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.

(US Senate)   "They aren't going to ban all of your guns" Well about that   (feinstein.senate.gov) divider line 129
    More: Obvious, assault weapons ban, National Institute of Justice, grenade launcher, Baltimore Police Department, semiautomatic pistols, stock, semiautomatic firearms  
•       •       •

2975 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 09:35:39 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-25 10:02:19 AM
Those aren't "all your guns" now are they, subby?
 
2013-01-25 10:18:48 AM
Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

In layman's terms: almost nobody was ever injured or killed by an "assault weapon"

Less than 900 over eight years when gun crime and gun suicides are always lumped in together and top out in the 1000's per year?

Bee stings and peanuts have probably have done more damage.
 
2013-01-25 10:19:28 AM

Mugato: Those aren't "all your guns" now are they, subby?


Only gives them 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns to choose from.

Besides, we need to drive up page hits...so gun post!
 
2013-01-25 10:23:40 AM
Assault weapons BAM!
 
2013-01-25 10:24:36 AM

doglover: Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

In layman's terms: almost nobody was ever injured or killed by an "assault weapon"

Less than 900 over eight years when gun crime and gun suicides are always lumped in together and top out in the 1000's per year?

Bee stings and peanuts have probably have done more damage.


Shut up and take my guns.
 
2013-01-25 10:24:40 AM
Well, what about it?
 
2013-01-25 10:25:17 AM

doglover: Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

In layman's terms: almost nobody was ever injured or killed by an "assault weapon"

Less than 900 over eight years when gun crime and gun suicides are always lumped in together and top out in the 1000's per year?

Bee stings and peanuts have probably have done more damage.


And yet, thanks to heavy lobbyist pressure, Feinstein's bill exempts bee-shooting attachments and peanut loaders. The system is broken!
 
2013-01-25 10:25:24 AM

Well at least we haven't resorted to outright lying about what's in the proposal yet. So that's nice.

On the other hand, I was looking forward to No Gun Thread February and that appears to have just been blown clean out of the water, so....

So here's a picture of a bunny with 10 cookies on his head.
www.modernimages.com
 
2013-01-25 10:27:18 AM
So there are over 300 million guns in the United States.

There are 6 million Americans currently in jail. Let's assume there are another 6 million current gang members and violent criminals.

It seems it would be easier to ban the criminals than the guns.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:27 AM
Four greens in the Politics tab today, and all of them on this one issue.

I think I'll step away from Fark for a bit.
 
2013-01-25 10:29:03 AM

doglover:
Less than 900 over eight years when gun crime and gun suicides are always lumped in together and top out in the 1000's per year?

Bee stings and peanuts have probably have done more damage.


A lousy hundred lives a year? Not worth saving. Who's on Dancing with the Stars this season?
 
2013-01-25 10:29:44 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Mugato: Those aren't "all your guns" now are they, subby?

Only gives them 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns to choose from.

Besides, we need to drive up page hits...so gun post!


Now I don't feel bad when the message pops up asking for me to whitelist the site.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:51 AM
Whew another gun thread. That was a long forty seconds.
 
2013-01-25 10:32:14 AM
Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?
 
2013-01-25 10:34:11 AM
The funny thing is also how stupid their "effectiveness" stats are.

When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.

You mean that when you banned a thing it went away. That's tautological.

The real statistic they should be touting is what percentage gun crimes went down overall, which is a dinky 6.7% over that time.
 
2013-01-25 10:37:32 AM

xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?


Self-defense.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:37 AM
DoomPaul:
It seems it would be easier to ban the criminals than the guns.

Let's just make crime illegal!  Problem solved.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:40 AM
aaaand here come the Republicans, sweeping back into power.

/facepalm
 
2013-01-25 10:41:38 AM

xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?


Is there a reason to "Occupy" Wall Street or any other place with online petitions available at the White House? Surely some reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights is in everyone's best interest and public safety.
 
2013-01-25 10:43:07 AM
FTFA:"Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices."

gun buybacks are a great place to score good guns, CHEAP. Yes, 90% are cheap saturday-night special types, or broken guns, but every once in a while a nice piece comes through that you can get for a fraction of the price. Stand across the street with a sign that says "I'll pay you double" and get some nice stuff. Cops will try to scare you, but there is nothing they can legally do.
 
2013-01-25 10:46:22 AM

please: aaaand here come the Republicans, sweeping back into power.

