Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

17860 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 07:26:36 PM  

kmmontandon: 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.


You're disagreeing with someone about what seems to be true to him? A regular psychic in our midst, you are!
 
2013-01-26 07:27:01 PM  

justtray: Why? Because I'm not soft on crime?


You know who else wasn't soft on crime?
 
2013-01-26 07:27:19 PM  

Harry Knutz: Hey asshole -- you're the one trying to invalidate the comparison between voting and gun rights by saying there is no enumerated voting right in the Constitution. Yet you are also the one saying you have an absolute right to privacy when it comes to your firearms, a right (privacy) which is also not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. So which is it? Are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution actually rights, like voting, or are they not rights?

FYI, it also doesn't say "gun" in the Constitution.


Not necessarily a right to privacy. A right to own them. If I can be forced to register them before I own them, my right is being infringed.

It doesn't say gun, it says "arms", so my AR-15, an M16, a 40w phased plasma rifle, Romulan Disruptor, etc. will all be protected.
 
2013-01-26 07:28:21 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.


So let the gop pass anything they want in regards to womans reproductive issues/abortion and just challenge it in court?
 
2013-01-26 07:29:11 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.


Yes. We have guns. I don't see what the deal is with registering them. The Feds have a lot better things to do than go door-to-door confiscating guns from a bunch of people with a "shoot the cops if they try and take my guns" policy.
 
2013-01-26 07:29:21 PM  

craig328: In fact, if those who'd like to make such adjustments to the the rights explicitly assured citizens by the 2nd Amendment would like to follow the same path (constitutional amendment), I'd have no argument with such efforts. Absent that, this law slams face first into the stark language of the 2nd as is.


Precisely.
 
2013-01-26 07:30:16 PM  

Harry Knutz: FYI, it also doesn't say "gun" in the Constitution.


It also doesn't say you have a right to be an idiot, but that doesn't stop you.
 
2013-01-26 07:30:33 PM  
pedrop357: If I can be forced to register them before I own them, my right is being infringed.

I do not think you know what a right is.
 
2013-01-26 07:30:51 PM  

GoldSpider: Xcott: /And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway?

How DARE honest citizens assert their inalienable rights! They've obviously got something to hide! With us or against us, right??


Inciting violence and murder against your fellow citizens is not a protected right like voicing dissent against the Government is.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:06 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?


Help me please here. Are you agreeing with me about the futility of the laws ignored by the murderers, or, are you in some way showing that those laws don't work?

Either way, you're showing that criminals ignore laws. Weird, that.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:24 PM  

Harry Knutz: pedrop357: If I can be forced to register them before I own them, my right is being infringed.

I do not think you know what a right is.


I don't think you do either.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:25 PM  

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: FYI, it also doesn't say "gun" in the Constitution.

It also doesn't say you have a right to be an idiot, but that doesn't stop you.


Go play with your guns, cocksucker. Preferably in your face.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:31 PM  

Chinchillazilla: I don't see what the deal is with registering them.


Guess you're OK with your home address being highlighted in the local newspaper.
 
2013-01-26 07:31:56 PM  

justtray: To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.


Gotcha. I don't agree, but just wanted to hear your rationale. You would jail hundreds or thousands of otherwise innocent people to stop maybe a half dozen crimes in the state of NY. I wouldn't. We don't have to agree.
 
2013-01-26 07:32:32 PM  

justtray: This is ironic coming from someone who doesn't think voting and interstate travel are rights, but unlimited access to guns is.


I got corrected on one, and where do you get the idea that we have unlimited access to firearms? Can i go to the library and pick one up?
 
2013-01-26 07:32:37 PM  

BronyMedic: Inciting violence and murder against your fellow citizens is not a protected right like voicing dissent against the Government is.


Harry Knutz: Go play with your guns, cocksucker. Preferably in your face.


You mean like that?
 
2013-01-26 07:32:37 PM  

justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Gun control that works on a national scale would be banning all guns. You don't really want that either.

Much of the problems with gun crime currently stem from problems completely unrelated to the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Banning guns entirely would not solve a damn thing, and would be a logistic impossibility.

Except that it does and has worked in nearly every other 1st world country on the planet. Though you are right, in the short run in the US, it would be very difficult to control the supply. Which is why I'm an advocate of taxation to limit the supply using a free market approach. Regardless, bans do work in the long run, but they unquestionably restrict freedom.


Yes, using the government to make the purchase of firearms and impossibility is "free market."
 
2013-01-26 07:32:38 PM  
Gun registration eh? Why, I would never refuse to register my gun in Chicago as per the law. No sir-ee
 
2013-01-26 07:33:16 PM  

Chinchillazilla: I don't see what the deal is with registering them.


What is the benefit of registration? I honestly don't know.
 
2013-01-26 07:33:18 PM  

BronyMedic: justtray: Except that it does and has worked in nearly every other 1st world country on the planet.

