness is being made a scapegoat by some people/organizations in order to deflect attention away from certain areas of concern.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:25 PM  

dcigary: (eats popcorn, waits for first reported story of lawyers for mentally ill suing to allow their clients to buy guns)

/you know it's going to happen
//USA! USA! USA!


The beauty of it is, the sovereign citizens are loathe to use the court system and don't recognize its authority.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:54 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Fail in Human Form: They really can't stand it when people don't "bend a knee" to their idea of "utopia"

Who are you quoting, there?


Just the general feeling I get from sites like this or DU vs gun sites

/I'd like two different worlds
 
2013-01-16 04:56:24 PM  

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

Then your freedom of speech should be limitted to what was available then too:

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 225x300]


This 2nd = 1st rebuttal seems awfully popular all of a sudden. I wonder why? Must be a new talking point.

Regardless, there is no "gotcha" analogy here. The context of BOTH Amendments should be taken into consideration, as is appropriate for each. Bullets are not words or thoughts. Self defense is not communication. You can't simply apply materials involved in a 1 to 1 relationship and retain the meanings, or intents, or histories of their development.

So farking tired of these dumbass, bad comparisons.


THANK YOU
 
2013-01-16 04:56:31 PM  
err *it's like*
 
2013-01-16 04:57:06 PM  

CADMonkey79: but it might be a good idea to consider the likelihood of that being a consequence.


CADMonkey79: I didn't say that is what should dictate the decision. I said it might be a consequence of making the "unhinged" feel as thought they are being backed into a corner


What's this mean?
 
2013-01-16 04:57:32 PM  
Loadmaster: Of Obama's 23 orders, exactly zero of them would have prevented the Newtown massacre.

TheOther: That pleases you?


Why would that please me? Totally ineffective executive orders should please no one, be they liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.
 
2013-01-16 04:57:37 PM  

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

Then your freedom of speech should be limitted to what was available then too:

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 225x300]


This 2nd = 1st rebuttal seems awfully popular all of a sudden. I wonder why? Must be a new talking point.

Regardless, there is no "gotcha" analogy here. The context of BOTH Amendments should be taken into consideration, as is appropriate for each. Bullets are not words or thoughts. Self defense is not communication. You can't simply apply materials involved in a 1 to 1 relationship and retain the meanings, or intents, or histories of their development.

So farking tired of these dumbass, bad comparisons.


I thought that the context was sovereign defense and freedom expression were both inalienable rights. You're basically saying one inalienable right should not be weighed equally with another, so I dismiss your dismissal of the analogy.
 
2013-01-16 04:57:41 PM  
I'm in favor of more controls over who can have a gun, because I'll pass them all. However, once that threshold has passed, I expect to be allowed to have pretty much anything I want that can be used safely. I know; I live in a fantasy world.

/Boston gun owner. Licensed to carry a concealed .45 on the street. Not allowed to use a suppressed .22 at the range. Farkin' stupid rules.
 
2013-01-16 04:57:42 PM  

bwilson27: [www.grolschfilmworks.com image 590x398]


We get it. You have a man crush on Pacino
 
2013-01-16 04:57:55 PM  
Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."
 
2013-01-16 04:58:13 PM  
manimal2878:
Neither of those seem to have sights, are they just the embodiment of spray and pray?


They do have sights actually, but they're not where you'd think to look. The rear sights are on the back end of the magazine cylinder atop the gun, and the front sights are the part that sticks up in front where the cylinder clips in.
 
2013-01-16 04:58:27 PM  

Lando Lincoln: 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.


I see this argument both ways, honestly. Yes, the assault rifle is not really different from a hunting rifle, but if that's the case, why is it a problem if they are outlawed? You still get a functioning weapon.

But I also get that you should be able to buy whatever gun and magazine you want. I already have all te guns I want, so I guess I just don't care enough.
 
2013-01-16 04:58:28 PM  

manimal2878: Many if not most secondary schools already have a resource office AKA cop in the school, so you'd have to subtract those from the total.


I'd say it's pretty questionable as to whether this would even help in a lot of places. My high school had 2000 students come and go every day and one resource officer. That's like asking a single cop to police a small town that's constantly shifting every few hours. We probably had 10 different entry points to the school, and probably a dozen more ways to get in (windows, etc.) It takes five minutes just to RUN across the school, much less be notified, locate the source of gunfire and approach it in a way that keeps you alive. According to Wikipedia the Sandy Hook shooting took between 11 and 14 minutes.

Sounds like more security theater.
 
2013-01-16 04:58:39 PM  
The first white doctor who notifies the Government that a black patient would be 'unacceptable' for gun ownership will be sued and labeled a racist.
 