/facepalm


Yea I'm laughing my ass off right now over this. I am cringing at the same time but also laughing. While my far more liberal family members rouse applause at "the dawn of a new age of America without guns" I try occasionally to point out that this has 0 chance of passing in any form with a conservative controlled house and that this will ultimately lead to a loss of seats for democrats in both the house and senate in the next election. They pause for a moment, grumble a bit and then dismiss it to go back to the thought of "a gun free America" may be about to dawn yay!

I cant see what they see in this. Its the same problem I have with severely religious people and their faith that every thing that suffers is in gods plan. This is not going to work out well, this is just going to hurt politically in the long run. But all they care about is what they "feel" right now in the moment and nothing else matters. Thats how people get herpes.
 
2013-01-25 10:50:04 AM
meh, this Feinstein bill is the Democrats version of the Republicans "repeal Obamacare" bills. It has a snowball chance in hell of getting anywhere and it's only purpose is to appeal to the crazies on their respective sides.
 
2013-01-25 10:50:34 AM

orclover: please: aaaand here come the Republicans, sweeping back into power.

/facepalm

Yea I'm laughing my ass off right now over this. I am cringing at the same time but also laughing. While my far more liberal family members rouse applause at "the dawn of a new age of America without guns" I try occasionally to point out that this has 0 chance of passing in any form with a conservative controlled house and that this will ultimately lead to a loss of seats for democrats in both the house and senate in the next election. They pause for a moment, grumble a bit and then dismiss it to go back to the thought of "a gun free America" may be about to dawn yay!

I cant see what they see in this. Its the same problem I have with severely religious people and their faith that every thing that suffers is in gods plan. This is not going to work out well, this is just going to hurt politically in the long run. But all they care about is what they "feel" right now in the moment and nothing else matters. Thats how people get herpes.


As a liberal, I'm not laughing at all. Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin - a coin that wants to take away rights you have that they don't like...if coins could take rights, or something...
 
2013-01-25 10:52:17 AM

DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.


Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?
 
2013-01-25 10:54:04 AM

xalres: DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.

Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?


You may be under the misconception that the only firearms targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal are those suitable only for military purposes.
 
2013-01-25 10:55:32 AM

please: FTFA:"Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices."

gun buybacks are a great place to score good guns, CHEAP. Yes, 90% are cheap saturday-night special types, or broken guns, but every once in a while a nice piece comes through that you can get for a fraction of the price. Stand across the street with a sign that says "I'll pay you double" and get some nice stuff. Cops will try to scare you, but there is nothing they can legally do.


I could have sworn someone in my city (Orlando, Florida) was arrested trying to buy guns from people walking to the gun buyback site. But I can't find any news articles to back it up.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:14 AM

xalres: DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.

Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?


I love hyperbole in the morning.

But to answer your question: self-defense from a non-law enforcement aggressor(s) that I cannot subdue by physical means.
 
2013-01-25 10:59:32 AM

xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?


Yes
 
2013-01-25 11:00:19 AM
..."it's actually completely factually accurate and you likely have nothing to worry about."

That the rest of the headline, subby? You forget it?

DoomPaul: xalres: DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.

Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?

I love hyperbole in the morning.

But to answer your question: self-defense from a non-law enforcement aggressor(s) that I cannot subdue by physical means.


Guns are still physical. Are you going to psychically subdue them?

/do you really need more than 17 shots to subdue home invaders?
//do you really need more than 7?
 
2013-01-25 11:02:38 AM
Someone please teach subby how to read.

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill's enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.
The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:38 AM

xalres: DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.

Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?


Devils advocate time. Fighting against the government is not the issue, its stupid to even consider it honestly. If Americans become "insurgents" then our hardware stores will make citizens more like the taliban doing roadside bombs than the "wolverines" downing helicopters with ak's.

4.bp.blogspot.com
www.usdat.us

99.999% of the time there is absolutely no reason to own a major assault weapon other than for "fun" or ...well...hogs (dont even joke man). But that one farking week out of every decade, the social contract that we have in America, somewhere, gets thrown out the farking window. Yea its ridiculously rare, but it happens.
 
2013-01-25 11:04:11 AM

please: FTFA:"Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices."

gun buybacks are a great place to score good guns, CHEAP. Yes, 90% are cheap saturday-night special types, or broken guns, but every once in a while a nice piece comes through that you can get for a fraction of the price. Stand across the street with a sign that says "I'll pay you double" and get some nice stuff. Cops will try to scare you, but there is nothing they can legally do.


Which is why we need mandatory registration and title transfers that include a background check.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:01 AM

DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense. Paranoia

 
2013-01-25 11:14:30 AM

orclover: xalres: DoomPaul: xalres: Is there a reason beyond "it's my hobby" for normal citizens to own these things?

