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.

(The Daily Caller)   What happens when really dumb voters elect really dumb people? You get really dumb laws   (dailycaller.com) divider line 442
    More: Asinine, Feinstein, dumb laws, stupidities, Sandy Hook Elementary School, assault weapons ban, House of Delegates, National Cathedral, gun ownership  
•       •       •

8258 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2013 at 2:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 02:14:54 PM
Good luck with that, chickie.
 
2013-01-24 02:18:54 PM
This bill is so dangerous that it requires two simultaneous threads for discussion.
 
2013-01-24 02:22:59 PM
As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.
 
2013-01-24 02:24:56 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.


Maybe as written, but in some modified format?  I'd give it better than 0.
 
2013-01-24 02:26:32 PM
i236.photobucket.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:27:35 PM
It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.


Oh, here is a guide to Sandy Point conspiracy theories for when some 'tard tries to claim that Lanza used handguns and not the AR-15 that he definately did use.
 
2013-01-24 02:28:26 PM
It doesn't make sense to ban guns by name.  That just opens the door for some new manufacturer to start making basically the same thing.  Is there some provision that spells out specific characteristics?  Maybe we could go with "scary looking".
 
2013-01-24 02:28:31 PM

vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.


You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:28:34 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.


Not in it's original form, but I hope something will pass.
 
2013-01-24 02:31:11 PM

vpb: Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.

Not in it's original form, but I hope something will pass.


Regulating access to firearms, to prevent access by individuals who should not possess them, is reasonable. Entirely prohibiting any civilian access at all to an arbitrarily defined class of firearms is not reasonable. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not entirely prohibit civilian ownership of any defined class of firearm. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.
 
2013-01-24 02:31:28 PM

BillCo: Maybe we could go with "scary looking".


I think that's what the last "assault weapons ban" did, essentially.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:31:36 PM

Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.


No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?
 
2013-01-24 02:34:25 PM

vpb: Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.


Declaring a claim to be a "fact" does not logically validate the claim.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?


I have seen the list. I own two long guns that are specifically targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal. The proposal also bans, by name, at least one firearm model that is already federally regulated as a "destructive device" and for which no further regulation is demonstrably warranted. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:36:46 PM

Dimensio: vpb: Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.

Not in it's original form, but I hope something will pass.

Regulating access to firearms, to prevent access by individuals who should not possess them, is reasonable. Entirely prohibiting any civilian access at all to an arbitrarily defined class of firearms is not reasonable. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not entirely prohibit civilian ownership of any defined class of firearm. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.


No, it's perfectly reasonable.  Even the supreme court thinks so, just look at the Heller decision.
 
2013-01-24 02:37:58 PM

Dimensio: vpb: Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.

Declaring a claim to be a "fact" does not logically validate the claim.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?

I have seen the list. I own two long guns that are specifically targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal. The proposal also bans, by name, at least one firearm model that is already federally regulated as a "destructive device" and for which no further regulation is demonstrably warranted. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.


Hypothetically, what if those two guns you own, and the "destructive device" were removed from the list. Is it still unreasonable?
 
2013-01-24 02:38:57 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Dimensio: vpb: Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.

Declaring a claim to be a "fact" does not logically validate the claim.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?

I have seen the list. I own two long guns that are specifically targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal. The proposal also bans, by name, at least one firearm model that is already federally regulated as a "destructive device" and for which no further regulation is demonstrably warranted. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.

Hypothetically, what if those two guns you own, and the "destructive device" were removed from the list. Is it still unreasonable?


Yes. Outright prohibiting currently legal firearm models, offering absolutely no means for any legal acquisition (not even the means currently available for obtaining short-barreled rifles), is not reasonable.
 
2013-01-24 02:39:48 PM

vpb: Dimensio: vpb: Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.

Not in it's original form, but I hope something will pass.

Regulating access to firearms, to prevent access by individuals who should not possess them, is reasonable. Entirely prohibiting any civilian access at all to an arbitrarily defined class of firearms is not reasonable. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not entirely prohibit civilian ownership of any defined class of firearm. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.

No, it's perfectly reasonable.


Claiming a proposal to be "perfectly reasonable" is not logically equivalent to a demonstration of reasonableness.


Even the supreme court thinks so, just look at the Heller decision.


Please cite the relevant text of the ruling that defines the specific terms of Senator Feinstein's proposal as "reasonable".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:39:49 PM

Dimensio: vpb: Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.

Declaring a claim to be a "fact" does not logically validate the claim.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?

I have seen the list. I own two long guns that are specifically targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal. The proposal also bans, by name, at least one firearm model that is already federally regulated as a "destructive device" and for which no further regulation is demonstrably warranted. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.


Oh, one of your toys is on the list so it's unreasonable.  Well we know what your definition of unreasonable is.

I would be interested in knowing what you think is already a destructive device.  I suspect that you are wrong about that too.
 
