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.

(NYPost)   State of NY to legal firearms owners, "Register your weapons, it's the law." Legal firearms owners to the State of NY, "Guns? I don't own any guns, and you can't prove it so go fark yourselves"   (nypost.com) divider line 1299
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17848 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1299 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-26 12:39:23 PM  
Good.
 
2013-01-26 12:42:15 PM  
If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.
 
2013-01-26 12:44:55 PM  
Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 12:46:33 PM  
So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.
 
2013-01-26 12:46:37 PM  
The government doesn't know about my gun.  I didn't pluralize that, I only have one shotgun that was given to me years ago.  I'm not gun nut, in fact I am fully in favor of an aggressive ban on assault weapons, but the government doesn't need to know about ANYTHING that is within my private property.
 
2013-01-26 12:50:52 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?
 
2013-01-26 12:50:55 PM  
And when you call the cops to report a break-in and they see your unregistered gun, you get to go to jail and become someone's wife.

You're hardcore, dude.
 
2013-01-26 01:14:18 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.
 
2013-01-26 01:27:16 PM  

Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation,


Saying it doesn't make it true.
 
2013-01-26 01:34:57 PM  
Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.
 
2013-01-26 01:38:12 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.



Makes confiscation a whole lot easier.


vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.



End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Naturally,
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:41:10 PM  
Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.

Or to hold the owners responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:42:37 PM  
Amos Quito:

End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealers.
 
2013-01-26 01:50:41 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealers.



4.bp.blogspot.com


"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.
 
2013-01-26 01:57:14 PM  
Morons.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 02:01:30 PM  
Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?
 
2013-01-26 02:01:53 PM  
True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 02:08:56 PM  

xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.


Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.
 
2013-01-26 02:11:53 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?



Let's put that back in context, shall we?


Amos Quito: End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

vpb:  Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealer

Amos Quito:All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

vpb: So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?


There. See how silly you look?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 02:15:29 PM  

Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?


No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?
 
2013-01-26 02:20:22 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?



Far more silly, actually.

t-lay.com

You're in the right place.
 
2013-01-26 02:27:32 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


Yeah making legal owners register their guns will really prevent mass shootings. Because everyone who has done a mass shooting or blown up a building registers their ordinance. They're the most lawful people out there don't you know? Not a single person has stolen a gun used in a mass shooting .. especially not that guy that killed 24 people in CT who absolutely did not steal his guns from a legal owner.

You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.
 
2013-01-26 02:30:06 PM  
That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.
 
2013-01-26 02:32:26 PM  

Fark It: Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.


You sound like a child. Which would not be such a bad thing, except that you are probably armed.
 
2013-01-26 02:38:02 PM  
California and its SKS laws show that registration can indeed lead to confiscation.
First SKS Sporters owners were required to register them.
Then, because gun-haters never stop hating, they made them completely illegal.
And they had a complete list of everyone who had one, so they knew right were to look.
 
2013-01-26 02:39:22 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.
 
2013-01-26 02:42:04 PM  

violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.


What legitimate reason is there to not register?
 
2013-01-26 02:43:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?
 
2013-01-26 02:52:41 PM  

GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing.  When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

syrynxx: hen, because gun-haters never stop hating, they made them completely illegal.
And they had a complete list of everyone who had one, so they knew right were to look.

 
2013-01-26 02:54:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


You only have to register your car if you plan on using public roads. I have no problem registering and acquiring licensing for guns meant to be carried on my person in public for self-defense, should I so desire.
 
2013-01-26 02:55:18 PM  

xynix: What do I get for my gun registration fee?


You get to keep the guns that we've approved! For now.
 
2013-01-26 02:59:45 PM  

xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:


So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.
 
2013-01-26 03:12:16 PM  

GAT_00: So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


I'm not really afraid they're going to come after me.. I'm not militia and I don't wear camo. When you go through the background check to own a gun you are doing enough to notify the government what you have. When I purchased my M&P assault rifle it took around 2 weeks before I could go pick it up. I'm cool with that.. They got my info, my DL#, they did a full look at my record to see if I was allowed to own a gun. The did the same thing with that guy in CT that killed 24 people.. He was rejected so he just stole the guns he wanted. I'm cool with background checks and I'm even cooler with that happening in a private sale (it would actually protect ME the seller) and I'm really cool with it happening in gun shows. But that's it. If I want to carry it in public as Fark It indicated I will require a license which I have and it took about 6 weeks to get. It's a carry and conceal permit. I paid a fee and that fee went to process my GBI background check.. Tangible.

What I won't do is register my guns. I'm not going to play more TSA type farking games with the government to help create an illusion that someone is being "protected." It's creating a process that isn't necessary, will do absolutely no good, will change absolutely nothing, would have prevented zero of the mass murders we've seen in the past 20 years.

So I'll toss the question back to you.. What legitimate reason is there TO register?
 
2013-01-26 03:18:43 PM  

GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.



Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name,  DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.

Why is that?

Sure, here in America you have a "right" to free speech, but why should you be able to do so under a pseudonym?

Sure, you may be a law abiding citizen, but we all know that there ARE people out there who might say things that are offensive, threatening or even treasonous. Hell, some people might even abuse their "right" to speech by inciting others to do bad things.

Don't you think this whole "free speech" thing is getting out of hand?

Are you ready to register your keyboard?
 
2013-01-26 03:22:03 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation. It's happened in NYC and later in California with SKS's. If people are OK with that, OK. But they should admit it and not pretend their agenda has anything to do with preventing gun violence. The car registration comparison is silly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 03:33:26 PM  

xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.


I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.
 
2013-01-26 03:49:05 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?


"We have to do something!"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 03:49:13 PM  
violentsalvation:

The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation. It's happened in NYC and later in California with SKS's. If people are OK with that, OK. But they should admit it and not pretend their agenda has anything to do with preventing gun violence. The car registration comparison is silly.


So why haven't the cars been confiscated?  Obviously the gun bans in California and New York aren't unconstitutional of they would have been overturned in court by now, so the 2nd amendment argument is nonsense.

One of the reasons that we have prison is to give people a reason who don't understand or care about the purpose of a law a reason to obey it.  So there's your reason to register your guns.  To stay out of PMITA prison.

Or, if it's that important to you, go there.
 
2013-01-26 03:49:19 PM  

vpb: A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.


This is what "reasonable" and "commonsense" looks like to anti-gunners.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 03:50:32 PM  
Frank N Stein:

"We have to do something!"

Yep.  And doing what has worked everywhere else would be the sensible thing to do.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 03:54:01 PM  

Fark It: vpb: A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

This is what "reasonable" and "commonsense" looks like to anti-gunners.


Yes, how silly to think that someone who has said that they will commit a crime would actually do something criminal.

(you didn't reat the whole thread did you?)
 
2013-01-26 03:54:15 PM  

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any other gun.

People like you who have no farking clue what you're talking about are the problem. You think that assault rifle I own is more dangerous than the .45 I own? I can shoot a 1 inch group at 25 yards all day with that .45 and I pump out 30 rounds in 10 seconds. Do you even know what that means? Again.. you're a moron reaching high to become an idiot.
 
2013-01-26 03:58:10 PM  

Amos Quito: Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name, DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.


That's because I choose not to mix my Internet personality with my actual personality.  They're largely the same, but I'm much more willing to degenerate into open abuse of people on here than I am IRL.  I would never do such a thing in person and I have no wish to associate the two.  It's also the reason I don't go to any Fark meetups.  But first, thanks for giving me a heart attack since I do have my first name hidden and I misread and thought it wasn't.  I've said enough personal information over time that someone dedicated to stalking me could probably figure out who I am.  Second, Fark is not the government, so the rest of your comparison is irrelevant.

violentsalvation: The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation.


Seriously, bullshiat.  And in the event your weapons are stolen, the ability to report they were stolen and establish that any following activities committed by someone using them is not your fault is a positive.

xynix: What legitimate reason is there TO register?


See above for one.
 
2013-01-26 04:01:00 PM  
Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.
 
2013-01-26 04:02:56 PM  

vpb: I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not. An unregistered gun in an incriminating object. It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.



1. The law has not taken effect YET
2. He doesn't live in New York, so the law will not apply to him


Are there ANY laws that the government might possibly enact that you might have a problem with? That you might defy?

Have you ANY "rights" that you are not willing to lie down and surrender in the name of being a "law abiding citizen"?

For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

It's not the law - YET - but there are those who are pushing for it - and HARD. Are you willing register your speech?
 
2013-01-26 04:03:08 PM  

vpb: violentsalvation:

The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation. It's happened in NYC and later in California with SKS's. If people are OK with that, OK. But they should admit it and not pretend their agenda has anything to do with preventing gun violence. The car registration comparison is silly.


So why haven't the cars been confiscated?  Obviously the gun bans in California and New York aren't unconstitutional of they would have been overturned in court by now, so the 2nd amendment argument is nonsense.

One of the reasons that we have prison is to give people a reason who don't understand or care about the purpose of a law a reason to obey it.  So there's your reason to register your guns.  To stay out of PMITA prison.

Or, if it's that important to you, go there.


So that's what it comes down to. "Register your guns because we say so, no other reason, and if you don't you'll go to jail."

You don't have to register a car to use it on private property. The cars would be seized, if they were used in the commission of a felony. The comparison is apples and pudding pops.
 
2013-01-26 04:11:49 PM  

GAT_00: Seriously, bullshiat.  And in the event your weapons are stolen, the ability to report they were stolen and establish that any following activities committed by someone using them is not your fault is a positive.

xynix: What legitimate reason is there TO register?

See above for one.


Nah. What you're asking for is another process which isn't needed and won't be followed by most gun owners. Do you know that when you buy a gun from a gun store that the serial number and owner are sent to the local ATF and then the federal BATF? Your DL# is associated with the SN of the gun. If my gun is stolen I would simply call the police and notify them that it was stolen and give them the SN. If you want to sell the gun you can choose to sell it through a gun broker and unassociate your DL# with the SN. You can also simply create a bill of sale and get it notarized so the ownership can be tracked. This would be rectified by making all gun sales require a background check which I would be fine with as again.. It would protect me when I swap guns with a buddy.

What you're asking for is redundant and unlike that idiot Vpb I know you're a smart guy.. People who don't own guns don't know the process and that's fine. The only thing to be accomplished by creating a "registration" division of the BATF is to create a profit center for an already bloated government that will serve no purpose other than to be redundant to a division of the BATF that already does this. Also.. FEES. So nah.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 04:12:33 PM  

xynix: A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any o ...


This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.

We already know gun control works, it has been tested in the entire developed world.  It's just a matter of choosing the most effective policies and getting them past the lobbyists and crazies.
 
2013-01-26 04:14:12 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation.

Seriously, bullshiat. And in the event your weapons are stolen, the ability to report they were stolen and establish that any following activities committed by someone using them is not your fault is a positive.



My guns don't need to be registered for me to be able to report them stolen.
 
2013-01-26 04:14:57 PM  
oi45.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-26 04:25:25 PM  

vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.


Yet another idiotic comment.. congrats to making it to level 5. My M&P 15-22 uses a .22lr round. A person could be shot 5-10 times and still survive the encounter with that gun. My .45 is chambered and the barrel is rifled (i know because I rifled it) for hydroshock bullets which will put a hole the size of a grapefruit in a person. That person will be lucky if they survive one round and certainly not two in an intense situation. If I had time to aim they won't last a single round.. the M&P is much harder to aim and the target would have opportunity to shoot back regardless. So proposing the banning of the M&P assault rifle accomplishes absolutely nothing because the 10 rounds in the .45 would be much more devastating.

This is what happens when you have someone that knows nothing about guns talking about gun control. And M16 is perfectly legal to own if you want to go through the lengthy and expensive process of owning it. It will cost about $4000 and it will take about 6 months to make happen but it can be done. What person who is intent on doing a mass shooting will go through that process? You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

This is what is frustrating to gun owners.. People like you that are clueless when it comes to such things discussing them like you actually know what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-26 04:27:56 PM  
The good old Bart Simpson defense. Beautiful.

Jack booted gun grabbers are going to have to work a lot harder than that before they come for your guns.
 
2013-01-26 04:28:26 PM  
 
2013-01-26 04:30:15 PM  
It takes guns to take guns.
 
spr
2013-01-26 04:31:53 PM  
d3u67r7pp2lrq5.cloudfront.net
 
2013-01-26 04:32:14 PM  

xynix: A person could be shot 5-10 times and still survive the encounter with that gun.


I think that's if they are past the 5th grade. I think under the 5th grade and they can only take, like, 3 rounds if they're not wearing armor. Mythbusters did an episode, if I recall.
 
2013-01-26 04:32:25 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


The appeal to emotion continues unabated, I see. Are there any other things you'd like to see built on the backs of dead children, or are you just doing what you guys always do, make tomorrow's bans the new normal to set the stage for the next opportunity?
 
2013-01-26 04:32:59 PM  

xynix:
This is what is frustrating to gun owners..


Having to compensate for a small dick?
 
2013-01-26 04:33:46 PM  

xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.


So you drive without insurance?
 
2013-01-26 04:35:40 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


How will the government knowing someone has a gun stop that person from committing a crime?

It won't... unless the government takes the gun before a crime is committed, which is a non-starter.
 
2013-01-26 04:35:42 PM  
"Attica! Attica!"
 
2013-01-26 04:35:50 PM  
Oh, someone stole your guns? But you don't have any guns.
 
2013-01-26 04:35:57 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
The government and you anti gun pillow biters can go fark yourselves.
 
2013-01-26 04:36:04 PM  
Only criminals have something to hide.
 
2013-01-26 04:36:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


It makes it easier to track and trace. That's the whole point. That and revenue.
 
2013-01-26 04:36:38 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


Do you actually understand how offensive it is to us law abiding gun owners when people like you make statements like that?

How about instead of blaming the millions of us who have never, and will never, do anything wrong, we institute a "Project Exile", like Virginia did in the 1990s? Mandatory jail time for felons who are found in possession of a gun or ammunition, and mandatory 5 years added to your sentence if you're convicted of using a gun in a crime? Violent crime went down double-digit percentages every year for the years this was in effect.

I mean, sure, it's easier to take guns away from non-criminals, but this whole "put the bad guys in jail" think worked pretty well for Virginia. Can we try that first, please, before you come and try to tell me what I can't own?

The assault weapons ban was so ineffective last time that the best thing Feinstein could say about it was that it "made the banned guns more expensive". Can we, instead, use punishment of actual criminals, which has proven to be effective?

/whoa. Radical. Punish the bad guys.
 
2013-01-26 04:36:55 PM  
Mandatory registration? Come on, hasn't anyone seen the original x-men cartoon?
 
2013-01-26 04:37:10 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-26 04:37:22 PM  

BSABSVR: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

So you drive without insurance?


If you can't see what's wrong with that analogy you should not be participating in this discussion.
 
2013-01-26 04:37:24 PM  

vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make. If M-16s weren't more effective than bolt action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it? This argument has been shot down many times before.


This is one of the more pathetic arguments anti-gun nuts make. Don't equate an M-16 with a selective rate of fire and so-called "assault rifles" available to civilians. You make yourself look stupid, or at least a disingenuous farktard.
 
2013-01-26 04:38:21 PM  

GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


They can, for various reasons. Because owning a car is not a right.
 
2013-01-26 04:38:48 PM  

xynix: vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.

Yet another idiotic comment.. congrats to making it to level 5. My M&P 15-22 uses a .22lr round. A person could be shot 5-10 times and still survive the encounter with that gun. My .45 is chambered and the barrel is rifled (i know because I rifled it) for hydroshock bullets which will put a hole the size of a grapefruit in a person. That person will be lucky if they survive one round and certainly not two in an intense situation. If I had time to aim they won't last a single round.. the M&P is much harder to aim and the target would have opportunity to shoot back regardless. So proposing the banning of the M&P assault rifle accomplishes absolutely nothing because the 10 rounds in the .45 would be much more devastating.

This is what happens when you have someone that knows nothing about guns talking about gun control. And M16 is perfectly legal to own if you want to go through the lengthy and expensive process of owning it. It will cost about $4000 and it will take about 6 months to make happen but it can be done. What person who is intent on doing a mass shooting will go through that process? You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

This is what is frustrating to gun owners.. People like you that are clueless when it comes to such things discussing them like you actually know what you're talking about.


Guns, gods, gays. . . .three things that are guaranteed to generate lots of posts unhampered by any sort of progress
 
2013-01-26 04:39:56 PM  
Not sure how i feel about registering guns. Ive got some.
Im not worried about them being taken away. But i also dont like the idea of being on a list thats not going to help prevent crime.
 
2013-01-26 04:40:12 PM  

nekom: The government doesn't know about my gun.  I didn't pluralize that, I only have one shotgun that was given to me years ago.  I'm not gun nut, in fact I am fully in favor of an aggressive ban on assault weapons, but the government doesn't need to know about ANYTHING that is within my private property.


Would that include a ton of TNT or hazardous waste?
 
2013-01-26 04:40:14 PM  
Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

world.guns.ru
 
2013-01-26 04:40:25 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Only criminals have something to hide.


Yea, law abiding citizens don't deserve privacy. What the hell is wrong with them?
 
2013-01-26 04:40:36 PM  

NewportBarGuy: And when you call the cops to report a break-in and they see your unregistered gun, you get to go to jail and become someone's wife.



What magical land do you live in where the cops come to your house right away when you report a robbery? Everywhere I've lived, they take the report over the phone, give me the report number, and tell me to turn it in to my insurance. In a few jurisdictions, they allow you to file a report online with no police interaction whatsoever.
 
2013-01-26 04:41:18 PM  
I would hope that if any of these guns that "don't exist" are eventually stolen and used in a crime, the original gun owner is charged with the same crimes as the perp.

If the gun is used in a murder, may they be put to death.
 
2013-01-26 04:41:44 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.
 
2013-01-26 04:43:00 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.


It is if you believe they will come around and confiscate them eventually. A lot of people would like to see it happen.
 