2013-01-16 04:59:01 PM  

rko281: Exploiting dead children for political points = a 100% piece of s***. Don't think for a minute you're fooling anyone into thinking you give a d*** about these children - it's all about taking shots at the other guy, just like all your bulls*** war protests that dried up the minute Obama took office. You cared about bashing Bush, not about any wars, and you certainly don't care about these children, at least beyond the extent you can exploit their deaths. 100% pieces of s*** liberals.


Feel better now? Good. Can't let that build up, might find yourself in a school, shooting kids.
 
2013-01-16 04:59:02 PM  

EvilIguana966: Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."


Nobody paying attention really believed them. It's the epitome of "party before everything".
 
2013-01-16 04:59:11 PM  

EvilIguana966: Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."


Whose guns?
 
2013-01-16 04:59:37 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: TellarHK: Dude, his username is "EvilRacistNaziFascist". Why are you even acknowledging his troll posts at all? Stoppit!

Oh look, somebody else who doesn't understand the concept of irony. I adopted this username because of the multitudes of online halfwits I've encountered who have no argument beyond "you're a racist / Nazi / fascist" etc. -- people utterly lacking in critical thinking skills, but ready at a moment's notice to label anyone they disagree with in the time- honoured fashion of those simple- minded folks who have eagerly denounced heretics throughout the ages. But I apologize if this is too sophisticated for you to grasp.


4/10.
 
2013-01-16 05:00:05 PM  

Endive Wombat: rufus-t-firefly: 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's better to do nothing at all if you can't stop every gun crime, right?

Link

That's not what I was getting at.  Look at Sandy Hook.  Legal gun owner was killed by her son who stole the guns from her and then shot up a school.  No amount of legislation, short of outright confiscation of all guns in the US (which will never happen) would have prevented this horrible tragedy.

I am not saying that some form of gun control is bad, in fact, it is smart.  But doing stuff like yearly re-registration of a mag and gun is just silly and does nothing to stop a crazy person from shooting up a classroom of 7 year olds.


Um, no, you just maintain that in the absence of a perfect solution, nothing should be done.
 
2013-01-16 05:00:17 PM  

Fail in Human Form: HeartBurnKid: Fail in Human Form: They really can't stand it when people don't "bend a knee" to their idea of "utopia"

Who are you quoting, there?

Just the general feeling I get from sites like this or DU vs gun sites

/I'd like two different worlds


You used quotation marks. That generally means you're quoting somebody.

So who asked you to "bend a knee" to "utopia"?
 
2013-01-16 05:00:20 PM  

rko281: Exploiting dead children for political points = a 100% piece of s***. Don't think for a minute you're fooling anyone into thinking you give a d*** about these children - it's all about taking shots at the other guy, just like all your bulls*** war protests that dried up the minute Obama took office. You cared about bashing Bush, not about any wars, and you certainly don't care about these children, at least beyond the extent you can exploit their deaths. 100% pieces of s*** liberals.


You are!
 
2013-01-16 05:00:23 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: CADMonkey79: but it might be a good idea to consider the likelihood of that being a consequence.

CADMonkey79: I didn't say that is what should dictate the decision. I said it might be a consequence of making the "unhinged" feel as thought they are being backed into a corner

What's this mean?


Ummm, don't be surprised if it happens because it happened before.
 
2013-01-16 05:00:48 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Anybody that thinks scaring others with guns (although those pics are more absurd than frightening) should probably not have guns.


It's not scaring others *with* guns, it's scaring others with *pictures* of guns.

Unless you are one of those people who think that pictures of guns, and fingers pointed to vaguely look like a gun are deadly, then I apologize for threatening your life.
 
2013-01-16 05:00:52 PM  

EvilIguana966: Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."


Obama's not taking anybody's guns. Calm the fark down.
 
2013-01-16 05:00:59 PM  
"oh you should hear Limbaugh today."

I heard someone fart today. Same thing.
 
2013-01-16 05:01:33 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Click Click D'oh: Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.

So, basically, you have no idea what duty to report is nor are you aware that care providers are already obligated by law under numerous circumstances to report certain types of injuries to law enforcement.

But you go ahead and pretend there isn't already a long-standing precedent for this type of law.


Um . . . duty to report is not the same as revealing information in a routine background check.

A clinician or clinical social worker has a duty to report child abuse and a likelihood to harm others. They do not have a duty to report the fact that someone saw a mental health professional during routine background checks.

There is a longstanding precedent for patient information to be private, except under some very, very specific circumstances. Revealing patient information to any police officer performing a background check is way, way outside this precedent.
 