2013-01-24 02:42:31 PM

vpb: Dimensio: vpb: Dimensio: vpb: It is a good start.  Only an idiot would be against banning something like this.

You are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy and to the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, I'm just stating a fact about gun nuts, and posting a link to weapons that are actually on the list.

Declaring a claim to be a "fact" does not logically validate the claim.

Did you look at my link?  Did you even look at the list of weapons banned?

I have seen the list. I own two long guns that are specifically targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal. The proposal also bans, by name, at least one firearm model that is already federally regulated as a "destructive device" and for which no further regulation is demonstrably warranted. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.

Oh, one of your toys is on the list so it's unreasonable.  Well we know what your definition of unreasonable is.


You have not demonstrated Senator Feinstein's proposal to be reasonable.


I would be interested in knowing what you think is already a destructive device.  I suspect that you are wrong about that too.


The "Striker 12" and "Streetsweeper" model shotguns, identified by name in Senator Feinstein's list, are classified as "destructive devices" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Please demonstrate that my direct referencing of a statement from the United States federal government is "wrong".
 
2013-01-24 02:45:23 PM
You should be equally concerned about the House passing a resolution honoring America's real heros: our migrant workers.
 
2013-01-24 02:50:54 PM
Oh that headline's special.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:52:10 PM
 
2013-01-24 02:54:26 PM
I tend to agree with sub's headline.


The second amendment is very dumb. You should not have the right to possess weapons of destruction in a civilized society, nor should the police of said society.
 
2013-01-24 02:56:32 PM

Dimensio: Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.



Bbbbbut they told me it was reasonable, and followed "common sense".  Why would they lie to me?!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 02:56:55 PM
Dimensio:

The "Striker 12" and "Streetsweeper" model shotguns, identified by name in Senator Feinstein's list, are classified as "destructive devices" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Please demonstrate that my direct referencing of a statement from the United States federal government is "wrong".

Yes, it is, I am surprised you got something right.  Not that that means that it can't be banned as opposed to being limited under the NFA, or that that somehow makes it "unreasonable".
 
2013-01-24 02:57:17 PM
OH BOY GUN THREAD
 
2013-01-24 02:57:31 PM
[clicks article]

Is Feinstein really dumb?  She is an extreme side of liberal and thus supports all sorts of silly things that she thinks the government should be doing.  But I don't think she is stupid.

/now Rand Paul on the other hand...
 
2013-01-24 02:57:38 PM

Alphakronik: I tend to agree with sub's headline.


The second amendment is very dumb. You should not have the right to possess weapons of destruction in a civilized society, nor should the police of said society.



Oh really?  Because my Stoeger Coach Gun and Smith and Wesson Model 29 are "weapons of destruction".  Should they be banned as well?
 
2013-01-24 02:58:24 PM
So... which weapons did she list? Why are they inappropriate for consideration of a more controlled status?

How does this stack up against the hundreds more that she did 'not' explicitly list?
 
2013-01-24 02:58:43 PM
I like how we keep getting links to Daily Caller articles when they are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, completely retarded time and time again.
 
2013-01-24 02:58:49 PM

vpb: Yes, it is, I am surprised you got something right.  Not that that means that it can't be banned as opposed to being limited under the NFA, or that that somehow makes it "unreasonable".


I love it, the guy who's entire posting MO is incredible gun pedantry doesn't know the difference between a gun that is banned and a gun that requires a $200 tax stamp under the NFA.
 
2013-01-24 02:59:23 PM
Did anyone watch the news conference?
Holy shiat that thing was full of lies.
60 people killed in the VT massacre, Lanza used hundred round magazines so he didnt have to reload. Assault weapons killed Carolyn McCarthys son and were used in the VT massacre.


The closest to honesty that they got was when they said that since the AWB expired 10 years ago, 1k people have been killed by assault rifles....
 
2013-01-24 02:59:31 PM

Dimensio: vpb: Uranus Is Huge!: As the stains spread across the crotch areas of the active duty Fark Militia, keep in mind that Sen. Feinstein's bill has a 0% chance of becoming law.

Not in it's original form, but I hope something will pass.

Regulating access to firearms, to prevent access by individuals who should not possess them, is reasonable. Entirely prohibiting any civilian access at all to an arbitrarily defined class of firearms is not reasonable. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not entirely prohibit civilian ownership of any defined class of firearm. Senator Feinstein's proposal is unreasonable.


Don't kid yourself. If she was proposing regulating access to individuals with mental health issues it would be called an invasion of privacy and the opening of a door to tyranny. If she proposed regulating access to criminals, the NRA would point to the NICS database, and use incidences like Sandy Hook as "evidence" that "recording the activities of law abiding citizens is an unjust invasion of privacy as well as being ineffective in combating tragedies like the Newtown Massacre."

I agree with you, but let's get real. We can't have a reasonable conversation about this any more than we can have a reasonable conversation about drug abuse or poverty.
 