2013-01-26 04:43:26 PM  

xynix: WHHHAAARRGGGBBLLLEEEE

world.guns.ru


wow that sure fires a lot of lipstick

is that for an LGBT rally?
 
2013-01-26 04:44:41 PM  

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-26 04:45:09 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.

It is if you believe they will come around and confiscate them eventually. A lot of people would like to see it happen.


tighten yer tinfoil Larry...
 
2013-01-26 04:45:25 PM  
"legal firearms owners"

affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-01-26 04:45:34 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.
 
2013-01-26 04:45:41 PM  
BS of A : There's been another shooting. Let's discuss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2XHegWYlg&list=UUHvN4QpSbAvCjA4cVpeS D Ug&index=20
 
2013-01-26 04:45:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-26 04:46:25 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.

It is if you believe they will come around and confiscate them eventually. A lot of people would like to see it happen.


It already has happened. It's not like people are inventing a hypothetical bogeyman, they are simply noting precedent.
 
2013-01-26 04:46:41 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x361]


You think *blank* will obey *blank* laws?
Murderers do not obey laws.
Speeders do not obey laws.
Thieves do not obey laws.
Embezzlers do not obey laws.
Conclusion: there should be no laws at all.
 
2013-01-26 04:46:44 PM  
I love the fact that all the so-called "law abiding" gun owners in this thread are proving the point of the anti-gun crowd. They're all ready to commit weapon offenses, citing the constitution, over a law that in no way infringes upon their right to keep or bear arms.

It's a shame they didn't make it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. That would deal with the problem in a much more final way.
 
2013-01-26 04:46:50 PM  

Alphakronik: I would hope that if any of these guns that "don't exist" are eventually stolen and used in a crime, the original gun owner is charged with the same crimes as the perp.

If the gun is used in a murder, may they be put to death.


How would they know who the original owner was?
 
2013-01-26 04:46:59 PM  
Let's see, all these minutemen 'patriots' are at war with pro-lifers, black leaders, black people, gays, Mexicans, muslins, women, or basically anyone who isn't European Christian ancestry.

Now they want a piece of the United States Government.

Let's see how well they do.
 
2013-01-26 04:47:04 PM  
If they choose not to follow part of the law, they're not law-abiding.
 
2013-01-26 04:47:06 PM  
Are they signing up with the National Registry of Arms?
 
2013-01-26 04:47:11 PM  

vpb: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.


In what way does limited gov't equal no gov't? You don't see Libertarians suggest leftists live in Best Korea...
 
2013-01-26 04:47:15 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


You people are such idiots. If you'd just read a little history you'd realize that the problem isn't the guns. It's the farking crazy people. If you take the guns away they'll go back to using bombs or whatever else they can get their hands on.
 
2013-01-26 04:47:20 PM  
I don't own a flash-suppressed AR-15 modified to fire semi or full auto with an extended magazine, reflex sight, and fingerprint-resistant grip, so there's no reason to register it. Try to prove otherwise.
 
2013-01-26 04:47:37 PM  

carnifex2005: [i.imgur.com image 179x281]


this
 
2013-01-26 04:48:22 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


You don't have to register a car if it never leaves your property...
 
2013-01-26 04:48:22 PM  
Fine with me. This way any shootings, even in self defense, will likely be done with illegally owned fire arms and open the shooter up to even more legal problems.
Justified shooting? Maybe but it was done with an illegal firearm so enjoy your jail time.
 
2013-01-26 04:48:23 PM  
I wonder how many of these illegal gun owners are demanding we arrest the illegals?
 
2013-01-26 04:48:31 PM  

Begoggle: You think *blank* will obey *blank* laws?
Murderers do not obey laws.
Speeders do not obey laws.
Thieves do not obey laws.
Embezzlers do not obey laws.
GUN NUTS WON'T OBEY LAWS EITHER
Conclusion: there should be no laws at all.

 
2013-01-26 04:49:20 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)
 
2013-01-26 04:49:49 PM  
Occupy My Gunsafe
 
2013-01-26 04:50:07 PM  
Link
NY originally proposed confiscation. This is why I will never register my guns.
 
2013-01-26 04:50:29 PM  

vpb: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.


You're an idiot.
 
2013-01-26 04:50:32 PM  

violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.


You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.
 
2013-01-26 04:50:34 PM  
I hope these lunatics are all over the TV when Feinstein's bill comes up.
 
2013-01-26 04:51:07 PM  

BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)


play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.
 
2013-01-26 04:51:55 PM  

vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.


Legalizing drugs would do more to reduce violent crime than any gun control measure you could come up with. The war on drugs is a complete failure. We could direct those billions of dollars into treatment and education programs, and we'd be eliminating the huge profits that motivate drug trafficking and the attendant violence.

/see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organiz e d_crime
 
2013-01-26 04:52:06 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.


HITLER BANNED THE GUNS
MAO BANNED THE GUNS
POL POT BANNED THE GUNS
HARPER BANNED THE GUNS
 
2013-01-26 04:52:17 PM  

enry: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.


The problem Enry is that the NRA is the only lobbyist group fighting for people that know how guns actually work. I don't agree with their tactics and the cold dead hand bullshiat either. However if you read this thread and see the epic amount of ignorance in it in regards to guns and what they do you'll see, to some extent, why the NRA has to be so vocal.

The NRA actually does a lot of legitimate work and their safety programs of which I'm an instructor should be mandatory before gun ownership. The lobbyist side of the NRA has to create this kind of buzz and storm of derp in order to counter the Vpbs of the world that think some guns are more dangerous than other guns. People who think an M16 can be acquired easily or who think that criminals will register a gun. We have to counter people like that or we will in fact lose our rights to own fire arms and the NRA is the only voice out there that keep morons from making pointless and redundant laws like a "gun registry."

The NRA is the only organization keeping people who think a .22 "assault rifle" is more dangerous than a .45 hand gun.
 
2013-01-26 04:52:25 PM  
Keep acting like crazy people, gun nuts. It only helps the case for gun control.
 
2013-01-26 04:52:53 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.


Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?
 
wee
2013-01-26 04:53:10 PM  

vpb: We already know gun control works


If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.
 
2013-01-26 04:53:25 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 368x290]
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 620x446]
The government and you anti gun pillow biters can go fark yourselves.


Your second picture makes me think Chicago is proof that the only people who endanger Americans are Americans. Foreigners are not a threat, even when you're at war against them.

Maybe it needs a better caption?
 
2013-01-26 04:53:39 PM  

Begoggle: I wonder how many of these illegal gun owners are demanding we arrest the illegals?


No innocent until proven guilty?
 
2013-01-26 04:54:01 PM  

wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.


Oh snap. vpd got a size 12 boot in the ass.
 
2013-01-26 04:54:50 PM  

wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.


You make the common mistake of defining "works" as "eliminates all crime", which is nothing more than a straw man.
"Reducing crime" is a better definition.
Has crime - specifically gun violence crime - been reduced in those cities?
Be honest now.
 
2013-01-26 04:54:51 PM  

Schubert'sCell: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.


Because gov't is static right?
 
2013-01-26 04:55:16 PM  

Schubert'sCell: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.


... Because the politicians, courts, and people never change their minds.
Let me tell you about a little thing called Prohibition...
 
2013-01-26 04:55:40 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.



Some do not support bans or confiscation, but others do. So when a real gun-grabber gets in power, will the registrations be sealed? Or will those in power be able to use the registrations, which people like you claim could never be used for confiscation, as probable cause to justify confiscations that would otherwise violate the fourth amendment?

I'm in favor of all-around gun reform that protects legal gun owners and causes an actual decrease in deaths. But mandatory registration, without some heavy restrictions on using the data, is just an open door for a knee-jerk ban/confiscation of whatever scary looking gun the next killer uses.
 
2013-01-26 04:56:06 PM  

nekom: The government doesn't know about my gun.  I didn't pluralize that, I only have one shotgun that was given to me years ago.  I'm not gun nut, in fact I am fully in favor of an aggressive ban on assault weapons, but the government doesn't need to know about ANYTHING that is within my private property.


What's an assault weapon that isn't currently banned?
 
2013-01-26 04:56:39 PM  
Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!
 
2013-01-26 04:57:27 PM  

enry: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.


Are you aware that the NRA has spent decades in training police, military, and civilians in firearm safety? Do you know that the NRA spent millions of dollars in the 1990s to support "Project Exile", a program in Virginia that created mandatory jail time for criminals who use guns? Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?

No? You don't know these things? Perhaps you should learn more about the organization you insult. And yes, of course I can provide cites for all of my claims.

When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.
 
2013-01-26 04:58:02 PM  
Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.
 
2013-01-26 04:58:12 PM  

BgJonson79: Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.

Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?


you already did that yourself.

if your knowledge of the holocaust suggests that a lack of guns or gun registry played any significant part of the Jews being exterminated, you are an idiot.

but live in that fantasy.

read some Elie Wiesel... start there.
read any scholarly material on the holocaust and Germany and you will soon understand that guns and the gun laws of Germany has ZERO to do with the liquidation of the ghettos, the round ups etc...
 
2013-01-26 04:58:54 PM  

Begoggle: wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.

You make the common mistake of defining "works" as "eliminates all crime", which is nothing more than a straw man.
"Reducing crime" is a better definition.
Has crime - specifically gun violence crime - been reduced in those cities?
Be honest now.


Has it? Isn't Chicago one of the most violent cities in the nation? It's not about guns you anti gun coonts, it's about poverty and gangs, but that's to hard to solve so you guys want gun bans that don't work.
 
2013-01-26 04:59:01 PM  

kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.


SO MUCH THIS
 
2013-01-26 04:59:25 PM  

Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!


'Paranoia'??

It's just learning from History so we're not doomed to repeat it.
 
2013-01-26 04:59:28 PM  
Grasping at straws to stop crazy.

Crazies gonna craze, making normal law abiding folk register their semi-auto guns just seems like an easy way out for the government. "Look what we did to protect you citizen."

Ted Kaczynski (sure only three dead but still)
Timothy McVeigh (No guns here...just pure unadulterated nut-job)
 
2013-01-26 04:59:29 PM  

GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?


That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"
 
2013-01-26 05:00:03 PM  

the ha ha guy: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.


Some do not support bans or confiscation, but others do. So when a real gun-grabber gets in power, will the registrations be sealed? Or will those in power be able to use the registrations, which people like you claim could never be used for confiscation, as probable cause to justify confiscations that would otherwise violate the fourth amendment?

I'm in favor of all-around gun reform that protects legal gun owners and causes an actual decrease in deaths. But mandatory registration, without some heavy restrictions on using the data, is just an open door for a knee-jerk ban/confiscation of whatever scary looking gun the next killer uses.


Thats the slippery slope my friend that we know could happen. It's not even a tinfoil conversation.. the bill of rights was set up for a specific purpose. When people who have no idea what they're talking about or people that are reacting to a particular event start dicking around with our bill of rights we're in trouble. Those guys that built that bill were very smart and they were brilliant visionarys and they created an excellent country that made other countries follow suit and also become republics or democratic/republic hybrids.
 
2013-01-26 05:00:23 PM  
media.giantbomb.com
dontdrinkbeer.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-26 05:00:42 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.


Check your facts, please.

You see, the background checks and registration are already happening. They have been for years. It's already the law. To buy one of these weapons, you have to go to a dealer with a FFL cert specifically so they can do a background check and register the SN on the weapon to your name.

The problem that they're having is with private trades, which would not be affected by any of this new legislation anyway.

All they're doing is trying to add redundant steps to the process as an excuse to tax the hell out of us some more.
 
2013-01-26 05:01:10 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

SO MUCH THIS


So, idiots like you and the other guy, are saying that we're paranoid because we believe that idiots like you, want to take our guns away, so, our guns should be taken away because we're paranoid?

How about we just put the bad guys in jail, instead? Project Exile. Google it. Mandatory sentences for gun crimes, double digit reduction in crime per year.

Google it.
 
2013-01-26 05:01:17 PM  

vpb: Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.

Or to hold the owners (Nancy Lanza) responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen (by Adam Lanza) and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.


In other words, registration would not have prevented Sandy Hook, and the 'responsible owner' paid the ultimate price for her failure to secure her weapons.
 
2013-01-26 05:01:32 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


I believe very similar legislation was included deep in the "Obama Healthcare" bill by Harry reid, where it was promptly forgoten about - until recently.

On page 19 under Health & Wellness section - http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf
 
2013-01-26 05:02:15 PM  

djh0101010: Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?



That didn't stop them and their supporters from complaining about Obama's suggestion to do exactly that.
 
2013-01-26 05:02:19 PM  
Well, that's typical of today's Entitlement Generation. No respect for the law. It's all me me me.
 
2013-01-26 05:02:23 PM  

vpb: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.


Herpa Derpa Derpa Derpa.
 
2013-01-26 05:02:35 PM  

kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.


I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"
 
2013-01-26 05:02:35 PM  

xynix: When people who have no idea what they're talking about or people that are reacting to a particular event start dicking around with our bill of rights we're in trouble.


awesome..now go and bring free speech and right to trial back will ya? i know you are busy with "guns" right now but being a staunch supporter of the "bill of rights", you might have noticed those things being eroded first.

start there, work down to guns.
 
2013-01-26 05:02:36 PM  
Historic experience here and in Canada shows that when you try to force gun owners into a registration and licensing system, there's usually mass opposition and mass noncompliance,"

Some context around the Canadian legislation, just for fun:

The administration of the day, in response to very high-profile urban handgun crimes (Lepine's Montreal massacre in particular, in addition toToronto gang-related crime), introduced a long-gun registry that affected mostly rural owners who used their firearms as typical farm equipment - coyote and gopher control. The legislation was introduced in the HOC with a pricetag of 2 million, which ballooned to BILLIONS in short order.

The effect the legislation had on urban hand gun crime was pretty much what you'd expect. Urbanites had no problem with the tremendous leap in logic as they were not affected - it was Joe & Martha in Thunder Bay & Medicine Hat. Probably more people participated than not because law-abiding farming folks did not want to run afoul of the law, regardless of what an ass the law was. That, and Canadians generally do what they're told.

It didn't affect criminals, it just created potentially more 'criminals' - those who refused to pay a new fee, the proceeds of which supported the bureaucracy that implemented the fees (snake eating itself.jpeg)

The legislation has since been rescinded, and rightfully so. The money would have been much better spent if diverted into mental health services and urban gang policing.

So...... what are y'all having for afternoon tea?
 
2013-01-26 05:02:44 PM  

fredklein:

'Paranoia'??


Yes, freddy, paranoia. Also, history is decided by the victors. In this case, that would be you, the gun owners. No one is taking your precioussss.
 
2013-01-26 05:02:52 PM  
I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?
 
2013-01-26 05:03:08 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?

The appeal to emotion continues unabated, I see. Are there any other things you'd like to see built on the backs of dead children, or are you just doing what you guys always do, make tomorrow's bans the new normal to set the stage for the next opportunity?


It's like they're all fans of the PATRIOT Act or something.
 
2013-01-26 05:03:44 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Well according to the image data it's an M79 grenade launcher. Which is legal in the same way machine guns are legal, meaning very expensive and lots of paperwork plus for this all your rounds have to be registered as destructive devices. I'm ok with this and would be in favor of moving all semi-automatic weapons into a similar category.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:04:16 PM  

GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one.
 
2013-01-26 05:04:19 PM  

fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"


I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.
 
2013-01-26 05:04:26 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: xynix: When people who have no idea what they're talking about or people that are reacting to a particular event start dicking around with our bill of rights we're in trouble.

awesome..now go and bring free speech and right to trial back will ya? i know you are busy with "guns" right now but being a staunch supporter of the "bill of rights", you might have noticed those things being eroded first.

start there, work down to guns.


Why not just defend all our rights at once?
 
2013-01-26 05:04:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


Have the people pushing for car registration ever pushed for outright bans and confiscations on cars?

have governments ever used registration lists to demand that legally owned be turned over because they're no longer legal due to a change in the law and/or an attorney general issued an opinion invalidating a prior one?

No? Then Shut The fark Up.
 
2013-01-26 05:04:52 PM  

Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!


What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?
 
2013-01-26 05:04:54 PM  

BgJonson79: Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito:
Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?


i wait for your brilliant reply as per my previous post.
 
2013-01-26 05:05:58 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


Well, CT already had an assault weapons ban, and the school was a Gun Free Zone.
The evil black rifle used was grandfathered under the state law, much like the current propsed AWB.
What law would have prevented it from happening?

If you believe in complete public disarmament and weapon confiscation, just say so. Short of that, what's your solution?
 
2013-01-26 05:06:09 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?


Profit?
 
2013-01-26 05:06:50 PM  
kmmontandon [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:27:16 PM

Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation,

Saying it doesn't make it true.


Except in England, Canada, Australia, ect...... Just saying....
 
2013-01-26 05:07:06 PM  

lilplatinum: xynix:
This is what is frustrating to gun owners..

Having to compensate for a small dick?


DRINK!

Anti-gun types really need some psychological help. I don't see this much talk about dicks in foobies threads.
 
2013-01-26 05:07:08 PM  

Begoggle: Has crime - specifically gun violence crime - been reduced in those cities?


No.
 
2013-01-26 05:07:45 PM  

nekom: The government doesn't know about my gun.  I didn't pluralize that, I only have one shotgun that was given to me years ago.  I'm not gun nut, in fact I am fully in favor of an aggressive ban on assault weapons, but the government doesn't need to know about ANYTHING that is within my private property.


Unless it's an assault weapon, right?
 
2013-01-26 05:08:05 PM  

A Shambling Mound: BSABSVR: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

So you drive without insurance?

If you can't see what's wrong with that analogy you should not be participating in this discussion.


Explain it then. And not with the 2nd amendment bit. That's not what Im arguing. He states that he won't do something that the state forces him to so that criminals won't. The state forces people to do all kinds of things that criminals don't. The state forces you to insure your vehicle, register nearly any means of conveyance, get required permits to own a business, or protest in a park, etc. the state requires you to verify work eligibility for employees, to not build in a flood plain and to pay the correct amount of taxes that you owe.

