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 1301
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17846 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»



1301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report