2013-01-16 05:03:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Fail in Human Form: HeartBurnKid: Fail in Human Form: They really can't stand it when people don't "bend a knee" to their idea of "utopia"

Who are you quoting, there?

Just the general feeling I get from sites like this or DU vs gun sites

/I'd like two different worlds

You used quotation marks. That generally means you're quoting somebody.

So who asked you to "bend a knee" to "utopia"?


Fair enough, wasn't quoting anyone here directly.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 05:03:59 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Aphrodisiac: This is really really dumb politically. An assault weapons ban or high cap mag restriction type push from the Dems will hand the house and the presidency back to the republicans for the next decade. This back ground check thing is seriously treading on thin ice. This is probably the dumbest issue they could possibly tackle. I cant believe that the Dems could even be thinking about messing with this hornets nest. Dumb Dumb Dumb!

It would here, it would make me a one issue voter next election. You vote for the assault weapons ban, I'll sit aside all my other issues and vote against you. Simple as that.

/If you rub a dogs nose in its shiat enough times eventually it learns to quit shiatting on the carpet



I was going to say, if anything, this will help the Democrats in the long run.
He's sending this to the worst congress in history and it likely won't pass.
Then, next election, cue the commercials shaming republicans for opposing background checks at gun shows, enforcement of existing laws, and health care providers relaying threats of violence to the police... In the immediate wake of 20 elementary schoolers getting murdered. Oh, and tack on several inevitable mass shootings between now and then...
 
2013-01-16 05:04:07 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Folks know how erosion works yes?

First it begins like so...

Not so bad.

Then...



You folks are just handing them the keys to your chains. This must be how the blacks felt when their own people sold them into slavery.
/hot like the the barrel of an assault weapon at daycare.


The Left does have a natural sort of momentum but the gun rights debate as it presently stands is essentially a statist/anti-statist struggle not a Left/Right one even if the individuals on the antistatist side tend to support the Right on other issues.

And state/antistate struggles are nowhere near as one sided.
 
2013-01-16 05:04:10 PM  

david_gaithersburg: /If any thing this has taught us why the government should not be allowed to collect any information on law abiding citizens exercising their human and Constitutional rights.


I'm curious. What makes you think they're law-abiding if you haven't, "collected any information," on them? It looks like you're relying on a sloppy myth popular among children of the, "good guys and the bad guys," in which there's an obvious, dividing line between the good, honest citizens and the nasty, oh so evil bad guys. See, the truth is that most, "bad guys," are just citizens until they do something bad, and you can't ever tell if or when that's going to happen because, contrary to popular story telling, they don't put on black hats to help you figure it out.
 
2013-01-16 05:04:11 PM  

LoveAllServeAll: "oh you should hear Limbaugh today."

I heard someone fart today. Same thing.


It must have been a really wet one.
 
2013-01-16 05:04:37 PM  

HeartBurnKid: EvilIguana966: Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."

Obama's not taking anybody's guns. Calm the fark down.


You're assuming the detail of his "assault rifle" ban won't involve trying to take those that already exist.

I do put quotes around that because his policy suggestions, available on the White House site, incorrectly identified what assault rifles are. In other words, he's lying to help obscure what he's trying to do, which is ban evil-looking black scary rifles.
 
2013-01-16 05:04:47 PM  

CADMonkey79: Uranus Is Huge!: CADMonkey79: but it might be a good idea to consider the likelihood of that being a consequence.

CADMonkey79: I didn't say that is what should dictate the decision. I said it might be a consequence of making the "unhinged" feel as thought they are being backed into a corner

What's this mean?

Ummm, don't be surprised if it happens because it happened before.


I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was curious it meant. Crazy people do crazy things. And there seems to be a frothy, outraged reaction to every single decision made by the current administration.

Is there the same concern when the US government makes decisions that might piss off Muslims? Does it prevent us from acting?
 
2013-01-16 05:05:10 PM  

NightOwl2255: 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.


Not sure why people are so butthurt by the assertion this is why we have the 2nd amendment. Its pretty cut and dried fact. Agree with the reasoning behind it or not, thats fine, but you can't deny that was indeed the express original intent. The idea that an armed population is a self-determinant population goes back to the renaissance, it was nothing new even in the 1770's. We weren't the only country to adopt it, either, though in subtly differing ways.
As for Lisa's rock, I think the historical and current number of revolts worldwide would make your specious argument, well, rather specious.
 
2013-01-16 05:05:11 PM  

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

If you make enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal.  How about we make the color blue illegal.  it'll do just as much to curb crime as the AWB will.


Let's legalize murder - crime rates will drop, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 1376 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | 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