There are criminals who refuse to do each of those things.
 
2013-01-26 05:08:49 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


CSB: I was in Ecuador and the soldiers at the marketplace I was in were carrying those. It made me think that they have no regard for collateral damage. Not the most discriminating of weapons.
 
2013-01-26 05:08:51 PM  
I used to be a lot more in favor of ensuring that gun ownership stayed legal, but hearing from all these gun nuts is driving me further and further into the outright confiscation of everything camp. You farking gun nuts try to shoot down every single reasonable change in gun laws on the stupidest of grounds. The argument that "criminals won't obey gun laws so we shouldn't have laws" is patently false for everyone capable of farking reading; automatic weapon use in this country is virtually nil because of the de facto ban, and other countries that have implemented forms of gun control have seen serious declines in the rate of gun violence since. So every single time one of you mongoloids tries to pull that shiat, all it does is make me realize how utterly full of shiat you are on other things. Oooh, and then the protests about registration, while out of the other sides of their mouths they pillory the Democrats - and only the Democrats, mind you - when guns don't get properly tracked, as in Fast and Furious. Making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons against theft, which would seriously cut down on straw purchases? Socialism! Closing the gun show loophole? That's somehow an assault on every single freedom.

Fark them all. I loathe Cuomo for being a snake in the grass, but all of you worthless farks who won't bother to actually be part of the conversation got exactly what you farking deserved. I know that there's no real reason to ban muzzle brakes or flash suppressors, but you know what? You worthless farks have been so intransigent, so completely unhelpful in the gun control debate that I'm dancing for joy over it. The tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of enough schoolchildren (slaughtered with a weapon exempted from gun control because the gun control lobby bribed the Connecticut legislature) that the American people are more anti-gun than they've been in a generation, and now you motherfarkers have brought this down on yourself. Enjoy the confiscations of your penis extenders for failure to register. Enjoy the bureaucratic bullshiat that will be heaped on purchases of firearms. Enjoy having to track down seven-round magazines and hand in all your old ones. Maybe that will teach you a lesson about what happens when the only input you offer is "No" and the rest of us have to muddle along on our own.
 
2013-01-26 05:09:06 PM  

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Have the people pushing for car registration ever pushed for outright bans and confiscations on cars?

have governments ever used registration lists to demand that legally owned be turned over because they're no longer legal due to a change in the law and/or an attorney general issued an opinion invalidating a prior one?

No? Then Shut The fark Up.


What a ridiculous argument. Seriously. Nobody's going to take all of your guns.
 
2013-01-26 05:09:34 PM  
On the whole car registration doesn't lead to confiscation argument: I beg to differ, in California, Boxer and her pals have tried several times to rid the roads of cars over a certain age in the name of 'environmental protection'. It was really a ruse to prevent people from owning cheaper cars and also to checkmate the entire used car and spare parts industries. Nice way to ensure everyone either used public transportation (which makes you dependent on the govt) or were forever saddled with higher registration fees and a new car loan to pay off (which makes you dependent on the banks).
And how were they going to do it? By forcing you to sell your car to them for 500 bucks when you went to register it if it was too old, no matter its actual value.
Hey, you wanna keep driving? Go buy a new car! You got 5 bills in your pocket. If not, use that money for a bus ticket, loser!
 
2013-01-26 05:09:36 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.

Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?

you already did that yourself.

if your knowledge of the holocaust suggests that a lack of guns or gun registry played any significant part of the Jews being exterminated, you are an idiot.

but live in that fantasy.

read some Elie Wiesel... start there.
read any scholarly material on the holocaust and Germany and you will soon understand that guns and the gun laws of Germany has ZERO to do with the liquidation of the ghettos, the round ups etc...



I think it was a Jews had to register" thing not a gun point he was making.
 
2013-01-26 05:09:39 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?


Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.
 
2013-01-26 05:09:52 PM  
Maybe we should make everyone register to exercise their 1st amendment rights. Didn't Hitler do something similar by making all the Jews wear a gold star? Oh wait that made it easier to come find them when it was time to put them in the oven. Slippery slope when it comes to registration to exercise your rights. That coupled with when has the government ever done anything right you should be scared and telling them to f off.
 
2013-01-26 05:10:17 PM  

the ha ha guy: djh0101010: Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?


That didn't stop them and their supporters from complaining about Obama's suggestion to do exactly that.


Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.

Can you post a link to the point you seem to be pretending is valid? I'd love to see what it is you think the NRA is objecting to, so I can show you how you're wrong. Hint: If your response includes the term "Gun show loophole", please be prepared to explain how private sales at a gun show are somehow different than private sales anywhere else, and, how you propose that criminals will suddenly obey your new law, while they violate all the other laws.
 
2013-01-26 05:10:24 PM  

BSABSVR: A Shambling Mound: BSABSVR: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

So you drive without insurance?

If you can't see what's wrong with that analogy you should not be participating in this discussion.

Explain it then. And not with the 2nd amendment bit. That's not what Im arguing. He states that he won't do something that the state forces him to so that criminals won't. The state forces people to do all kinds of things that criminals don't. The state forces you to insure your vehicle, register nearly any means of conveyance, get required permits to own a business, or protest in a park, etc. the state requires you to verify work eligibility for employees, to not build in a flood plain and to pay the correct amount of taxes that you owe.

There are criminals who refuse to do each of those things.


Getting insurance is a smart move even without the law requiring it. I think your car registration example is better.
 
2013-01-26 05:11:05 PM  

captainktainer: I used to be a lot more in favor of ensuring that gun ownership stayed legal, but hearing from all these gun nuts is driving me further and further into the outright confiscation of everything camp. You farking gun nuts try to shoot down every single reasonable change in gun laws on the stupidest of grounds. The argument that "criminals won't obey gun laws so we shouldn't have laws" is patently false for everyone capable of farking reading; automatic weapon use in this country is virtually nil because of the de facto ban, and other countries that have implemented forms of gun control have seen serious declines in the rate of gun violence since. So every single time one of you mongoloids tries to pull that shiat, all it does is make me realize how utterly full of shiat you are on other things. Oooh, and then the protests about registration, while out of the other sides of their mouths they pillory the Democrats - and only the Democrats, mind you - when guns don't get properly tracked, as in Fast and Furious. Making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons against theft, which would seriously cut down on straw purchases? Socialism! Closing the gun show loophole? That's somehow an assault on every single freedom.

Fark them all. I loathe Cuomo for being a snake in the grass, but all of you worthless farks who won't bother to actually be part of the conversation got exactly what you farking deserved. I know that there's no real reason to ban muzzle brakes or flash suppressors, but you know what? You worthless farks have been so intransigent, so completely unhelpful in the gun control debate that I'm dancing for joy over it. The tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of enough schoolchildren (slaughtered with a weapon exempted from gun control because the gun control lobby bribed the Connecticut legislature) that the American people are more anti-gun than they've been in a generation, and now you motherfarkers have brought this down on yourself. Enjoy the confiscations of your penis extenders for failure to register. Enjoy the bureaucratic bullshiat that will be heaped on purchases of firearms. Enjoy having to track down seven-round magazines and hand in all your old ones. Maybe that will teach you a lesson about what happens when the only input you offer is "No" and the rest of us have to muddle along on our own.


Your farked in the head.
 
2013-01-26 05:11:20 PM  

kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.


Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.
 
2013-01-26 05:11:38 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Actually, that weapon is NOT legal without a FFA Class III Tax Stamp, and each round of 40mm has to be registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF, and have an according 200 dollar tax stamp.

Grenade Launchers are SPECIFICALLY covered in the National Firearms Act as destructive devices.
 
2013-01-26 05:11:42 PM  

xynix: you don't even know what the fark it is.


M-79 Thump Gun.
 
2013-01-26 05:12:04 PM  
Ill say it again.
Watching anti-gun people discuss guns is like watching young earth creationists discuss carbon dating.

Kudos to the handful of Americans still residing in NY.
 
2013-01-26 05:12:24 PM  

Begoggle: wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.

You make the common mistake of defining "works" as "eliminates all crime", which is nothing more than a straw man.
"Reducing crime" is a better definition.
Has crime - specifically gun violence crime - been reduced in those cities?
Be honest now.


I live in Atlanta where everyone has a gun and the streets are safe at night.
 
2013-01-26 05:12:28 PM  

fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.


I think the only person here who's making that connection is you, fredward.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:12:30 PM  

GAT_00: That's because I choose not to mix my Internet personality with my actual personality. They're largely the same, but I'm much more willing to degenerate into open abuse of people on here than I am IRL. I would never do such a thing in person and I have no wish to associate the two. It's also the reason I don't go to any Fark meetups


Good to know. You are predisposed to act in a manner that is disingenuous because you are behind a keyboard?
Speaks volumes, really. I will be at any and all FARK NY meetings. I have nothing to hide. And I am here, as I am in the flesh.
That may just shut a few mouths, I posit.
 
2013-01-26 05:12:31 PM  
Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.
 
2013-01-26 05:12:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What a ridiculous argument. Seriously. Nobody's going to take all of your guns.


Yet, proposals have been pushed to do just that, and states HAVE used registration to enforce retroactive bans. See California and the SKS and Walther P-22, as well as NYC and so-called "assault weapons"
 
2013-01-26 05:12:58 PM  

xynix: moron reaching high to become an idiot.


Ok, that's awesome, I'm slipping him on a fark list, and using that for the tag.

people who bluntly deny the wisdom of attempting to avoid a big brother situation, even if it's a remote possibility today, are not worthy of acknowledgement.
 
2013-01-26 05:13:07 PM  
The U.S. Department of Education estimates the chances of dying in a school shooting at around 1 in 1,000,000. Someone is more likely to be blown up by fireworks, stung to death by bees or eaten by dogs. In that light, turning schools into fortresses might seem like overkill
 
2013-01-26 05:13:34 PM  

fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.


No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.
 
2013-01-26 05:13:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.


Poe's law?
 
2013-01-26 05:14:00 PM  

gja: Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one


Seriously?  I don't like your argument so you aren't allowed to use it?
 
2013-01-26 05:14:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.


You authoritarians are getting cocky.
 
2013-01-26 05:15:05 PM  

wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.


New York City very nearly is. Our violent crime per capita rate is lower than almost anywhere else, and our overall crime rate is incredibly low. New York City saw the fewest homicides in 50 years despite population growth. This isn't the 1980s.
 
2013-01-26 05:15:23 PM  
So how many people believed that when the DHS was created it wouldn't interfere with law abiding citizen's lives? How many people have flown on a plane lately without having to step in a machine that shows you naked, streams radiation through you, or been felt up by an overzealous TSA screener, etc.? When you give the government a power, they will use every last drop.
 
2013-01-26 05:16:07 PM  

GAT_00: gja: Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one

Seriously?  I don't like your argument so you aren't allowed to use it?


No, just hypocritical bullshiat for antigun types to jump all over the "we register cars" bit when they usually (always?) get twisted out of shape when people point how cars kill more than guns despite being regulated, licensed, etc.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:16:23 PM  

GAT_00: gja: Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one

Seriously?  I don't like your argument so you aren't allowed to use it?


That is not at ALL what I wrote. Do not twist words. I said "nobody gets to use that argument anymore since when the pro-gunners tried it the anti-gunners decried it".

Clear enough? When the pro-gunners use that analogy the anti-gunners go NUTS.
So, let's switch to arguments that bear merit all around.
 
2013-01-26 05:16:35 PM  

ElBarto79: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

Well according to the image data it's an M79 grenade launcher. Which is legal in the same way machine guns are legal, meaning very expensive and lots of paperwork plus for this all your rounds have to be registered as destructive devices. I'm ok with this and would be in favor of moving all semi-automatic weapons into a similar category.


Actually there is. Example.. Purchased a Glock this summer and got it instantly. The M&P assault rifle I purchased took 2 weeks to get as they did a federal background check on me. The cost of such a thing is built into the price of the gun I purchased. I'm not in favor of moving semi-autos into that category as it's a knee-jerk reaction and redundant to a program that is already in place to ensure people who are purchasing them are allowed to purchase them. The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.

Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..
 
2013-01-26 05:17:06 PM  

TheJoe03: Debeo Summa Credo: Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.

You authoritarians are getting cocky.


I'm sure they think this position is perfectly "sensible", "reasonable", and "rational"
 
2013-01-26 05:17:16 PM  
Yes, register those firearms you legally purchased prior to any law that mandated it. Don't worry about douchebag progressive media outlets taking that registration information and publicizing it.
 
2013-01-26 05:17:52 PM  

Amos Quito: vpb: I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not. An unregistered gun in an incriminating object. It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.


1. The law has not taken effect YET
2. He doesn't live in New York, so the law will not apply to him


Are there ANY laws that the government might possibly enact that you might have a problem with? That you might defy?

Have you ANY "rights" that you are not willing to lie down and surrender in the name of being a "law abiding citizen"?

For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

It's not the law - YET - but there are those who are pushing for it - and HARD. Are you willing register your speech?


The issue is that gun owners have been making a big deal about how responsible and law-abiding they are and how it's just "those criminals" and crazy people who are doing all the killing.  Yet as soon as anyone asks them to demonstrate how responsible and law-abiding they actually are, they're all Nope, not me! I don't have to obey your laws! You're just doing it so you can take my gunz at some unspecified future date! Ha-ha! I'm onto you!

Well---okay. So then you're just like those criminals and crazy people you've been decrying for the last two months. You can't be BOTH a responsible gun owner AND one who refuses to obey the law. And insofar as your argument about the comparison between the 1st and 2d amendments: Free speech is a fundamental right. Gun ownership is not. And even if gun ownership is ever determined to be a fundamental right, ownership of ANY PARTICULAR gun never will be, just like there are certain types of speech which are not protected.

So pick one: You can be a responsible law-abiding gun owner, which means obeying ALL the laws, even the ones you don't like or agree with; or you can be a crazy criminal. You all were the ones who polarized this mess and so you get to lie in it.
 
2013-01-26 05:18:24 PM  

Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.


If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey the law, and will just use illegal, unregistered guns.
 
2013-01-26 05:18:27 PM  

xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.
 
2013-01-26 05:18:36 PM  
So all it takes to get a hero tag on fark these days is be a small-dicked, paranoid, delusional sociopath? Good to know.
 
2013-01-26 05:19:16 PM  

PedanticSimpleton: Yes, register those firearms you legally purchased prior to any law that mandated it. Don't worry about douchebag progressive media outlets taking that registration information and publicizing it.


Yep. Also, it's not like another administration can't come along and remove the privacy provisions, or fail to adequately defend a challenge in court.
 
2013-01-26 05:19:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.


So, I have dozens of guns, and collect them as engineering curios and historical artifacts, and use them to precisely punch holes in paper. In your mind, this isn't a valid reason to own a machine that will never harm anyone? Apparently, in your mind, I'm a lunatic? That's weird, because I've shot tens of thousands of rounds so far in my lifetime, and I haven't killed anyone. One of us doesn't understand how this whole guns thing works. I'm PRETTY sure, it's you.
 
2013-01-26 05:20:09 PM  

gja:

Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one.


Dog license. Pitt bull owners register their dogs. Exotic fish licences. Same thing. No one is running around taking either. And guess what, there are no vast armies of dog nuts and fish nuts refusing to get their yearly licenses.

But in the end what this comes down to is that there's a law requiring certain types of guns to be registered in NY. Registering the weapon in no way stops the owner from keeping or bearing the weapon, so the constitutional argument is out.

I have no problem with law abiding, mentally stable individuals without violent criminal records, owning guns. But lookie here. This thread is full of those supposedly law abiding gun owners who state they will break weapons laws. If all it takes is telling gun owners to follow this law you don't agree with that in no way harms you, to get these gun owners to break the law, then they aren't very law abiding.

Now, under this law, as soon as they use one of their unregistered weapons for self defense they'll be found out. Out hunting? Take a gun to a gunsmith? Caught. Disgruntled gun club employees will report members for owning unregistered guns. Disgruntled gun and ammo selling store employees will report customers who buy accessories for weapons that should be registered.

So, unregistered gun owners, when the police come knocking at your door in these circumstances with their search warrant, what exactly is it, besides surrendering and turning over the unregistered weapons, are you planning on doing? Breaking even more laws?
 
2013-01-26 05:20:13 PM  

pedrop357: No, just hypocritical bullshiat for antigun types to jump all over the "we register cars" bit when they usually (always?) get twisted out of shape when people point how cars kill more than guns despite being regulated, licensed, etc.


And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?

gja: That is not at ALL what I wrote.


Uh huh.
 
2013-01-26 05:20:15 PM  

fredklein: Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.

If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey the law, and will just use illegal, unregistered guns.


Because, freddyboy, if it became apparent you were, say, amassing an arsenal capable of shooting up a school, I'd think the rest of us would want to know that, hmmm? You know, as we're all part of a society, yes?
 
2013-01-26 05:20:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Yet as soon as anyone asks them to demonstrate how responsible and law-abiding they actually are, they're all Nope, not me! I don't have to obey your laws! You're just doing it so you can take my gunz at some unspecified future date! Ha-ha! I'm onto you!


We already prove that every day, why do we have to prove it even more?
 
2013-01-26 05:20:42 PM  
In most the rest of the world, having reasonable access to health care is considered a basic human right.

In the United States, owning a gun is considered a basic human right. (Based on a very.... unusual interpretation of what some dead guys said around 300 years ago).

In the United States, guns are religion. They provided freedom, liberty, and everything good. That all came from a gun, and nothing else. Like the sun God who gives you warmth. So is the philosophy of someone who was entitled in a very different world. Also religion.

This is why you can't debate it. Because it is viewed as a religious, AND a human right. How do you change that?
 
2013-01-26 05:20:43 PM  

Flipper47465: kmmontandon [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:27:16 PM

Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation,

Saying it doesn't make it true.

Except in England, Canada, Australia, ect...... Just saying....


Countries with socialized medicine and comparatively advanced mental health treatment? Hmm
 
2013-01-26 05:21:00 PM  

xynix: The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.