2013-01-24 02:59:40 PM

gingerjet: [clicks article]

Is Feinstein really dumb?  She is an extreme side of liberal and thus supports all sorts of silly things that she thinks the government should be doing.  But I don't think she is stupid.

/now Rand Paul on the other hand...


ANY gun control measures are de facto dumb and bad. QED. Semper ubi sub ubi.
 
2013-01-24 02:59:48 PM

gingerjet: [clicks article]

Is Feinstein really dumb?  She is an extreme side of liberal and thus supports all sorts of silly things that she thinks the government should be doing.  But I don't think she is stupid.

/now Rand Paul on the other hand...


Feinstein knows that her law won't get passed but serves as a negotiation piece with the NRA for rational ideas that they will oppose like a 2 year old having a temper tantrum like background checks for everyone buying a gun.
 
2013-01-24 02:59:59 PM

vpb: Dimensio: Please cite the relevant text of the ruling that defines the specific terms of Senator Feinstein's proposal as "reasonable".

We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."(  (Page 55
(p55, DC v Heller)

As the summary in Wipipedia put's it:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


Heh, so millions of rifles in the hands of millions of citizens means those firearms are NOT "in common use at the time"? Feinstein's bill, as written, would be in serious peril of being declared unconstitutional via the "common use" standard.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:35 PM
And they opened that press conference with a prayer....what a farking joke.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:37 PM

vpb: Dimensio: Please cite the relevant text of the ruling that defines the specific terms of Senator Feinstein's proposal as "reasonable".

We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."(  (Page 55
(p55, DC v Heller)

As the summary in Wipipedia put's it:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


any weapon would include rocket launchers and air to air missles......did you think the opinion is more in line with regulating those weapons or do you think it actually means regulating or restricting weapons that would meet the common use standard set forth by Miller.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:48 PM
I. AM. BOOOOOOOOOOOOORED!!!!

new rule: you can keep a gun if you shove its barrel up your ass and dry-fire it once. Otherwise, it goes on a registry and they take your penis. Or something. I don't care anymore.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:09 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: new rule: you can keep a gun if you shove its barrel up your ass and dry-fire it once



o_O

My double-barrel is going to HURT.  :-(
 
2013-01-24 03:03:15 PM
There is nothing worse than putting something to a vote. It's just like Stalin in here.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:29 PM

The_Sponge: And they opened that press conference with a prayer....what a farking joke.


So true. I hate when the stupid libs try to pretend that Jesus wasn't the first president of the NRA.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:35 PM
Regulate the shiat out of firearms (five-month waiting period, monthly gun ID renovation, expensive bullets and modifications), but make swords legal to carry.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:42 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I. AM. BOOOOOOOOOOOOORED!!!!

new rule: you can keep a gun if you shove its barrel up your ass and dry-fire it once. Otherwise, it goes on a registry and they take your penis. Or something. I don't care anymore.


Newer rule...you can practice the freedom of speech as long as you can get the words out around my cawk that is in your mouth.
 
2013-01-24 03:04:21 PM
Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin

When the only support you've got are a famously out-there type and the party's whip, and you can't even bring out the actual majority leader (or even your minority leader in the house), your proposal may not be the one the party's genuinely intending to try to push for, and your press conference may just be a worthless AW singing the same song you've sung a dozen times before.

//Admittedly it might unite some people behind an actual non-retarded gun control bill by contrast, so there may be a reason the party's encouraging Feinstein to be nuts as loudly as possible.
//Could just be her, though.
 
2013-01-24 03:04:37 PM

The_Sponge: And they opened that press conference with a prayer....what a farking joke.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-24 03:04:48 PM

The_Sponge: Alphakronik: I tend to agree with sub's headline.


The second amendment is very dumb. You should not have the right to possess weapons of destruction in a civilized society, nor should the police of said society.


Oh really?  Because my Stoeger Coach Gun and Smith and Wesson Model 29 are "weapons of destruction".  Should they be banned as well?


Was it designed to kill?
 
2013-01-24 03:05:15 PM

Giltric: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I. AM. BOOOOOOOOOOOOORED!!!!

new rule: you can keep a gun if you shove its barrel up your ass and dry-fire it once. Otherwise, it goes on a registry and they take your penis. Or something. I don't care anymore.

Newer rule...you can practice the freedom of speech as long as you can get the words out around my cawk that is in your mouth.


Newer newer rule: you're only aloud to speak out of your butthole that is filled with cake. A kind of cake you don't like. And gunpoweder, I guess. Since it's a gun thread.


/god you people are so TOUCHY
 
2013-01-24 03:05:23 PM
Just wait until 3d printers reach the point where anyone, anywhere, can print out a full auto with barrel drum. I believe we can already print lousy guns that break quickly.
 
2013-01-24 03:06:19 PM
Why is the Saiga Rifle on there? As imported no pistol grip, no folding stock, no barrel devices not even an easy mount for a scope and used for hunting widely in the old world. No scarier than a Mini-14.
 
Displayed 50 of 442 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report