Self-defense.

Against what? Seal Team 6 raid your house often?

Devils advocate time. Fighting against the government is not the issue, its stupid to even consider it honestly. If Americans become "insurgents" then our hardware stores will make citizens more like the taliban doing roadside bombs than the "wolverines" downing helicopters with ak's.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x400]
[www.usdat.us image 520x372]

99.999% of the time there is absolutely no reason to own a major assault weapon other than for "fun" or ...well...hogs (dont even joke man). But that one farking week out of every decade, the social contract that we have in America, somewhere, gets thrown out the farking window. Yea its ridiculously rare, but it happens.


Thank you. Seriously. Every other time I've asked that question all I've gotten is ad hominems or some herpaderp about "why don't we ban cars because they kill more blah blah blah". It's weird to think that given the right circumstances we're only a few days from complete societal breakdown.

/was in junior high in LA when the 92 riots kicked off.
//being the only white kid at school while that shiat was going on was interesting to say the least but it was far enough away from all the looting and burning to not really feel dangerous.
 
2013-01-25 11:17:35 AM

rufus-t-firefly: please: FTFA:"Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices."

gun buybacks are a great place to score good guns, CHEAP. Yes, 90% are cheap saturday-night special types, or broken guns, but every once in a while a nice piece comes through that you can get for a fraction of the price. Stand across the street with a sign that says "I'll pay you double" and get some nice stuff. Cops will try to scare you, but there is nothing they can legally do.

Which is why we need mandatory registration and title transfers that include a background check.


I find it odd that that's not the case already. To reuse the lame car analogy, I have to register my car every year and it gets tracked every time it changes hands. Why not the same with weapons? Is it fear that now the gov't would have a database of gun owners or...what?
 
2013-01-25 11:22:22 AM

xalres: rufus-t-firefly: please: FTFA:"Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices."

gun buybacks are a great place to score good guns, CHEAP. Yes, 90% are cheap saturday-night special types, or broken guns, but every once in a while a nice piece comes through that you can get for a fraction of the price. Stand across the street with a sign that says "I'll pay you double" and get some nice stuff. Cops will try to scare you, but there is nothing they can legally do.

Which is why we need mandatory registration and title transfers that include a background check.

I find it odd that that's not the case already. To reuse the lame car analogy, I have to register my car every year and it gets tracked every time it changes hands. Why not the same with weapons? Is it fear that now the gov't would have a database of gun owners or...what?


Firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts. Thus far, vehicle registries have not been utilized for such a purpose.
 
2013-01-25 11:26:05 AM

syrynxx: DoomPaul:
It seems it would be easier to ban the criminals than the guns.

Let's just make crime illegal!  Problem solved.


Won't work, criminals don't obey the law. This would only keep law abiding citizens from breaking the law or something like that.
 
2013-01-25 11:28:19 AM

Dimensio: Firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts. Thus far, vehicle registries have not been utilized for such a purpose.


My problem with this argument is that it's extremely shallow. Okay, so when you make the new registry, add a clause about not being able to seize these legally owned arms from their owners retroactively. problem solved, panic averted.

/except "do you really TRUST the government to blah blah blah"
 
2013-01-25 11:30:54 AM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: Firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts. Thus far, vehicle registries have not been utilized for such a purpose.

My problem with this argument is that it's extremely shallow. Okay, so when you make the new registry, add a clause about not being able to seize these legally owned arms from their owners retroactively. problem solved, panic averted.


I myself have suggested such a measure, with provisions to automatically force destruction of the registry and to immediately nullify any registration requirement should any legislative measure with the effect of prohibiting outright ownership of any currently legal firearm model pass either house of Congress, so that the registry would be destroyed before any such confiscation act could be signed into law.
 
2013-01-25 11:31:00 AM

orclover: 99.999% of the time there is absolutely no reason to own a major assault weapon other than for "fun" or ...well...hogs (dont even joke man). But that one farking week out of every decade, the social contract that we have in America, somewhere, gets thrown out the farking window. Yea its ridiculously rare, but it happens.


www.usdat.us

I'm guessing you are probably NOT trying to make us recollect the time during Katrina when people (in a hospital IIRC) could not be evacuated because some nutjob took a potshot at a helicopter.
 
2013-01-25 11:31:15 AM
Unless I missed it, I love how the Mini-14 is banned but the M1A is not.
 