It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:21:07 PM  

pion: So all it takes to get a hero tag on fark these days is be a small-dicked, paranoid, delusional sociopath? Good to know.


Perfect. You bring penile size into question. You seem to be preoccupied with that. Go see a psych.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:13 PM  

pion: So all it takes to get a hero tag on fark these days is be a small-dicked, paranoid, delusional sociopath? Good to know.


DRINK!
/Seriously, you penis obsessed gun control people really need help.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:15 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Princess Ryans Knickers: Only criminals have something to hide.

Yea, law abiding citizens don't deserve privacy. What the hell is wrong with them?


You aren't law abiding if you are refusing to follow the law. You are a CRIMINAL. Therefore, according to the NRA and multiple Fark gun threads, you don't deserve to have a gun.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:35 PM  

djh0101010: the ha ha guy: djh0101010: Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?


That didn't stop them and their supporters from complaining about Obama's suggestion to do exactly that.

Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.


Your debit card connects directly to your bank account, it's pretty simple. Your criminal record however crosses numerous state and federal agencies. The last time I got an fbi background check it took almost 3 months. I would certainly be in favor of something instant but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not have universal background checks.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:36 PM  

Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.


People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:36 PM  

BronyMedic: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

Actually, that weapon is NOT legal without a FFA Class III Tax Stamp, and each round of 40mm has to be registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF, and have an according 200 dollar tax stamp.

Grenade Launchers are SPECIFICALLY covered in the National Firearms Act as destructive devices.


So it's legal to own right? It's not banned. Am I correct in that statement? If so called "assault rifles" are banned then they will be the only weapon type banned. Because I can own a tank or even an F4 Phantom but I can't own a certain type of rifle. That's what makes gun owners frustrated is people trying to ban some kind of weapon because it was used in a crime while much more deadlier weapons are available for ownership. It's pure silliness. Knee jerk reactionary bullshiat by people who have no idea -at all- of what they're talking about. Not referring to you of course because you know the laws in reference to that particular gun.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own guns.


...and that's why gun owners are so skeptical of gun control advocates and their motives, distilled into a single sentence
 
2013-01-26 05:21:40 PM  

Flipper47465: kmmontandon [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:27:16 PM

Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation,

Saying it doesn't make it true.

Except in England, Canada, Australia, ect...... Just saying....


Canadians own tons of guns. I'd still own mine but my wife (not the government) said they had to go. You can own just about any gun you'd like short of fully automatic or those teeny tiny pocket sized models. We also frown on concealed carry but that is as much cultural as anything. You want to hunt? No problem. You want to target shoot? No problem. Basically all you need to do is take a gun safety class and be a member of a shooting club if you want a handgun.
 
2013-01-26 05:21:58 PM  
Why not just require people to register guns they plan to use in crimes?
 
2013-01-26 05:22:19 PM  

GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?


Because registration lists have been published in newspapers, used for confiscation, and proposed to be used for confiscation. Also, it's a protected right to own a gun.
 
2013-01-26 05:23:09 PM  

the_foo: GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?

That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"


GAT (like most of the anti-gun club here) has always been an ardent supporter of the patriot act and every thats come about because of it. So you're not going to get anywhere with that.
 
2013-01-26 05:23:11 PM  

occamswrist: Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.

People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.


Um, you're retarded.
 
2013-01-26 05:23:40 PM  

occamswrist: Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.

People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.


No, dip shiat. You're confusing an action with an item.

People who don't know what murder IS, should not be allowed to be involved in murder laws. People who don't understand the topic at hand should not be allowed to legislate on it.
 
2013-01-26 05:23:48 PM  

Harry Knutz: fredklein: Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.

If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey the law, and will just use illegal, unregistered guns.

Because, freddyboy, if it became apparent you were, say, amassing an arsenal capable of shooting up a school, I'd think the rest of us would want to know that, hmmm? You know, as we're all part of a society, yes?


Dont need an aresenal. One, maybe two guns. Its the amount of bullets that matters.
 
2013-01-26 05:24:11 PM  

xynix: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Yeah making legal owners register their guns will really prevent mass shootings. Because everyone who has done a mass shooting or blown up a building registers their ordinance. They're the most lawful people out there don't you know? Not a single person has stolen a gun used in a mass shooting .. especially not that guy that killed 24 people in CT who absolutely did not steal his guns from a legal owner.

You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.


I've seen enough of the VPB crap for a lifetime. I rarely add people to the ignore list, but he's about to disappear.
 
2013-01-26 05:25:03 PM  

BronyMedic: xynix: The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.

It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.


It's interesting that you're obsessed with thinking that the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners, would want to do that sort of thing. Project much,
BronyMedic?

/apparently, I'm not allowed to attack you in suitably strong linguistic terms. Hopefully the modiots will let this go through.

//seriously, Brony, do you actually understand how much you come across as being a pompous, judgmental ass?
 
2013-01-26 05:25:26 PM  
Only reason Newtown resonates is WHITE children were killed. YOU RACIST farkS.
 
2013-01-26 05:25:34 PM  

xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


Pedestrians have an interest in traffic laws.
 
2013-01-26 05:25:41 PM  

BronyMedic: It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.


You're a piece of shiat.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:25:49 PM  

Cheviot: gja:

Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one.

Dog license. Pitt bull owners register their dogs. Exotic fish licences. Same thing. No one is running around taking either. And guess what, there are no vast armies of dog nuts and fish nuts refusing to get their yearly licenses.

But in the end what this comes down to is that there's a law requiring certain types of guns to be registered in NY. Registering the weapon in no way stops the owner from keeping or bearing the weapon, so the constitutional argument is out.

I have no problem with law abiding, mentally stable individuals without violent criminal records, owning guns. But lookie here. This thread is full of those supposedly law abiding gun owners who state they will break weapons laws. If all it takes is telling gun owners to follow this law you don't agree with that in no way harms you, to get these gun owners to break the law, then they aren't very law abiding.

Now, under this law, as soon as they use one of their unregistered weapons for self defense they'll be found out. Out hunting? Take a gun to a gunsmith? Caught. Disgruntled gun club employees will report members for owning unregistered guns. Disgruntled gun and ammo selling store employees will report customers who buy accessories for weapons that should be registered.

So, unregistered gun owners, when the police come knocking at your door in these circumstances with their search warrant, what exactly is it, besides surrendering and turning over the unregistered weapons, are you planning on doing? Breaking even more laws?


Wow. You don't belong here. I wasn't expecting an answer with real thought behind it.

To be truthful, I have no problem with the registration. In reality I have no guns they want registered.

I think the law has merit, but needs further definition and an avenue of oversight, which I believe is sorely lacking.

Other than that, hell yes, register ALL guns at some point. Besides, they did a NICS check every time I bought one, so there is a paper trail anyway.

To think that hasn't been preserved somewhere is naive.
 
2013-01-26 05:25:58 PM  

Harry Knutz: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

I think the only person here who's making that connection is you, fredward.


Um, did you even read the post I originally replied to? Particularly the part where gun owners were "paranoid" and "so goddamn unstable" that they "should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun"?
 
2013-01-26 05:26:06 PM  

truthseeker2083: So how many people believed that when the DHS was created it wouldn't interfere with law abiding citizen's lives? How many people have flown on a plane lately without having to step in a machine that shows you naked, streams radiation through you, or been felt up by an overzealous TSA screener, etc.? When you give the government a power, they will use every last drop.


I find it amusing how many of the people who are pro gun control seem to hate the PATRIOT Act in other threads. Emotional knee jerk reactions that do nothing are okay as long as it's a right they don't like, or something...
 
2013-01-26 05:26:49 PM  

robrr2003: the_foo: GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?

That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"

GAT (like most of the anti-gun club here) has always been an ardent supporter of the patriot act and every thats come about because of it. So you're not going to get anywhere with that.


I just don't know where all these authoritarians came from, it scares the hell out of me. Fark wasn't always like that.
 
2013-01-26 05:26:55 PM  

pedrop357: People who don't understand the topic at hand should not be allowed to legislate on it.


Precisely! We're talking about Republicans, right?
 
2013-01-26 05:27:05 PM  

pedrop357: occamswrist: Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.

People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.

No, dip shiat. You're confusing an action with an item.

People who don't know what murder IS, should not be allowed to be involved in murder laws. People who don't understand the topic at hand should not be allowed to legislate on it.


Finding a distinction between the post I was quoting and my post doesn't mean I don't know the difference, dip shiat.

People who don't know the difference between a post and a corollary to a post should not be allowed to post or even have a discussion around them. oh wait.
 
2013-01-26 05:27:29 PM  
You know that if you, say, have a restraining order out against you, you have to give up your guns. Same if you're convicted of a violent felony. Requiring registration for guns facilitates getting guns from those who can't legally own them. "Law-abiding" is a moment-in-time thing. Someone may be perfectly law-abiding when they purchase a gun, then not so much so later.

Are all you paranoid sociopaths genuinely too dumb to see the legitimate uses of registration, or are you being disingenuous?
 
2013-01-26 05:27:40 PM  

Harry Knutz: pedrop357: People who don't understand the topic at hand should not be allowed to legislate on it.

Precisely! We're talking about Republicans, right?


If they don't/can't understand the topic, I don't care what party they're a member of.
 
2013-01-26 05:27:58 PM  
I'd guess you could NOT register your guns, and the government wouldn't know about them, but if they find out you had unregistered guns, they could then take them, as you had them without registering them.

/Like the crocodile in my basement.
 
2013-01-26 05:28:09 PM  

robrr2003: the_foo: GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?

That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"

GAT (like most of the anti-gun club here) has always been an ardent supporter of the patriot act and every thats come about because of it. So you're not going to get anywhere with that.


Is it just blatantly make shiat up day?
 
2013-01-26 05:28:11 PM  
Tired of listening to all the mouth-breathers who like to imagine that the rest of the world is some kind of magical utopia because of gun control laws.

There's a great page on Wikipedia listing gun massacres. Most of them are...... not in the United States. And the worst ones are in China where pretty much even thinking about owning a gun will get you jail time.

And for all the Eurotrash who think gun control works so well, tell that to the 69 people gunned down in Norway in a massacre in 2011. How quickly we forget when it's politically convenient.
I don't own a gun. I probably never will. But there's a reason Americans founded a new country -- because we didn't want to be like the old ones.
 
2013-01-26 05:28:54 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.


What the hell is that thing?
 
2013-01-26 05:29:14 PM  

occamswrist: Finding a distinction between the post I was quoting and my post doesn't mean I don't know the difference, dip shiat.

People who don't know the difference between a post and a corollary to a post should not be allowed to post or even have a discussion around them. oh wait.


sorry. I thought you were confirming the post, not mocking it.
 
2013-01-26 05:29:42 PM  

fredklein: gun owners were "paranoid"


You have reading comprehension issues. Come take one of my SAT, GRE, or LSAT prep classes and I'll help you out with that.
 
2013-01-26 05:29:46 PM  

pedrop357: GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?

Because registration lists have been published in newspapers, used for confiscation, and proposed to be used for confiscation. Also, it's a protected right to own a gun.


Freedom of information act does not apply to the BATF who currently has a record of every legal gun owner. A gun registry may be accessible under the FoIA and yes that puts the fear of God into me. The government already knows what guns I own. I don't need some crack head also knowing it and I certainly don't want it accessible via a website like it already is in some cases in certain states. I will not allow the government to put me in a compromising situation because a bunch of people who've never even shot a gun think they know what's right and what will prevent gun related crimes. I will not register my gun and I will immediately tell the police that I have an unregistered gun if such a law were to pass. I would then spend a lot of money fighting the law until it reached the SCOTUS and a lot of people would back me or me back them in the process. Luckily I live in Georgia where people are smart when it comes to guns..
 
2013-01-26 05:30:07 PM  

xynix: Purchased a Glock this summer and got it instantly. The M&P assault rifle I purchased took 2 weeks to get as they did a federal background check on me. The cost of such a thing is built into the price of the gun I purchased. I'm not in favor of moving semi-autos into that category as it's a knee-jerk reaction and redundant to a program that is already in place to ensure people who are purchasing them are allowed to purchase them. The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.

Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.

Your bolt action rifle is certainly powerful but it would not be so great for storming an elementary school and blasting 20 kids.

I myself am a gun owner, that said it doesn't matter if you know about guns or not, gun crime affects us all. Should we allow only drug users to make drug laws?
 
2013-01-26 05:30:29 PM  

fredklein: Harry Knutz: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

I think the only person here who's making that connection is you, fredward.

Um, did you even read the post I originally replied to? Particularly the part where gun owners were "paranoid" and "so goddamn unstable" that they "should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun"?


I believe the identifier in question was paranoid braying. There are many gun owners here and elsewhere who are not doing any kind of paranoid braying. If a gun owner is doing paranoid braying, chances are that gun owner is "so goddamn unstable" that he/she might not be fit to own a gun. QED.
 
2013-01-26 05:30:57 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: tighten yer tinfoil Larry...


it's not like registration followed by confiscation was used in NYC in the 70's or anything like that...... oh wait it was.
 
2013-01-26 05:30:58 PM  

ElBarto79: Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.

Your debit card connects directly to your bank account, it's pretty simple. Your criminal record however crosses numerous state and federal agencies. The last time I got an fbi background check it took almost 3 months. I would certainly be in favor of something instant but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not have universal background checks.



Wow, the leap of logic it takes to get from what I posted, to what you posted, makes my head spin.

There is no legitimate reason, technical or otherwise, why an instant background check can't work. The NRA was pushing for this, 20 years ago. The leftists have dragged their feet on this for decades, while blaming the NRA for it not being possible. I am offended that the leftists blame us for the failure that they are continuing to cause.

How about we do this: Instant background checks for legal gun purchases. Of course, the criminals don't buy their guns legally, but, it will give me happiness next time I sell a gun to a coworker. I'm sure the whole privacy thing about being able to do a background check on anyone at all isn't a problem.

So how about we do that, and then, do a Project Exile type thing, where criminals who use guns have mandatory prison time added to whatever other penalty they deserve? Google Project Exile, double-percent drops in violent crime per year. What a concept. Put the bad guys in jail.

Stop blaming the 99.9999% of law abiding gun owners, and put the bad guys in jail. What a concept.
 
2013-01-26 05:31:07 PM  

ElBarto79: It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.


How is that not a violation of rights?
 
2013-01-26 05:31:38 PM  

kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.


"Foaming at the mouth"? "Ranting"?? Neither describes me. However, the fact you said those those things says a lot about you.

As for "Never going to happen"? - Yeah, because of people who stand up for their Rights and don't let it happen. If everyone was like you, it Would happen.
 
2013-01-26 05:32:09 PM  
Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.


History has proven that statement to be a lie.
 
2013-01-26 05:33:50 PM  

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: So how many people believed that when the DHS was created it wouldn't interfere with law abiding citizen's lives? How many people have flown on a plane lately without having to step in a machine that shows you naked, streams radiation through you, or been felt up by an overzealous TSA screener, etc.? When you give the government a power, they will use every last drop.

I find it amusing how many of the people who are pro gun control seem to hate the PATRIOT Act in other threads. Emotional knee jerk reactions that do nothing are okay as long as it's a right they don't like, or something...


But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....
 
2013-01-26 05:33:55 PM  
And not one mention of the killers having mental illness and on drugs. That's right, it's the guns fault.
 
2013-01-26 05:34:56 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?
 
2013-01-26 05:35:01 PM  

kxs401: You know that if you, say, have a restraining order out against you, you have to give up your guns. Same if you're convicted of a violent felony. Requiring registration for guns facilitates getting guns from those who can't legally own them. "Law-abiding" is a moment-in-time thing. Someone may be perfectly law-abiding when they purchase a gun, then not so much so later.

Are all you paranoid sociopaths genuinely too dumb to see the legitimate uses of registration, or are you being disingenuous?


There is no legitimate need for registration.

Even in your examples, if one is criminal in that way, THEN punish them with a reduction of rights. It's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Would you people protest government tracking your cellphones, wear an ankle tracking device, because, you may someday do something illegal?

First comes registration, then armbands, then the ovens.
/in a nutshell
//it wasn't that long ago, and in fact, it still happens in other countries
///all it really takes is one reprehensible person in office to perpetrate some truly heinous things
 
2013-01-26 05:35:37 PM  

kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.


I'm not sure we're the ones foaming at the mouth crazy, paranoid about something that isn't going to happen, when we've provided examples that it has happened. In the USA. Registration has led to confiscation.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:05 PM  

violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.


Oh, I see.

You're all just crazy and paranoid.

/No, really, that's an honest interpretation of this nonsense.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:27 PM  

LavenderWolf: Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?


Gun registries have been used for confiscation, and confiscations based on registries have been proposed.

Gun registries open the door for confiscation.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:27 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?


mathematically you are indeed correct.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:29 PM  

pedrop357: ElBarto79: It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.

How is that not a violation of rights?


2 reasons;

1 - This would only be for semi-autos. You could still by bolt action guns and revolvers through normal channels.

2 - You could still acquire these weapons, it would just take a little longer and cost a little more.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:31 PM  

pedrop357: occamswrist: Finding a distinction between the post I was quoting and my post doesn't mean I don't know the difference, dip shiat.

People who don't know the difference between a post and a corollary to a post should not be allowed to post or even have a discussion around them. oh wait.

sorry. I thought you were confirming the post, not mocking it.


Ehhh...a little of both. I have a rifle and a handgun and I love them. I sleep with my glock on a pillow next to me just like Sledge Hammer used to do.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:55 PM  

violentsalvation: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.

I'm not sure we're the ones foaming at the mouth crazy, paranoid about something that isn't going to happen, when we've provided examples that it has happened. In the USA. Registration has led to confiscation.


Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.
 
2013-01-26 05:36:57 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.


Did you go to school on the long bus or the short bus?
 
2013-01-26 05:37:21 PM  

xynix: vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.

A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any o ...


You just got added to my favorites list.

/also a responsible Georgia gun owner
 
2013-01-26 05:37:34 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?

Gun registries have been used for confiscation, and confiscations based on registries have been proposed.

