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  
•       •       •

17844 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 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.
 
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