2013-01-25 11:35:54 AM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts. Thus far, vehicle registries have not been utilized for such a purpose.

My problem with this argument is that it's extremely shallow. Okay, so when you make the new registry, add a clause about not being able to seize these legally owned arms from their owners retroactively. problem solved, panic averted.

I myself have suggested such a measure, with provisions to automatically force destruction of the registry and to immediately nullify any registration requirement should any legislative measure with the effect of prohibiting outright ownership of any currently legal firearm model pass either house of Congress, so that the registry would be destroyed before any such confiscation act could be signed into law.


Meaning if they ban sales of something AND try to remove them from current private owners? No grandfathering? I'd agree there. Destroying the whole thing might be hasty, but I assume you're thinking of that as sort of a doomsday device should anyone try anything funny.
 
2013-01-25 11:38:23 AM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts. Thus far, vehicle registries have not been utilized for such a purpose.

My problem with this argument is that it's extremely shallow. Okay, so when you make the new registry, add a clause about not being able to seize these legally owned arms from their owners retroactively. problem solved, panic averted.

I myself have suggested such a measure, with provisions to automatically force destruction of the registry and to immediately nullify any registration requirement should any legislative measure with the effect of prohibiting outright ownership of any currently legal firearm model pass either house of Congress, so that the registry would be destroyed before any such confiscation act could be signed into law.

Meaning if they ban sales of something AND try to remove them from current private owners? No grandfathering? I'd agree there. Destroying the whole thing might be hasty, but I assume you're thinking of that as sort of a doomsday device should anyone try anything funny.


A mandated destruction of the registry is a provision intended explicitly to guarantee that the registration will never be used for confiscation efforts. If advocates of a registry who claim not to desire confiscation are intellectually honest, then they would not oppose such a provision, as the provision could only be activated by an attempted confiscation measure (which they claim not to support) and such a provision may increase acceptance amongst firearm owners of such a registry.
 
2013-01-25 11:39:33 AM
whole lot of infringin' goin on there
 
2013-01-25 11:39:55 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: orclover: 99.999% of the time there is absolutely no reason to own a major assault weapon other than for "fun" or ...well...hogs (dont even joke man). But that one farking week out of every decade, the social contract that we have in America, somewhere, gets thrown out the farking window. Yea its ridiculously rare, but it happens.

[www.usdat.us image 520x372]

I'm guessing you are probably NOT trying to make us recollect the time during Katrina when people (in a hospital IIRC) could not be evacuated because some nutjob took a potshot at a helicopter.



Hmmm. On the one hand we have a nutjob taking a potshot at a helicopter and on the other we have the total breakdown of society (albeit isolated or segment of). On which shall we focus and reflect upon how it could apply to ourselves?

/Not that they're unrelated.
 
2013-01-25 11:44:42 AM

dennysgod: meh, this Feinstein bill is the Democrats version of the Republicans "repeal Obamacare" bills. It has a snowball chance in hell of getting anywhere and it's only purpose is to appeal to the crazies on their respective sides.


"Crazies"? A majority of people support the regulation. I think the "crazies" are the small minority that believe guns should have no regulations whatsoever.
 
2013-01-25 11:47:57 AM

colon_pow: whole lot of infringin' goin on there


"Ding."
 
2013-01-25 11:48:29 AM

Corvus: dennysgod: meh, this Feinstein bill is the Democrats version of the Republicans "repeal Obamacare" bills. It has a snowball chance in hell of getting anywhere and it's only purpose is to appeal to the crazies on their respective sides.

"Crazies"? A majority of people support the regulation. I think the "crazies" are the small minority that believe guns should have no regulations whatsoever.


Opposing Senator Feinstein's entirely unreasonable proposal is not logically equivalent to advocating absolutely no restriction upon firearm ownership.
 
2013-01-25 11:55:49 AM

Dimensio: Corvus: dennysgod: meh, this Feinstein bill is the Democrats version of the Republicans "repeal Obamacare" bills. It has a snowball chance in hell of getting anywhere and it's only purpose is to appeal to the crazies on their respective sides.

"Crazies"? A majority of people support the regulation. I think the "crazies" are the small minority that believe guns should have no regulations whatsoever.

Opposing Senator Feinstein's entirely unreasonable proposal is not logically equivalent to advocating absolutely no restriction upon firearm ownership.


It is when you dismiss the entire effort out of hand. That's the problem here - instead of helping to craft better rules and regulations and actually engaging in the national conversation in a productive way, gun-rights advocates are just glancing at each proposal and saying "NOPE!" That's not helpful.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report