Gun registries open the door for confiscation.


In exactly the same way that having a gun opens the door to robbing a bank.

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.
 
2013-01-26 05:37:59 PM  

gja:

Wow. You don't belong here. I wasn't expecting an answer with real thought behind it.

To be truthful, ...


Whoa! Thanks for the Total Fark!
 
2013-01-26 05:38:01 PM  

ElBarto79: 2 reasons;

1 - This would only be for semi-autos. You could still by bolt action guns and revolvers through normal channels.

2 - You could still acquire these weapons, it would just take a little longer and cost a little more.



So, still a violation. You can buy all the paperback books you want but hardback and electronic copies take a little longer and cost a little more.
 
2013-01-26 05:38:30 PM  

LavenderWolf: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

Oh, I see.

You're all just crazy and paranoid.

/No, really, that's an honest interpretation of this nonsense.


I dare you to prove him wrong.
 
2013-01-26 05:38:51 PM  

LavenderWolf: Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.


So it only counts if they go big? Smaller actual events, and larger proposals don't count?
 
2013-01-26 05:39:06 PM  
I see our usual gang of fark authoritarians are all for registration.
 
2013-01-26 05:39:11 PM  
The same people saying defending gun registration are the same people that said gun owners were just paranoid for thinking the gov't wants us to register guns. It's hilarious watching you defend something that will "never" happen
 
2013-01-26 05:39:16 PM  

LavenderWolf:

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.


I think there's plenty of that on all sides.
 
2013-01-26 05:39:31 PM  

LavenderWolf: In exactly the same way that having a gun opens the door to robbing a bank.

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.


Yawn.
 
2013-01-26 05:39:45 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: xynix: vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.

A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous a ...


You're both fools.

He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.
 
2013-01-26 05:39:54 PM  

vpb: Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.

Or to hold the owners responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.


There's a gap in this logic between the pro and anti control groups.

One of the major reasons people cite for gun ownership is to defend their home. How can you lock a gun in a safe or use a trigger lock and still have access to it to protect yourself? Do you ask the criminal to wait while you unlock your safe/lock? So if a law such as the one you suggest went in effect, I can see that in a lot of people's eyes that the next argument used by gun control advocates will be "well, you can't get to it in time anyway, so why do you need it at all?"

If someone steals a knife from someone's kitchen and then stabs someone with it, should the knife owner be charged?
 
2013-01-26 05:40:20 PM  

ElBarto79:

I myself am a gun owner, that said it doesn't matter if you know about guns or not, gun crime affects us all. Should we allow only drug users to make drug laws?


No, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if you *own* guns, it matters if you *know* anything about them. People who don't know magazines from clips, describe hollow point ammunition as "armor piercing", or consider a thumbhole stock the mark of a extraordinarily dangerous weapon have no business designing gun control measures.
 
2013-01-26 05:40:33 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.

So it only counts if they go big? Smaller actual events, and larger proposals don't count?


So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?
 
2013-01-26 05:40:34 PM  

djh0101010: ElBarto79: Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.

Your debit card connects directly to your bank account, it's pretty simple. Your criminal record however crosses numerous state and federal agencies. The last time I got an fbi background check it took almost 3 months. I would certainly be in favor of something instant but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not have universal background checks.


Wow, the leap of logic it takes to get from what I posted, to what you posted, makes my head spin.

There is no legitimate reason, technical or otherwise, why an instant background check can't work. The NRA was pushing for this, 20 years ago. The leftists have dragged their feet on this for decades, while blaming the NRA for it not being possible. I am offended that the leftists blame us for the failure that they are continuing to cause.


I'm not saying instant background checks wouldn't be nice, I'm saying the fact it takes awhile to get one currently doesn't mean we shouldn't require them.

This isn't just an issue with guns, when I had to get a work visa for a foreign country it took nearly 3 months for the nationwide FBI check to be processed. In comparison the process to buy a gun is a breeze. Yet you guys want to biatch and moan about how terrible it is and is a violation of your rights.
 
2013-01-26 05:40:58 PM  

Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?


Well put.
 
2013-01-26 05:41:04 PM  

djh0101010: There is no legitimate reason, technical or otherwise, why an instant background check can't work. The NRA was pushing for this, 20 years ago. The leftists have dragged their feet on this for decades, while blaming the NRA for it not being possible. I am offended that the leftists blame us for the failure that they are continuing to cause.


Actually there is.. Unfortunately. Almost every state uses a different system because some lobbyist sold them "this awesome software" or some fat cat got a kickback to buy "this awesome system." So in fact it's a real pain in the ass to take your DL# and get information back instantly. Louisiana is really bad at providing data and I'm from there so it generally takes quite a long time to get information back to the feds so I can buy a certain type of gun. So not only does every state have their own individual proprietary system but so does every county and then .. you guessed it.. every farking city. Some are general software data-mining packages but a lot of the times it's joe-shmoe.. buddy of the mayor who offered up his friend Steve to create the software that the local police system uses. It's a farking nightmare.

The credit card or debit card analogy can't be compared to this because all of their shiat is compatible with one another. For instance if you go to Kroger and run your debit card it might go into the Equifax system which then does a quick query to the Bank of America system which then gives a 1 single bit response of approved or not approved. One bit is sent.. a 1 or a 0. A yes or a no. Slide card, query amount/hold amount, yes or no? Much more fluid because a government wasn't involved in the process of creating the backend. Nor were lobbyists or the Mayor's buddy Steve.
 
2013-01-26 05:41:23 PM  

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


Wow...that's an awfully broad brush you're painting xynix with, Ace. Why do you assume that he's a criminal? Is it
just because he has stated that he will not comply with the gun registration laws? We have this thing - maybe its a quirk because we were once an upstart little country - called civil disobedience. It has been used throughout our country's history to protest that which people think is wrong.

For the record, I am not a gun owner. We live in an isolated enough area where my husband and I have thought about it more than once but my oldest son is - even with medication - an unstable person. We don't want to tempt fate by having a firearm in the house if he ever decides to go apeshiat again and go after one of us.

That being said, I am in total opposition of forcing law abiding citizens to register their firearms. Why? Because it will only BE law abiding citizens who register them. The criminals who commit the acts that this law is supposedly designed to prevent will still commit those acts. This law won't prevent that.

Like someone up-thread already said - the government already gets your info when you buy a firearm and when you apply for a concealed carry permit. They don't need an itemized list of the firearms that you own.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 05:41:55 PM  

Cheviot: gja:

Wow. You don't belong here. I wasn't expecting an answer with real thought behind it.

To be truthful, ...

Whoa! Thanks for the Total Fark!


So far you were are the only one in thread that answered in a rational and coherent manner.
YW
 
2013-01-26 05:41:58 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?

Gun registries have been used for confiscation, and confiscations based on registries have been proposed.

Gun registries open the door for confiscation.


Fact.
 
2013-01-26 05:41:59 PM  

Amos Quito: Good.


Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law. I'm all for protesting laws, but standing in the streets screaming F-bombs is not a protest, it's a temper tantrum. A good lawsuit would clear this clusterfark right up, especially since the law has no rationale at all behind it--sitting in the street screaming is more than slightly retarded when you have that option.
 
2013-01-26 05:42:00 PM  

djh0101010: enry: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.

Are you aware that the NRA has spent decades in training police, military, and civilians in firearm safety? Do you know that the NRA spent millions of dollars in the 1990s to support "Project Exile", a program in Virginia that created mandatory jail time for criminals who use guns? Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?

No? You don't know these things? Perhaps you should learn more about the organization you insult. And yes, of course I can provide cites for all of my claims.

When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.


Guess I struck too close to home.

Lemme put it this way: Having Wayne LaPierre hold a press conference blaming everything but guns for a mass shooting (involving guns) in a school does nothing to help you. He could have talked about mental health issues as it pertains to gun ownership and safety, he could have talked about closing loopholes, he could have talked about responsible gun ownership.

He didn't.

Instead we got the same tired old rant about Hollywood movies from 20 years ago and video games from 15 years ago. That's what you're going with? That's who you want to represent gun ownership in America?

Well, good luck with that. The adults are in charge here and well informed by the likes of you or not, something's going to be done. You can either have a voice at the table and educate why the bills are bad, or you can sit on the sidelines.
 
2013-01-26 05:42:40 PM  

LavenderWolf: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

Oh, I see.

You're all just crazy and paranoid.

/No, really, that's an honest interpretation of this nonsense.


Try reading some history some time, you moron.
 
2013-01-26 05:42:45 PM  

SuNJeStEr: Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.

History has proven that statement to be a lie.



California says otherwise: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989
 
2013-01-26 05:42:46 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Chariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?

Well put.


Are you kidding?
 
2013-01-26 05:42:57 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: In exactly the same way that having a gun opens the door to robbing a bank.

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.

Yawn.


In what way is that not accurate?

If gun registry == gun confiscation, by the same logic, gun ownership == gun violence.

/I love guns, to be honest. Just wish the pro-gun side could make arguments that don't amount to "SEE! THEY'RE TAKIN' ERR GUNS!" every other week.
 
2013-01-26 05:43:29 PM  

Amos Quito: For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?


Um... we all had to register to exercise our First Amendment right on Fark. Fark doesn't allow anonymous comments.

And requiring registration to comment serves the same purpose as a firearm registration:
- To track patterns of TOS abuse back to a source
- To prevent others from committing TOS abuse masquerading as another user

And I seriously doubt that requiring registration to comment is some sort of covert ploy at eventually banning everyone from commenting.
 
2013-01-26 05:44:01 PM  

PsiChick: Amos Quito: Good.

Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law scream obscenities. I'm all for protesting laws, but standing in the streets screaming F-bombs is not a protest, it's a temper tantrum. A good lawsuit would clear this clusterfark right up, especially since the law has no rationale at all behind it--sitting in the street screaming is more than slightly retarded when you have that option.


And here, boys and girls, we learn why, when we switch our train of thought from 'okay, that's a shiatty protest' to 'okay, how about lawsuit', we need to use the preview button.
 
2013-01-26 05:45:03 PM  

Fast Moon: Amos Quito: For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

Um... we all had to register to exercise our First Amendment right on Fark. Fark doesn't allow anonymous comments.

And requiring registration to comment serves the same purpose as a firearm registration:
- To track patterns of TOS abuse back to a source
- To prevent others from committing TOS abuse masquerading as another user

And I seriously doubt that requiring registration to comment is some sort of covert ploy at eventually banning everyone from commenting.


How about registering with the government for every forum you want to join?
 
2013-01-26 05:45:15 PM  

Slappajo: vpb: Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.

Or to hold the owners responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.

There's a gap in this logic between the pro and anti control groups.

One of the major reasons people cite for gun ownership is to defend their home. How can you lock a gun in a safe or use a trigger lock and still have access to it to protect yourself? Do you ask the criminal to wait while you unlock your safe/lock? So if a law such as the one you suggest went in effect, I can see that in a lot of people's eyes that the next argument used by gun control advocates will be "well, you can't get to it in time anyway, so why do you need it at all?"

If someone steals a knife from someone's kitchen and then stabs someone with it, should the knife owner be charged?


That's why my handgun is on a satin pillow next to me and my rifle is on this rack.

When I leave the house I put my handgun in my pocket because putting it in my fanny pack is gay.
 
2013-01-26 05:45:23 PM  

LavenderWolf: So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?


Smaller rights violations are still violations, pretending they don't count because they didn't go all out is disingenuous.
 
2013-01-26 05:45:34 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Because politicians and governments should never be trusted. You don't even need to be a tinfoil-wearing lunatic to agree that this is true.
 
2013-01-26 05:45:52 PM  

LavenderWolf: He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.


I read about guys like you.. Generally it's a story about a guy who shot off his hand while cleaning his gun.
 
2013-01-26 05:45:55 PM  

LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: In exactly the same way that having a gun opens the door to robbing a bank.

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.

Yawn.

In what way is that not accurate?

If gun registry == gun confiscation, by the same logic, gun ownership == gun violence.

/I love guns, to be honest. Just wish the pro-gun side could make arguments that don't amount to "SEE! THEY'RE TAKIN' ERR GUNS!" every other week.


Nevermind. I see you are an idiot. I'm surprised you haven't shot yourself.
 
2013-01-26 05:46:54 PM  

xynix: GAT_00: So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.

I'm not really afraid they're going to come after me.. I'm not militia and I don't wear camo. When you go through the background check to own a gun you are doing enough to notify the government what you have. When I purchased my M&P assault rifle it took around 2 weeks before I could go pick it up. I'm cool with that.. They got my info, my DL#, they did a full look at my record to see if I was allowed to own a gun. The did the same thing with that guy in CT that killed 24 people.. He was rejected so he just stole the guns he wanted. I'm cool with background checks and I'm even cooler with that happening in a private sale (it would actually protect ME the seller) and I'm really cool with it happening in gun shows. But that's it. If I want to carry it in public as Fark It indicated I will require a license which I have and it took about 6 weeks to get. It's a carry and conceal permit. I paid a fee and that fee went to process my GBI background check.. Tangible.

What I won't do is register my guns. I'm not going to play more TSA type farking games with the government to help create an illusion that someone is being "protected." It's creating a process that isn't necessary, will do absolutely no good, will change absolutely nothing, would have prevented zero of the mass murders we've seen in the past 20 years.

So I'll toss the question back to you.. What legitimate reason is there TO register?


I realize I'm coming in late to this thread, but if we close all of the loopholes that would allow someone to legally obtain a gun without any trace other than someone else's word (cash sale, no receipt), I'm cool with not requiring gun owners to register their guns. Or maybe we require guns to be registered at the point of sale from now on, but not retroactively.

I am also onboard with people having to state a reason for registering guns before requiring it. Maybe this rationale is explained later in this thread, but on the face of it, forcing gun owners to retroactively register their guns without a clear goal seems like just poking a hornet's nest for no good reason.
 
2013-01-26 05:47:05 PM  

LavenderWolf: If gun registry == gun confiscation, by the same logic, gun ownership == gun violence.

/I love guns, to be honest. Just wish the pro-gun side could make arguments that don't amount to "SEE! THEY'RE TAKIN' ERR GUNS!" every other week.



The pro-gun side isn't pushing that myth, the anti-gun side is:

http://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?ArticleID=14934&SectionID=1&Sub S ectionID=335&S=1
"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those out there. Because if they're out there they're just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public's hands. There are just too big of guns."
 
2013-01-26 05:47:42 PM  
You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.
 
2013-01-26 05:47:54 PM  

LavenderWolf: You're both fools.

He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.


Yeah, one is a farking machine gun and does not belong in this argument. That "reasonable restriction" happened a long time ago.
 
2013-01-26 05:48:26 PM  

truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....


[Citation needed].
 
2013-01-26 05:48:28 PM  

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Because politicians and governments should never be trusted. You don't even need to be a tinfoil-wearing lunatic to agree that this is true.


I disagree. Trust is foundational to society. Trust is what allowed humans to form collectives in the first place. Saying governments should never be trusted is tantamount to saying you don't believe in civilization. And if that's the case, perhaps you truly don't have a place in society.
 
2013-01-26 05:48:30 PM  

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Because politicians and governments should never be trusted. You don't even need to be a tinfoil-wearing lunatic to agree that this is true.


Gat is an authoritarian douchebag. He believes in complete government control over the people who don't share the same beliefs as he does.
 
2013-01-26 05:49:18 PM  
No matter what you do, all those brown and black people are still going to have guns, NY.
But your prison populations are at the lowest level in years, right NY?
Feed that beast, NY politicians.
 
2013-01-26 05:49:37 PM  
Sure. Go ahead and don't register your firearms. Then when someone makes an anonymous call to the police to report you and no registered firearms turn up in the database for that address, they'll have probable cause to toss your house.
 
2013-01-26 05:49:52 PM  

PsiChick: Amos Quito: Good.

Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law. I'm all for protesting laws, but standing in the streets screaming F-bombs is not a protest, it's a temper tantrum. A good lawsuit would clear this clusterfark right up, especially since the law has no rationale at all behind it--sitting in the street screaming is more than slightly retarded when you have that option.


Why not? If occupy can do it.
 
2013-01-26 05:50:47 PM  

Fast Moon: Amos Quito: For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

Um... we all had to register to exercise our First Amendment right on Fark. Fark doesn't allow anonymous comments.

And requiring registration to comment serves the same purpose as a firearm registration:
- To track patterns of TOS abuse back to a source
- To prevent others from committing TOS abuse masquerading as another user

And I seriously doubt that requiring registration to comment is some sort of covert ploy at eventually banning everyone from commenting.


Fark.com is a private entity, and can basically enforce its own terms of service as it pleases; the government is the government, constrained (at least on paper) by the Constitution.
 
2013-01-26 05:51:05 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.


"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look
 
2013-01-26 05:51:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.



Because that's worked out so well in the past with eminent domain, confiscation of large amounts of cash, confiscation of vehicles, confiscation of evidence, etc.

They've all but abolished the fifth amendment in every other sector of government, but clearly the ATF will get it right...
 
2013-01-26 05:51:52 PM  

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].


The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?
 
2013-01-26 05:52:43 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-26 05:52:52 PM  

JesusJuice: I don't own a flash-suppressed AR-15 modified to fire semi or full auto with an extended magazine, reflex sight, and fingerprint-resistant grip, so there's no reason to register it. Try to prove otherwise.


Because the grip is the only place you've ever touched or will ever touch that weapon.
Clever.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:05 PM  
Gun laws are rediculous.

I used to live in WNY - Buffalo had insane crime. They also had one of the "toughest" gun laws in the country. However, that didn't stop people from getting shot in broad daylight and regular people like me getting robbed in the streets. Ever call 911 and have the police not show up? Good times.

I move to Vermont. Absolutely no gun laws. And surprisingly, very little crime.

Thus, I submit to you that the problem in our nation isn't the guns. It's something else. And likely a variety of reasons that idiotic laws like the ones Cuomo and Silver pushed will not impact at all.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:09 PM  
Requiring the registration of firearms is always followed by confiscation. This has been proven by the history of every country since guns were invented. Provide ONE, just ONE example, of where a country implemented a 'register your firearms' policy and did not follow it within 10 years by confiscating those same firearms that had to be registered.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:21 PM  

muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look


No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun


I look forward to your support for a bill banning dumbasses like you from fark.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:03 PM  

the ha ha guy: Gyrfalcon: while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.


Because that's worked out so well in the past with eminent domain, confiscation of large amounts of cash, confiscation of vehicles, confiscation of evidence, etc.

They've all but abolished the fifth amendment in every other sector of government, but clearly the ATF will get it right...


I get the impression that fark authoritarians think the constitution was written to protect government rights.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:17 PM  

spr: [d3u67r7pp2lrq5.cloudfront.net image 720x569]


Come and take it?
David Koresh took that attitude.
See how it played out for him.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:31 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear.


EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:55 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No. Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail



LOL! This coming from the "OMG SCARY ASSAULT WEAPONS" bleachers, where emotion is the ONLY currency in play.
 
2013-01-26 05:55:50 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


More like "You don't have the right to express the concept of fire. Please report to jail for talking about it."
 
2013-01-26 05:56:36 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


That's up to SCOTUS to decide. This is what makes the US the US is that we can have this debate and smart people can decide that the 2nd amendment covers all guns .. as they have in the past by blasting down DCs anti-gun law. At the state level the registration of guns has not been shot down by SCOTUS because of state rights but if they cross a certain line it will be blasted down.

The ridiculesness of an "assault rifle" ban conversation is that everything else will remain legal. In fact when the ban was in place people still traded the weapons and I still had my assault rifles with extended clips. They still sold the rifles in stores under a different guise and a different name.

A license may be required but I can legally own a rocket launcher but not a so-called "assault rifle?" Ridicules. I can buy a tank but not a 30 round clip? Ridicules. I can buy a Mig 21 and fly it into PDK or ATL but I can't buy a box of ammo that contains more than 100 rounds? Ridicules.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:16 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:48 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


Government , without fail, always overreaches.

Look at health care. Depending on whose numbers you choose to believe somewhere around 10-20% of the population does not have health insurance. Notice I said did not have and not could not afford. So let us take the middle ground of 15% which means approx 45 million without health insurance. Or looking at it another way approx 255 million with health insurance. So why does providing the 15% with health care require dragging the remaining 85% of us under the massive, expensive bureaucratic nightmare that is the Affordable Care Act ? How about the Prescription Drug program under Bush? At the time of its implementation only 18% of Senior citizens had trouble affording their prescription meds so why did we have to include the other 82% in coverage?

Other examples abound -the TSA. Patriot Act, SCHIPS, EPA, DEA etc,
 
2013-01-26 05:57:50 PM  

Securitywyrm: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

More like "You don't have the right to express the concept of fire. Please report to jail for talking about it."


You seem stupid.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:51 PM  

truthseeker2083: davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].

The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?


I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say the results were positive.
 
2013-01-26 05:58:37 PM  
How about this.

"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding citizen to bear arms with greater restriction that that which applies to all law enforcement within the borders of the country."

There... you... go. If the police can have an AR-15, so can you. If the police can have an automatic shotgun, so can you. If the police CAN'T have a rocket launcher... you can't have one either.
Bonus: Arguments against this, by definition, argue that the police should be better armed than the people they're supposed to protect (law-abiding citizens). The only reason for law enforcement to have superior weaponry than the people they are supposed to protect is if their mission has changed from 'protection' to 'oppression.'
 
2013-01-26 05:58:41 PM  

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.


If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...
 
2013-01-26 05:58:43 PM  

vpb: xynix: A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any o ...

This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.

We already know gun control works, it has been tested in the entire developed world.  It's just a matter of choosing the most effective policies and getting them past the lobbyists and crazies.


Just kill them or put them in prison. At worst it will take a generation or two to suppress any rebellion. And by then the kids won't realize what rights they lost. Problem solved.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:33 PM  

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Wow.A blooper! Have'nt seen one since......'69....'70? Getting to old to remember dates,just events.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:35 PM  

Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


LOL, wow.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:38 PM  

Securitywyrm: How about this.

"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding citizen to bear arms with greater restriction that that which applies to all law enforcement within the borders of the country."

There... you... go. If the police can have an AR-15, so can you. If the police can have an automatic shotgun, so can you. If the police CAN'T have a rocket launcher... you can't have one either.
Bonus: Arguments against this, by definition, argue that the police should be better armed than the people they're supposed to protect (law-abiding citizens). The only reason for law enforcement to have superior weaponry than the people they are supposed to protect is if their mission has changed from 'protection' to 'oppression.'


I think this is entirely reasonable. I will go on record as saying I've misjudged you. You do not seem stupid.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:49 PM  
I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:32 PM  

TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.


You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:36 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.


It's not, if your manhood is naturally sufficient.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:39 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Nobody yet?
 
2013-01-26 06:00:53 PM  
What great citizens you are.

I don't feel like letting you know how many claymores I planted in your backyard, either.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:55 PM  

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].

The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?

I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say the results were positive.


Oh lord no!
 
2013-01-26 06:01:04 PM  

Cheviot: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear.

EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.


It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:24 PM  

Harry Knutz: You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


I'm not you.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:25 PM  
Everyone has Constitutionally granted rights.
Now everyone is capable of exercising them and can have them taken away instantly.

The courts have upheld this fact time and time again.

/Threaten people, commit crimes, go clinically crazy and end up diagnosed and see what happens to you.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:44 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...


When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:49 PM  

the ha ha guy: SuNJeStEr: Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.

History has proven that statement to be a lie.


California says otherwise: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989


What a long time in terms of human civilization!

Some of us care for our great great great great grand kids to be able to resist a tyrannical government or occupying force.

Let me guess: you can't see beyond your own nose?
 
2013-01-26 06:02:18 PM  

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.
 
2013-01-26 06:02:41 PM  
i593.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-26 06:03:03 PM  

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


He disagrees with you. That's proof enough.
 
2013-01-26 06:03:31 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

Wow.A blooper! Have'nt seen one since......'69....'70? Getting to old to remember dates,just events.


You sound cool and I bet you have interesting stories. Have some TF.
 
2013-01-26 06:04:00 PM  

ghare: Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


I like how "LOL, wow" turns into me having mental disorders or even me being a "gun nut".
 
2013-01-26 06:04:09 PM  

ghare: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.

Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


Ghare is just a racist. A minor mental disorder in his opinion.
 
2013-01-26 06:04:14 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?



Pretty much. The cat is out of the bag, there is something like 300 million guns in this country. You could outlaw all guns and attempt to confiscate all of them and there would still be more than enough guns for the criminals and criminally insane to commit their crimes with guns for generations to come.

So why attack legal gun owners or deny people access to what everyone before them had access to?
 
2013-01-26 06:04:24 PM  

Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.


Uh huh. Now tell us all about the background check you had to undergo before entering the theater, and about the mandated gag you were forced to wear to keep you from yelling fire in a theater.
 
2013-01-26 06:05:09 PM  

Amos Quito: GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name,  DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.

Why is that?

Sure, here in America you have a "right" to free speech, but why should you be able to do so under a pseudonym?

Sure, you may be a law abiding citizen, but we all know that there ARE people out there who might say things that are offensive, threatening or even treasonous. Hell, some people might even abuse their "right" to speech by in ...


How about having to use a distinct ID when using network enabled devices, just in case you want to victimize any children, or to prevent SWATing, or to prevent piracy? Most technology already leaves a trail. And it doesn't even squash first-amendment rights, since it doesn't prevent communication. Might as well just let the government have what it wants, right?
 
2013-01-26 06:05:13 PM  

ghare: Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


You got a permit for that projection?
 
2013-01-26 06:05:30 PM  
I wish we could get such organized resistance to many of the far more abhorrent laws out there.
 
2013-01-26 06:05:37 PM  

Rattlehead: Sure. Go ahead and don't register your firearms. Then when someone makes an anonymous call to the police to report you and no registered firearms turn up in the database for that address, they'll have probable cause to toss your house.


Or confiscate your house...like police agencies currently do with property used in certain crimes to fund themselves.
 
2013-01-26 06:05:41 PM  

xynix: LavenderWolf: He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.

I read about guys like you.. Generally it's a story about a guy who shot off his hand while cleaning his gun.


Most people don't know or remember what a Saturday night special is/was.
Back in the 70s, the Raven .25 auto was the favorite weapon to whack people with. It only held 5 rounds in the magazine. Was very small caliber and were dirt cheap. Not a powerful weapon at all, but took more lives than anything else. I actually still have one that I bought brand new from a convenience store for $25.
 
2013-01-26 06:06:21 PM  

muck4doo: ghare: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.

Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.

Ghare is just a racist. A minor mental disorder in his opinion.


Estas loco, hermano? Pobre chico.
 
2013-01-26 06:08:07 PM  
I thought all the American gun owners were very law abiding. What happened?
 
2013-01-26 06:08:13 PM  

PsiChick: Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law.


That's what all pot smokers do... though I'm sure no Farkers would ever violate the drug laws, of course. Honestly, who among us hasn't broken the law -- whether deliberately or inadvertently -- at least once in their lives? And yet in the vast majority of cases we hurt nobody by doing so. Legality is not morality, except to craven authoritarian types who believe that the government is the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong (at least when the political party they support is in power; otherwise, they're all for civil disobedience, f*ck the system, rage against the machine, etc.)

As far as guns are concerned, the philosophical case for ignoring gun control laws is even more straightforward than the 2nd Amendment: the government rules with the consent of the people (at least when it is not a tyrannical government, in which case every citizen would have a duty to resist it). Since the State governs with our consent, it can only use force because we have granted it the power to do so in order to protect us, which logically means that the use of force originates with the people. Now, in the event that the State is unable or unwilling to protect the lives of its citizens from immediate danger -- which, let's face it, is most of the time -- the people are perfectly entitled to see to their own defence with whatever means they deem necessary; after all, the use of force originated with them in the first place.

tl;dr -- if you live in Detroit where 911 response times are be measured in hours because of local governmental corruption and mismanagement, you are entitled to own a handgun to secure your own safety and that of your dependents regardless of what the government of Michigan or the feds might have to say about it. After all, it's your country -- not the government's.
 
2013-01-26 06:08:34 PM  

pedrop357: ghare: Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.

You got a permit for that projection?


Facts bother nuts, it's true.
 
2013-01-26 06:09:02 PM  
You have to register your car, pet, bicycle, why not your gun
 
2013-01-26 06:09:07 PM  
The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.
Why is that anti-gun people believe our government will never,ever become this way?
 
2013-01-26 06:09:39 PM  

xynix: Cheviot: EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.

It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.


Key point - "with the proper permit". With the proper permit anything is theoretically legal, doesn't mean the government is ever going to give you that permit.
 
2013-01-26 06:09:41 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


And there will be those that overreact at the mention of any sort of "gun control".
 
2013-01-26 06:10:07 PM  
The agitation and hostility are even visible in text. We couldn't ask for better representatives for the gun-fanciers than the Passionate Defenders in this thread.

Keep up the good work.
 
2013-01-26 06:10:24 PM  

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...

When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.


If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-26 06:11:01 PM  

Harry Knutz: fredklein: Harry Knutz: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

I think the only person here who's making that connection is you, fredward.

Um, did you even read the post I originally replied to? Particularly the part where gun owners were "paranoid" and "so goddamn unstable" that they "should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun"?

I believe the identifier in question was paranoid braying. There are many gun owners here and elsewhere who are not doing any kind of paranoid braying. If a gun owner is doing paranoid braying, chances are that gun owner is "so goddamn unstable" that he/she might not be fit to own a gun. QED.


You might be retarded. NY tried to pass a confiscation bill. Its not paranoia when they tell you it was their original goal. Farking Moron. Get your facts straight.
 
2013-01-26 06:11:20 PM  

amquelbettamin: the ha ha guy: SuNJeStEr: Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.

History has proven that statement to be a lie.


California says otherwise: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989

What a long time in terms of human civilization!

Some of us care for our great great great great grand kids to be able to resist a tyrannical government or occupying force.

Let me guess: you can't see beyond your own nose?


Are you joking?
 
2013-01-26 06:11:42 PM  

pedrop357: Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.

Uh huh. Now tell us all about the background check you had to undergo before entering the theater, and about the mandated gag you were forced to wear to keep you from yelling fire in a theater.


You just can't handle either reasonable restrictions or reasonable debate, can you?
 
2013-01-26 06:11:48 PM  

ghare: muck4doo: ghare: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.

Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.

Ghare is just a racist. A minor mental disorder in his opinion.

Estas loco, hermano? Pobre chico.


No. You're just a racist authoritarian douchebag. I know that makes you happy. You know who else was a happy racist authoritarian douchebag that confiscated guns?
 
2013-01-26 06:11:51 PM  

ghare: Facts bother nuts, it's true.


If by facts you mean assumptions and trolling, then ok.
 
2013-01-26 06:12:34 PM  

Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.


I'm not allowed to shoot up a crowded theater, either. It's a reasonable restriction.
 
2013-01-26 06:12:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You just can't handle either reasonable restrictions or reasonable debate, can you?


I'm not seeing either here. Thanks though.
 
2013-01-26 06:12:43 PM  

GUTSU: amquelbettamin: the ha ha guy: SuNJeStEr: Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.

History has proven that statement to be a lie.


California says otherwise: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989

What a long time in terms of human civilization!

Some of us care for our great great great great grand kids to be able to resist a tyrannical government or occupying force.

Let me guess: you can't see beyond your own nose?

Are you joking?


Dead serious.
 
2013-01-26 06:12:44 PM  

xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?


Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.
 
2013-01-26 06:12:54 PM  
'assault rifle of the day'
 
2013-01-26 06:13:31 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...

When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.

If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.


Your pillow is planning on killing you tonight. Beware!
 
2013-01-26 06:13:54 PM  

LavenderWolf: You're both fools.

He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.


Ah, but a derringer in a psychopath's hands is far more dangerous than any sort of weapon(barring experimental fusion cannons or some such) in a law abiding citizen's hands.

But yeah, those people are the fools, not you, neeeeeever.

HotIgneous Intruder: Everyone has Constitutionally granted rights.
Now everyone is capable of exercising them and can have them taken away instantly.

The courts have upheld this fact time and time again.

/Threaten people, commit crimes, go clinically crazy and end up diagnosed and see what happens to you.


Problem is, people can be crazy and we can do nothing about it until AFTER they do something heinous.

In the case of LW that I quoted above and many other gun grabbers, they want a situation where the inmates are running the asylum for moral reasons, but want the guns gone, again, for moral reasons. So not only are the crazy people running free, but they're more and more able to victimize the physically weak but mentally stable.

The woe's of democracy. That many people CAN be that stupid. Sometimes I wonder if they're not anarchists masquerading in liberal clothing.
 
2013-01-26 06:13:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The agitation and hostility are even visible in text. We couldn't ask for better representatives for the gun-fanciers than the Passionate Defenders in this thread.

Keep up the good work.


I still haven't seen you post anything interesting, intelligent, reasonable, and well thought out in any of these threads. Nina Hartley does have nice ass though.
 
2013-01-26 06:15:04 PM  

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


How about registration with the government for every forum you want to join on the internet? How would that be different?
 
2013-01-26 06:15:34 PM  
Let's assume the gun control advocates are right: Neither punitive taxation nor confiscation will EVER happen following registration. History disagrees, no tin foil required, but still...

Why do it then? Do you really think that properly registered guns are used in crimes? If so, how frequently? Would it be worth the expense, effort, and conversion of at least some small percentage of law-abiding citizens into criminals? Would this be a taxpayer expense that is justified or just an effort to "do something!" Please don't give me the old "If it saves one life!" crap. Doing this "something" uses money that could have been used in other efforts.
 
2013-01-26 06:15:50 PM  

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...

When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.

If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.

Your pillow is planning on killing you tonight. Beware!


Tell me about the guns, George.
 
2013-01-26 06:15:56 PM  
So if the govt makes my guns illegal and I have to turn them in, will I be able to deduct the cost of the guns from my income for tax purposes?
 
2013-01-26 06:17:38 PM  
Guns really bring out the retarded in the far left. The right makes a more convincing argument for anti-gay laws than the left makes for their gun grabber laws
 
2013-01-26 06:18:33 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: JesusJuice: I don't own a flash-suppressed AR-15 modified to fire semi or full auto with an extended magazine, reflex sight, and fingerprint-resistant grip, so there's no reason to register it. Try to prove otherwise.

Because the grip is the only place you've ever touched or will ever touch that weapon.
Clever.


You must not have read my post. I own no such weapon.
 
2013-01-26 06:18:57 PM  

truthseeker2083: How about registration with the government for every forum you want to join on the internet? How would that be different?



With all the proposed "you must use your real name online" laws, that's probably their next step once they get rid of any real threat to their power.
 
2013-01-26 06:20:14 PM  

Hot Carl To Go: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

CSB: I was in Ecuador and the soldiers at the marketplace I was in were carrying those. It made me think that they have no regard for collateral damage. Not the most discriminating of weapons.


They make beanbag rounds for it.
 
2013-01-26 06:20:47 PM  
For balance, the article quotes a lobbyist AND a dealer.
 
2013-01-26 06:20:48 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Guns really bring out the retarded in the far left.


Under the surface of the far left there is usually a person who wants a monopoly on violence and is secretly itching to get those with different politics imprisoned or shot. For the greater good, of course.
 
2013-01-26 06:20:54 PM  

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


To be fair, you don't need the internet to exercise your first amendment rights. What you can do on the internet you can do with your own voice and hand.
 
2013-01-26 06:21:30 PM  

xynix:

It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.


Incorrect.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 bans the manufacture of weapons using nuclear materials.

Also, as an FYI, under the National Firearms Act automatic weapons made after 1987 may not be sold to civilians and are illegal for civilians to possess.
 
2013-01-26 06:21:42 PM  

Harry Knutz: If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.


Because in about a month a very determined person could easily learn how to do this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

So based on that what difference does clip size make? Extended clips have been available since the roaring 20s so why this debate now? I haven't even practiced to do this but I'm pretty sure if I tried I could change the clip out in my .45 in less than a second. I have no reason to do so therefor I won't practice doing it because frankly I don't dick around with my guns like that. I don't play cowboy games with them either but if I wanted to learn how it wouldn't take much more dexterity than say.. Pounding Tyson's head in on Fightnight 4 via my Xbox controller.

The frustration that gun owners feel that is making anti-gun people call us all "gun nuts" is that people like you (not you harry but generally speaking) are talking about things without having any level of context. You think an extended mag somehow means someone can shoot more when in fact they could always shoot the same amount with a little practice. You think that registering a gun will change anything because you don't realize they are already registered when you buy them. I'm not afraid of people taking my guns away .. I'm annoyed that people without any facts or knowledge of my life-long hobby want to create some bullshiat organization to make me pay more taxes.
 
2013-01-26 06:21:48 PM  
Most guns used in crimes are small arms, usually stolen or purchased through some straw buyer.

Record which guns the dealers sold and stop getting your panties in a twist over big, scary rifles.
 
2013-01-26 06:22:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


You may have a right to Freedom of Speech. You don't have a right to any particular kind of speech. The government cannot necessarily impose a total free speech ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of speech.

So, if you agree with Big Brother, that's protected speech. But if you disagree with BB, that speech is banned. Sound good to you?

What's the problem? You still have 'free speech'....
 
2013-01-26 06:22:46 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...

When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.

If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.

Your pillow is planning on killing you tonight. Beware!

Tell me about the guns, George.


They will break in your house and let the magazines. The magazines will then drown you in your sleep. Calling 911 will save you as officer peterson comes in and....oh no! He has a magazine too!
 
2013-01-26 06:23:55 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: PsiChick: Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law.

That's what all pot smokers do... though I'm sure no Farkers would ever violate the drug laws, of course. Honestly, who among us hasn't broken the law -- whether deliberately or inadvertently -- at least once in their lives? And yet in the vast majority of cases we hurt nobody by doing so. Legality is not morality, except to craven authoritarian types who believe that the government is the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong (at least when the political party they support is in power; otherwise, they're all for civil disobedience, f*ck the system, rage against the machine, etc.)

As far as guns are concerned, the philosophical case for ignoring gun control laws is even more straightforward than the 2nd Amendment: the government rules with the consent of the people (at least when it is not a tyrannical government, in which case every citizen would have a duty to resist it). Since the State governs with our consent, it can only use force because we have granted it the power to do so in order to protect us, which logically means that the use of force originates with the people. Now, in the event that the State is unable or unwilling to protect the lives of its citizens from immediate danger -- which, let's face it, is most of the time -- the people are perfectly entitled to see to their own defence with whatever means they deem necessary; after all, the use of force originated with them in the first place.

tl;dr -- if you live in Detroit where 911 response times are be measured in hours because of local governmental corruption and mismanagement, you are entitled to own a handgun to secure your own safety and that of your dependents regardless of what the government of Michigan or the feds might have to say about it. After all, it's your country -- not the government's.


Scroll down, I was trying to make a different point, forgot to rewrite, and caught myself. Ignoring the law is,  in this case, a stupid protest--but that's a different, lengthy argument, so I just went with 'stop swearing in public, you nimrods, go lawsuit up'.

And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry. Slightly creepy, yes, but it's not actually violating jack shiat. You still have a gun. Nothing is stopping you from emptying a clip into King George III. You're fine. And you need a reasonable sense of what's actually happening because, like I said, this can be cleared up with a quick lawsuit.
 
2013-01-26 06:25:34 PM  

the ha ha guy: truthseeker2083: How about registration with the government for every forum you want to join on the internet? How would that be different?


With all the proposed "you must use your real name online" laws, that's probably their next step once they get rid of any real threat to their power.


If they can't shut down the websites they want (sopa being shelved), then the next option is to control access by requiring registration. I don't like the idea of giving the government control of anything when the ability to take that power away from them is near impossible. Look at DHS. We gave them the power to create it, but where is our power to get rid of it? That's my point. Once government has that power, they use it to get more and more, while we have less and less.

/hope that made sense, i'm baked and working on my (now illegal) rooted tablet.
//breakin the law, breakin the law
 
2013-01-26 06:25:35 PM  

xynix: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Yeah making legal owners register their guns will really prevent mass shootings. Because everyone who has done a mass shooting or blown up a building registers their ordinance. They're the most lawful people out there don't you know? Not a single person has stolen a gun used in a mass shooting .. especially not that guy that killed 24 people in CT who absolutely did not steal his guns from a legal owner.

You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.


First of all registration would not prevent a single shooting. In fact it seems after all these mass shooting the police know exactly who owned what even without registration, amazingly. Secondly as for the argument that cars are registered, they only have to be registered and insured for the purpose of operating them on public roads. A vehicle operated on private propert doesnt need either. So by your argument any firearm i shoot on private propert wouldnt need to be registered. Also cut back on the screaming about children to try to further your agenda. Try usings actual numbers and facts from reliable sources. Maybe people would take you more seriously.
 
2013-01-26 06:25:47 PM  
Guns are gay. Stop being so gay.
 
2013-01-26 06:25:59 PM  

Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.


I'm not allowed to shoot people with my gun. The second amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the fourth amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.
 
2013-01-26 06:26:17 PM  

PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


You should be registered to post on the internet.
 
2013-01-26 06:26:17 PM  

Harry Knutz: Satan's Dumptruck Driver: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Because politicians and governments should never be trusted. You don't even need to be a tinfoil-wearing lunatic to agree that this is true.

I disagree. Trust is foundational to society. Trust is what allowed humans to form collectives in the first place. Saying governments should never be trusted is tantamount to saying you don't believe in civilization. And if that's the case, perhaps you truly don't have a place in society.


Dude seriously? These guys were uncivilized?

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. " Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is power. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." George Washington

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." -- Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient...the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis Olmstead vs. United States, United States Supreme Court, 1928

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain (1866)

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-- William Pitt 1783

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is two wolves & 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden and the sheep are armed.
 
2013-01-26 06:26:46 PM  

GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.
 
2013-01-26 06:27:48 PM  

PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?
 
2013-01-26 06:28:07 PM  

PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.



Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?
 
2013-01-26 06:28:26 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.


And they did it to the well-off suburbs while the inner city drowned.

Why would anyone use the government's actions post Katrina as a positive example for their side is beyond me.
 
2013-01-26 06:28:52 PM  

muck4doo: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.


Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:08 PM  

vpb: not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


You do not have to register your car or motorcycle if you are only going to drive it on private property. You only have to register it when you want to drive it on state roads.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:20 PM  
"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. " -- Albert Einstein

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:22 PM  
In my state you don't have to register guns sold person to person. Bought 2 pistols off of our security guard 15 years ago. He died of a massive heart attack 4 years ago so I have 2 throwaways if needed. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

//but seriously I'm a law-abiding citizen and have no plans to become a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:43 PM  

here to help: Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.



As soon as you put one in all of your books and your car(s).
 
2013-01-26 06:29:59 PM  

vartian: You sound like a child. Which would not be such a bad thing, except that you are probably armed.


I couldn't help but notice that your little ad hominem utterly failed to refute his argument.

How would gun registration prevented that shooting?
 
2013-01-26 06:30:10 PM  
It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.
 
2013-01-26 06:31:02 PM  

here to help: muck4doo: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.

Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.


7 Proxies, biatch.
 
2013-01-26 06:31:27 PM  

pedrop357: here to help: Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.


As soon as you put one in all of your books and your car(s).


You seem to spend hours daily in these threads. How much you makin' off this?
 
2013-01-26 06:31:35 PM  

Cheviot: I love the fact that all the so-called "law abiding" gun owners in this thread are proving the point of the anti-gun crowd. They're all ready to commit weapon offenses, citing the constitution, over a law that in no way infringes upon their right to keep or bear arms.

It's a shame they didn't make it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. That would deal with the problem in a much more final way.


I'm not really a gun person, but I have a problem in general with passing new laws that require a citizen to take action in response or face jail. Someone who already legally owned a weapon becomes a criminal by doing nothing but what they're currently doing.

There are already so many ways to break the law without actually harming anyone and I take a dim view of government creating more ways to become a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:07 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


That's an interesting idea,one I've not seen.The problem is that if the government became intent on tyranny those listed gun owners would be first on the list. A "hit list",if you will.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:22 PM  

Tsar_Bomba1: In my state you don't have to register guns sold person to person. Bought 2 pistols off of our security guard 15 years ago. He died of a massive heart attack 4 years ago so I have 2 throwaways if needed. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

//but seriously I'm a law-abiding citizen and have no plans to become a criminal.


The sensible response is to find some way to make you a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:33 PM  

muck4doo: 7 Proxies, biatch.


Pierre Poutine? Is that you?
 
2013-01-26 06:33:16 PM  

xynix: Harry Knutz: If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.

Because in about a month a very determined person could easily learn how to do this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

So based on that what difference does clip size make? Extended clips have been available since the roaring 20s so why this debate now? I haven't even practiced to do this but I'm pretty sure if I tried I could change the clip out in my .45 in less than a second. I have no reason to do so therefor I won't practice doing it because frankly I don't dick around with my guns like that. I don't play cowboy games with them either but if I wanted to learn how it wouldn't take much more dexterity than say.. Pounding Tyson's head in on Fightnight 4 via my Xbox controller.

The frustration that gun owners feel that is making anti-gun people call us all "gun nuts" is that people like you (not you harry but generally speaking) are talking about things without having any level of context. You think an extended mag somehow means someone can shoot more when in fact they could always shoot the same amount with a little practice. You think that registering a gun will change anything because you don't realize they are already registered when you buy them. I'm not afraid of people taking my guns away .. I'm annoyed that people without any facts or knowledge of my life-long hobby want to create some bullshiat organization to make me pay more taxes.


But that's the entire point. There are responsible, educated gun owners who could train themselves to swap out magazines in a split second if they had to. They don't have to. What extended magazines do is enable anyone to unload a deadly hail of bullets. Without training. Without thought. It's not unreasonable to question the necessity of an extended magazine in this context. I don't personally know you, obviously, but I do not begrudge you your hobby in the slightest. You have all the appearance of being exactly the type of person I would want to own guns, if anybody is to own them. So why can't we sit down together and come up with some common sense restrictions that strike a fair balance?
 
2013-01-26 06:34:08 PM  
I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.
 
2013-01-26 06:34:42 PM  

here to help:
Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.



Sounds good to me, as long as the option to remove said tracker is just as legal as the option to use a proxy to hide my location.
 
2013-01-26 06:34:46 PM  
Cold dead hands...

celebsview.info
 
2013-01-26 06:34:49 PM  

craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.


In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?
 
2013-01-26 06:34:58 PM  

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'
 
2013-01-26 06:35:12 PM  
If people are so worried about mass shootings, then nut up and push for a ban on any firearm that accepts a magazine.

Good luck with that!
 
2013-01-26 06:35:16 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.



We already have that language. It reads "shall not be infringed upon". Srsly, it's there. Look it up.
 
2013-01-26 06:35:32 PM  

enry: When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.

Guess I struck too close to home.

Lemme put it this way: Having Wayne LaPierre hold a press conference blaming everything but guns for a mass shooting (involving guns) in a school does nothing to help you. He could have talked about mental health issues as it pertains to gun ownership and safety, he could have talked about closing loopholes, he could have talked about responsible gun ownership.



Guess you missed my point. Imagine my surprise.

Guns are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic. They don't actually do anything by themselves. Weird, but true. Criminals, on the other hand, are people who do bad things, usually in an escalating pattern of evilness.

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?

See, what I'm thinking, is that way we punish the bad guys, and don't punish the 99.999% of gun owners who, you know, aren't criminals.

Virginia enjoyed a double-digit drop in violent crime for every year that Project Exile was in place. It punishes the bad people, and doesn't punish or disarm their victims. Can you come up with any coherent reason why this shouldn't be the first thing we institute nationally?

If you want to punish the law abiding people rather than the criminals, I'm REALLY confused as to what you hope to accomplish, and how you think doing so would be better than putting the bad guys in jail.
 
2013-01-26 06:36:11 PM  
Everybody with a firearm should e-mail the President and inform him that today you did not commit any crimes with your guns. Every single day.
 
2013-01-26 06:38:56 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.


It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?
 
2013-01-26 06:39:12 PM  

Cheviot: In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?



In and of itself, registration is not a problem. What IS a problem is that quite a few politicians have used registrations to enact retroactive bans and confiscate guns made illegal under the new law.
 
2013-01-26 06:40:17 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.


Take a breath, sweetie, you don't want to end up fainting.
 
2013-01-26 06:41:06 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.


ko_kyi: PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?


the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?



 And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.

Hai, guize, want to know how I didn't know you read the part where I said a lawsuit would work? Yeah, there's a reason for that...this law is probably illegal. Not to mention a logical error the size of Manhatten.

But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.
 
2013-01-26 06:41:21 PM  

djh0101010: How about instead of blaming the millions of us who have never, and will never, do anything wrong, we institute a "Project Exile", like Virginia did in the 1990s?


Too sensible. Doesn't fit the real agenda of general disarmament, but would probably reduce gun violence in the US by a significant percentage.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:11 PM  

Securitywyrm: chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.

Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'


California and the SKS

California passes law requiring all SKS owners to 'register' this type of weapon.
California then passes new law banning SKS ownership, and has a 'hit list' of people who now own something 'illegal.' Especially in a place like New York, that's 'sufficient cause' for a search warrant shortly after the second law gets passed.

How about this for a god damn reasonable compromise

"No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:32 PM  

Cheviot: craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.

In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?



Perhaps you were out of class the day they discussed the word "infringed"...as in "shall not be infringed upon". That said, in what way was being required to pay a poll tax infringing upon the means for certain folks to vote? How about all the "separate but equal" accommodations when it came to public transit? Those were all odious restrictions on people's rights and they were wrong. But this will be okay because you personally don't feel like that right impacts you?

How about an even better question: what exactly does a registry allow the government (since they're the ones pushing for such a thing) to do? It does absolutely zero to deter any crime in any way. It's a list of those who own a gun and where they live. Why not also have Google keep a registry of all the terms you search on and submit that to the government? How about your ISP submits the list of sites you've visited? You know...per some kind of anti-terrorist thingy?
 
2013-01-26 06:42:42 PM  

PsiChick: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.

ko_kyi: PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?


 And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.
Hai, guize, want to know how I didn't know you read the part where I said a lawsuit would work? Yeah, there's a reason for that...this law is probably illegal. Not to mention a logical error the size of Manhatten.

But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.


Register your post with the government.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:52 PM  
But what if I'm attacked by an angry mob that's been enraged by a "disgusting," offensive YouTube video?

We all know that YouTube has LOTS of offensive videos on it. I know all about it, since I put some of them there.

Obama went before the UN and Joy Behar and all kinds of Very Important People to tell us how easily this can happen -- angry, offended mobs of well-armed men can spontaneously form, and attack you and burn your shiat down and murder you. That's what he said.

And now we know the government is incapable of providing security for these situations.

We need our guns to protect ourselves from the threat of spontaneous "protests" in reaction to offensive videos.

I'm only going by what our Benevolent Leaders tell us.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:52 PM  

Mock26: Everybody with a firearm should e-mail the President and inform him that today you did not commit any crimes with your guns. Every single day.


I like this idea.
 
2013-01-26 06:43:11 PM  

PsiChick: But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.


I wasn't arguing, just trying to understand what a registry would accomplish.
 
2013-01-26 06:43:33 PM  

captainktainer: I used to be a lot more in favor of ensuring that gun ownership stayed legal, but hearing from all these gun nuts is driving me further and further into the outright confiscation of everything camp...


1/10
 
2013-01-26 06:44:53 PM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?



The point is that school shootings are extreme outliers in the entire 'gun crime' argument.  Trying to find a solution for extremes is just a waste of time, and all you end up doing is stomping on the rights of millions of legal, law-abiding citizens who just want to go about their lives without egregious government intervention.

It'd be like your state saying that all persons with a heart condition are prohibited from driving, because a couple people had serious crashes after having heart attacks while driving.  Would a law like that be beneficial for all persons on the road, because you removed a hazard?  Yes.  Is is good law, good practice, or sensible? Not in the least.
 
2013-01-26 06:45:39 PM  

GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?


Can you show me the Constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from infringing on your right to own a car?
Of course, it would probably be a horse or mule when it was written, so either will work.
 
2013-01-26 06:45:57 PM  

Krab: I think it was a Jews had to "register" thing not a gun point he was making.


oh it's not about guns..but in a gun thread ....
so it's a census issue?

so..Jews shouldn't vote because......they have to register?

man oh man...
 
2013-01-26 06:46:19 PM  

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.
 
2013-01-26 06:46:36 PM  

Xcott: sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.

It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?


You anti gun folks are starting to lose it.
 
2013-01-26 06:46:45 PM  

djh0101010:

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


What a smashing idea! I'm certain that'll deter those pesky psychos who go into a school with a couple of drum magazines, empty-up and then save the last bullet for themselves.
"If it jams, I might get an extra 5 years! Better not bother then."

:| really?
 
2013-01-26 06:47:25 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?

Smaller rights violations are still violations, pretending they don't count because they didn't go all out is disingenuous.


Never said they weren't.

There's a difference, though, between small scale events, and taking guns en masse from a society that will have no part in that.
 
2013-01-26 06:47:29 PM  

djh0101010: It's interesting that you're obsessed with thinking that the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners, would want to do that sort of thing. Project much,
BronyMedic?

/apparently, I'm not allowed to attack you in suitably strong linguistic terms. Hopefully the modiots will let this go through.

//seriously, Brony, do you actually understand how much you come across as being a pompous, judgmental ass?


Project? So now you're saying I fantasize about murdering elementary school children because I was rather blunt about the capabilities of a bolt action hunting rifle versus a rifle specifically designed to be used in close-quarters combat? And please don't debate the design intentions and origins of Armalite's rifles.

At any rate, I'm clearly not talking about the vast majority of gun owners if your statement is that 99.999% of them don't commit crimes, now am I?

I'm just calling a potato a potato, and your derp what it is.

Given your behavior in this thread and many others on FARK, you have no right to judge OR lecture others about being a "pompous, judgemental ass". It's about like Skinnyhead giving us all a lecture on moral integrity.
 
2013-01-26 06:47:33 PM  

here to help: You seem to spend hours daily in these threads. How much you makin' off this?


In other words, you've got nothing.
 
2013-01-26 06:48:46 PM  
i1121.photobucket.com

These handy stats from the FBI might help some of the SHARPER kids in the class understand why BANNING SCARY ASSAULT weapons is actually nothing more than an appeal to EMOTION - a flaccid jerk-off.

Of course the s-l-o-w-e-r kids in the class won't get it, but they're too busy looking for their galoshes and sun-screen anyway.

Here's a link to the FBI page
 
2013-01-26 06:49:00 PM  

shArkh: djh0101010:

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


What a smashing idea! I'm certain that'll deter those pesky psychos who go into a school with a couple of drum magazines, empty-up and then save the last bullet for themselves.
"If it jams, I might get an extra 5 years! Better not bother then."

:| really?


Hang on...are you saying that a new law wouldn't prevent the psychos from doing psycho things?

/ keep going...you're almost there...just connect that last dot
 
2013-01-26 06:49:15 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.


What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.
 
2013-01-26 06:50:11 PM  

omeganuepsilon: LavenderWolf: You're both fools.

He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.

Ah, but a derringer in a psychopath's hands is far more dangerous than any sort of weapon(barring experimental fusion cannons or some such) in a law abiding citizen's hands.

But yeah, those people are the fools, not you, neeeeeever.


But, yeah, if you just completely change the intent and scope of what I said, it magically becomes indefensible! I guess you're right.

Oh, wait, no. That's a pretty common fallacy. That straw man sure took a beating.

Meanwhile, my completely sound argument - some firearms are, in fact, more capable of killing more people, faster - is unaffected.
 
2013-01-26 06:50:13 PM  

xynix: It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.


Uh, no. It would not. Nuclear weapons fall under the auspices of the DOD and DOE in the United States, and high level nuclear material is HEAVILY restricted and tracked thanks to domestic laws and international treaty requirements. A nuclear weapon's physics package is a little more complex than you seem to think. You'd kill yourself from radiation poisoning before you'd build a functional weapon.

Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.
 
2013-01-26 06:50:17 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.


You sound mad. Tell us again what a registry would accomplish.
 
2013-01-26 06:50:59 PM  

craig328: dahmers love zombie: I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


We already have that language. It reads "shall not be infringed upon". Srsly, it's there. Look it up.


This. If they're disregarding what's written right there in the Bill of Rights, what good will some exceptions to a new law do?
 
2013-01-26 06:51:47 PM  

Securitywyrm: "No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.


Sounds reasonable to me.
 
2013-01-26 06:52:14 PM  

xynix: LavenderWolf: He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.

I read about guys like you.. Generally it's a story about a guy who shot off his hand while cleaning his gun.


I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.
 
2013-01-26 06:52:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


Heller specifically protected firearms that are in common use. Also the idea that the government would pay market value for seized firearms is laughable.
 
2013-01-26 06:52:30 PM  

vpb: You should really move somewhere where they don't have government. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.


New York already has certain areas of Newburgh that will do just fine in that regard.
 
2013-01-26 06:52:49 PM  

Harry Knutz: But that's the entire point. There are responsible, educated gun owners who could train themselves to swap out magazines in a split second if they had to. They don't have to. What extended magazines do is enable anyone to unload a deadly hail of bullets. Without training. Without thought. It's not unreasonable to question the necessity of an extended magazine in this context. I don't personally know you, obviously, but I do not begrudge you your hobby in the slightest. You have all the appearance of being exactly the type of person I would want to own guns, if anybody is to own them. So why can't we sit down together and come up with some common sense restrictions that strike a fair balance?


Good point - allowing the average Joe access to bullet counts practiced individuals would only have needs a level of control.. All for compromises and balance but to me bans don't make sense. The compromise for me is background checks on everyone. I'm all for background checks across the board from personal dealings to gun shows. I don't mind giving my gun store dealer a $10 gratuity to handle the sale of a gun and in fact when I buy guns online that's exactly what happens. A guy from Montana ships the gun to Scott who lives in Cumming (yes i know) and I go up to his place and sign some paperwork.. Give him a 10er and I have a new gun that was tracked by the BATF. I use Scott whenever I sell or trade a personal gun as well just to make sure the paperwork is all pointed in the right direction. This is all to protect me you see or to protect someone else selling a gun.

I will never support any ban on any gun or clip though and I will never go through another registration process for the purposes of paying a made up tax on information that is redundant. That is the core of the argument.. Government doing something to create the illusion of "protecting the population" via TSA like methods which in fact have absolutely no success in stopping anything from happening. The fact that I can literally print an extended magazine via a 3D printer and all I need to add is a spring I got from a gunshow or online (because we're not going to ban a farking spring) to complete it makes this conversation about bans even less relevant. If I'm a criminal I'll just print whatever is banned and steal whatever isn't.

The gun laws as they are aren't fine. There is a gaping hole in the background check process but even with that said it would not have changed practically any of the mass murders that have happened. Almost universally the guns used in those crimes were obtained illegally.
 
2013-01-26 06:53:02 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.


I blame you for cancer, so there!
 
2013-01-26 06:53:45 PM  

BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.


It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.
 
2013-01-26 06:54:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Securitywyrm: "No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.

Sounds reasonable to me.


Same here. The militarization of police forces is no small issue. IFVs for police? DAFUQ?
 
2013-01-26 06:54:43 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: Krab: I think it was a Jews had to "register" thing not a gun point he was making.

oh it's not about guns..but in a gun thread ....
so it's a census issue?

so..Jews shouldn't vote because......they have to register?

man oh man...


So i need to ask do you own stock in a scarecrow company? Because with all of the strawmen you are using someone is making a mint.
 
2013-01-26 06:54:51 PM  

pedrop357: BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.

It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.


Not nearly as funny as when someone who lives by the gun dies by it.
 
2013-01-26 06:55:14 PM  

LavenderWolf: xynix: LavenderWolf: He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.

I read about guys like you.. Generally it's a story about a guy who shot off his hand while cleaning his gun.

I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.


Sounds like you also have training in how to take them away from your fellow citizens.
 
2013-01-26 06:55:59 PM  
Harsher penalties for gun crimes. Murder 20 years, gun murder life.

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]

These handy stats from the FBI might help some of the SHARPER kids in the class understand why BANNING SCARY ASSAULT weapons is actually nothing more than an appeal to EMOTION - a flaccid jerk-off.

Of course the s-l-o-w-e-r kids in the class won't get it, but they're too busy looking for their galoshes and sun-screen anyway.

Here's a link to the FBI page


So you're saying ban handguns?

/i jus keeding
 
2013-01-26 06:56:28 PM  
You are required by law to register your AUTOMOBILE. Which of course can kill someone, or be used as law abiding transportation.

You are now required by law to register your GOD DAMN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HAS NO OTHER INTENDED PURPOSE THAN A WEAPON OS MASS SLAUGHTER.

Deal with it you pussies. Grow up.
 
2013-01-26 06:56:31 PM  

TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.


You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.
 
2013-01-26 06:56:41 PM  

LoneWolf343: pedrop357: BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.

It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.

Not nearly as funny as when someone who lives by the gun dies by it.


Lefties think gun deaths are funny, or useful?
 
2013-01-26 06:56:48 PM  
wtf where did that harsher penaties text come from?
 
2013-01-26 06:56:56 PM  

craig328: Cheviot: craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.

In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?


Perhaps you were out of class the day they discussed the word "infringed"...as in "shall not be infringed upon". That said, in what way was being required to pay a poll tax infringing upon the means for certain folks to vote? How about all the "separate but equal" accommodations when it came to public transit? Those were all odious restrictions on people's rights and they were wrong. But this will be okay because you personally don't feel like that right impacts you?

How about an even better question: what exactly does a registry allow the government (since they're the ones pushing for such a thing) to do? It does absolutely zero to deter any crime in any way. It's a list of those who own a gun and where they live. Why not also have Google keep a registry of all the terms you search on and submit that to the government? How about your ISP submits the list of sites you've visited? You know...per some kind of anti-terrorist thingy?


I noticed you didn't bother answering my question, so I'll repeat it.

In what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it? Before you answer, note that there is no charge under the NY law to register a weapon.
 
2013-01-26 06:57:02 PM  

muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.


DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!
 
2013-01-26 06:57:04 PM  

muck4doo: LavenderWolf: xynix: LavenderWolf: He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.

I read about guys like you.. Generally it's a story about a guy who shot off his hand while cleaning his gun.

I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.

Sounds like you also have training in how to take them away from your fellow citizens.


I haven't expressed any desire to have the right to bear arms curtailed.

Do you understand? I like guns. I think people should be free to own guns.
 
2013-01-26 06:57:45 PM  

gimmegimme: TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.


Care to point out to me where I said that?
 
2013-01-26 06:58:10 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!


Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.
 
2013-01-26 06:58:11 PM  

pedrop357: It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.


Really? That's the post you choose to white knight? I'm pretty sure that Domestic Nuclear Anti-Terrorism teams have a "Shoot First, ask questions later" policy since 9/11 towards idiots who have high level nuclear material strapped to explosives. You have someone claiming that he can legally possess what amounts to a "dirty bomb", nuclear material-spiked explosives, which are specifically defined as weapons of mass destruction by the United States law.

As far as Anti-Gun, both yourself and several others have worked hard to paint me as someone who supports gun confiscation, supports the repeal of the second amendment, and is happy to see other people being victims of violent crime.

Why don't you actually ASK me how I feel about the second amendment and firearms in the United States, and realize it's far more complex than trying to claim because I disagree with you on things, that I want that evil black Kenyan communist to march into your house and rip your guns away from you.
 
2013-01-26 06:58:42 PM  

BronyMedic: xynix: It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.

Uh, no. It would not. Nuclear weapons fall under the auspices of the DOD and DOE in the United States, and high level nuclear material is HEAVILY restricted and tracked thanks to domestic laws and international treaty requirements. A nuclear weapon's physics package is a little more complex than you seem to think. You'd kill yourself from radiation poisoning before you'd build a functional weapon.

Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.


Just for fun you did see the "proper permit" part right? Lockheed Martin.. General Dynamics.. You don't think the DOD actually manufactured it's own weapons did you? ;)

LavenderWolf: I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.


Then you should appreciate that all firearms are equally as deadly. 101.
 
2013-01-26 06:58:51 PM  

xynix: Almost universally the guns used in those crimes were obtained illegally.


But the weapons in Newtown were obtained legally. Had the mother in that instance (the mother being the untrained, uneducated person I described above) not been able to purchase extended magazines, the damage might have been less extensive. To be fair, I'm not saying that it would have prevented the rampage from happening in the first place -- that likely would have happened regardless, because the gunman was mentally ill and motivated -- but it might have been mitigated by the need to change magazines.
 
2013-01-26 06:59:15 PM  

kptchris: You are required by law to register your AUTOMOBILE. Which of course can kill someone, or be used as law abiding transportation.

You are now required by law to register your GOD DAMN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HAS NO OTHER INTENDED PURPOSE THAN A WEAPON OS MASS SLAUGHTER.

Deal with it you pussies. Grow up.


Authoritarianism has a new tool. kptchris for the government team! kpt post go boom!
 
2013-01-26 06:59:21 PM  

muck4doo: LoneWolf343: pedrop357: BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.

It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.

Not nearly as funny as when someone who lives by the gun dies by it.

Lefties think gun deaths are funny, or useful?


I think it's both, and they always love the imagery and hyperbole. lead poisoning. popped in the head, paint floors red, etc.

I think it shows what kind of people they really are.
 
2013-01-26 06:59:54 PM  

kptchris: You are required by law to register your AUTOMOBILE. Which of course can kill someone, or be used as law abiding transportation.

You are now required by law to register your GOD DAMN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HAS NO OTHER INTENDED PURPOSE THAN A WEAPON OS MASS SLAUGHTER.

Deal with it you pussies. Grow up.


I was told the gun rights people were the crazy ones but these threads are full of really angry, emotional, and unreasonable people on the gun control side. It's really funny.
 
2013-01-26 06:59:57 PM  

BronyMedic: that I want that evil black Kenyan communist to march into your house and rip your guns away from you.


Got a permit for that strawman?
 
2013-01-26 07:01:11 PM  

TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.

Care to point out to me where I said that?


So what measures would you take to alleviate the problems I pointed out?
 
2013-01-26 07:02:35 PM  

djh0101010: Guns are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic. They don't actually do anything by themselves. Weird, but true. Criminals, on the other hand, are people who do bad things, usually in an escalating pattern of evilness.

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


How does that prevent the next Sandy Hook or VT shooting? The killer was a messed-up kid who took his own life, and probably didn't give a crap what his hypothetical prison sentence would be.

He also had no criminal background: it wasn't an escalating pattern of evilness, it was just suddenly this guy killing a bunch of kids.

You know what would have stopped this schizo kid from shooting up a school? Not living with a gun "enthusiast" mom. This is what made him different from most other schizo kids who don't shoot up schools: this one lived with an arms stash, because it has become a giant fad to stockpile weapons. This guy's mom could have taken up knitting, but she got into "doomsday prepping."

I agree that some limits on extended magazines are not going to reverse the trend. It's better to have some policy that just reduces the stunning increase in firearms sales and discourages firearm hoarding as a trendy new hobby. Something like a 100% sin tax on all firearm and ammunition sales would help. Alternatively, we could use this disaster to effectively shame the conservative media empire that has been scaring half the country into buying gold and AR-15s. We wouldn't have nearly as many people preparing for the economy collapsing if nobody was feeding that dreck to them.
 
2013-01-26 07:02:59 PM  

xynix: Just for fun you did see the "proper permit" part right? Lockheed Martin.. General Dynamics.. You don't think the DOD actually manufactured it's own weapons did you? ;)


Yes, and I called you out on being stupid for it - because there are no "proper permits". All nuclear weapons in the United States are manufactured at Department of Energy and DOD sites that are strictly controlled. While yes, contractors operate in those areas from the companies you state, everything they work on is property of the United States Government.

Even non-weapons grade material in "private" hands is technically under the control of the Department of Energy. They can march down there, put your workers at gunpoint, and take every bit of nuclear material on your site if they so choose to do so.

No. What you suggested is that there is an imaginary permit which allows you to own a dirty bomb - a weapon of mass destruction under US Federal Law.
 
2013-01-26 07:03:04 PM  

gimmegimme: You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.


That's your solution for ending gun violence?
 
2013-01-26 07:03:10 PM  
Some lawmakers write legislation that some perceive to infringe on their 'absolute and unconditional' right to bear arms and they go apeshiat, yet some people have no problems with Republicans infringing on the right of others to vote. Go figure.
 
2013-01-26 07:03:32 PM  

gimmegimme: TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.

Care to point out to me where I said that?

So what measures would you take to alleviate the problems I pointed out?


War on poverty, end the war on drugs, improve our mental health systems, and improve background checks. You know, things that will actually work, improve our nation, and not attack our rights.
 
2013-01-26 07:04:10 PM  

xynix: BronyMedic:
LavenderWolf: I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.

Then you should appreciate that all firearms are equally as deadly. 101.


Faulty reasoning.

All firearms are deadly. All firearms are always loaded.

This doesn't have anything to do with the effectiveness of a person wielding a firearm.
 
2013-01-26 07:04:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: So pick one: You can be a responsible law-abiding gun owner, which means obeying ALL the laws, even the ones you don't like or agree with; or you can be a crazy criminal. You all were the ones who polarized this mess and so you get to lie in it.


Indeed, blind obeyance of the law is truly what this country is all about.

Now if we could just take the vote back away from women and minorities, we could all move on. It was THE LAW, damn it.
 
2013-01-26 07:05:45 PM  

pedrop357: ElBarto79: 2 reasons;

1 - This would only be for semi-autos. You could still by bolt action guns and revolvers through normal channels.

2 - You could still acquire these weapons, it would just take a little longer and cost a little more.


So, still a violation. You can buy all the paperback books you want but hardback and electronic copies take a little longer and cost a little more.


You have a right to drive a car down the road but before you do so you have to register and insure it and get a drivers license. Oh and you have to be 16 and can't be drunk or otherwise impaired. Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean the government can't restrict it in certain ways, and in fact guns already have many restrictions on them. Most rational gun owners seem to understand that restricting certain particularly dangerous and destructive weapons makes sense, we cannot have a total free for all where anyone can go into a store and buy some rocket propelled grenades on the spot with no checks or registration, that is insane. So this entire argument that the government is somehow barred from restricting gun ownership is absurd, they can restrict it and they already do. This is not a violation of your right to own a gun.
 
2013-01-26 07:05:49 PM  

xynix: sweet-daddy-2: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

Wow.A blooper! Have'nt seen one since......'69....'70? Getting to old to remember dates,just events.

You sound cool and I bet you have interesting stories. Have some TF.


Thank you....I think.A few days ago a farkette(going by the handle) gave me a color.In the same thread I am informed she also gave me a child.
No way in hell am I having a kid with you.But truly,thanks for the TF.(no stories though)
 
2013-01-26 07:06:36 PM  

LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.


One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.
 
2013-01-26 07:07:55 PM  

pedrop357: BronyMedic: that I want that evil black Kenyan communist to march into your house and rip your guns away from you.

Got a permit for that strawman?


It's not a strawman. You've made a lot of personal attacks on me, and made a lot of statements on my political opinion that I have never voiced to you.

Not once have you stopped your attacks, and actually asked me what my opinions are. Period.

You don't have psychic powers, man. You fail miserably at illustrating my feelings on the matter.