Except that's completely not true in any form or fashion. Firearms are still legal to own in even the UK. What they did, on the other hand, was fix a LOT of problems completely unrelated to the private ownership of firearms.

justtray: Though you are right, in the short run in the US, it would be very difficult to control the supply. Which is why I'm an advocate of taxation to limit the supply using a free market approach

It would be IMPOSSIBLE to control the existing supply, and would severely damage the American economy - especially small businesses, which most gun shops are. There are 300 MILLION, estimated, Firearms in private hands of Law Abiding Citizens in the United States currently. You will never be able to confiscate even a fraction for it.

And a "Free Market" Approach? People aren't even getting a 10th of the worth of their firearms at turnins. Look at the pictures they post of them. Many of the weapons that people turn in are antiques, or are VERY rare firearms that would otherwise be worth thousands of dollars.

justtray: Regardless, bans do work in the long run, but they unquestionably restrict freedom.

A ban on firearm ownership would be blatantly unconstitutional according to the SCOTUS, and would require an amendment to the US Constitution. Good luck with that.


1. As per UK, you're just being semantic. Not really worth continuing to talk to you if you're going to be totally dishonest, but I'll indulge the rest of this post.

2. No, it would not be impossible to control the gun market with the free market solutions. 100% tax on all guns. Property tax on each weapon. Supply would fall drastically. You're so ridiculously ignorant to economics I again wonder why I am wasting words with you. Anyway, it would simply be a matter of time, but without any question, not impossible to reduce supply without banning or taking any guns at all.

3. Bans are without question, constitutional. Per heller -

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56

It's just a matter of semantic classification. And that's without overturning the hypocritical, activist ruling abortion of an interpretation that is Heller. The moment one of the Conservative Justices goes, Heller is gone.

Anyway, I won't be responding to you further if you insist on being ignorant and indignant with me.
 
2013-01-26 07:33:22 PM  

Chinchillazilla: The Feds have a lot better things to do than go door-to-door confiscating guns from a bunch of people with a "shoot the cops if they try and take my guns" policy.



Tell that to those who have had their guns confiscated due to retroactive bans by politicians who advocated using the registration lists as a means of enforcement.
 
2013-01-26 07:33:25 PM  

ko_kyi: Gotcha. I don't agree, but just wanted to hear your rationale. You would jail hundreds or thousands of otherwise innocent people to stop maybe a half dozen crimes in the state of NY. I wouldn't. We don't have to agree.


If it saves ONE INNOCENT CHILD'S life, it's worth it.

Right?
 
2013-01-26 07:34:35 PM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: FYI, it also doesn't say "gun" in the Constitution.

It also doesn't say you have a right to be an idiot, but that doesn't stop you.

Go play with your guns, cocksucker. Preferably in your face.


More death wished upon those who disagree with him, as well as a homophobe jab. This is the face of your typical gun grabber, America.
 
2013-01-26 07:34:40 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.


Restrictions on speech affect its use like shouting fire in a crowded theater that you pointed out.

Restrictions on firearms already exist like it does for speech in regards to use. You can not murder someone, you can not rob someone at gunpoint.

What people want to do with firearms is restrict the item. That would be like restricting pens or keyboards in regards to the first because they have the potential to tell multiple people there is a fire in a theater.
 
2013-01-26 07:35:15 PM  

TheJoe03: justtray: ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

How wild registration reduce the amount of guns or gum crime?


By creating a system of liability for weapons transferred to people who would use them for illegal acts. It creates a disincentive.
 
2013-01-26 07:35:38 PM  

Silverstaff: My Fellow Liberals,

Gun Control is where the American Liberal tends to Derp out.

Put the Derp down.

You gripe about Conservative derp. Start fixing the problem in your own backyard. The general American public will never accept a complete handgun ban, blanket registration of all firearms, or a repeal of the Second Amendment. Cope with it. You're better off pushing for expanded socialized healthcare or environmental policies: leftist things that may be controversial, but have more traction with the general public.

Also, stop using dead schookids as a plea to emotion. That's a logical fallacy, and I thought those of us in the Progressive community liked to focus on logic instead of emotion? We gripe when Republicans go "Think of the Children!", that means you can't use it either.

Just like the Right may derp about wanting to ban all abortion, and abolish all welfare, the Left derps about wanting to take everybodies gun away.

Yeah, Registration is the first step to confiscation. They can't take your guns if they don't know you have them. Too many times in US history has a local jurisdiction required gun registration, only to turn around a few years later and demand all those registered guns be handed in. "Fool me once. . ."

Yeah, I'm a Liberal and I'm pro-gun. Guess I'm no stereotype, but I'm a leftist who supports all civil rights, even the unpopular ones (although I'll admit, Fred Phelps tries my patience on First Amendment rights).

I am highly unconvinced that registration prevents any crimes. How could gun registration prevent a crime, really? Explain to me how gun registration could honestly prevent crimes instead of just enabling later gun confiscation?


I would like to thank you for being the voice of reason on your side of the aisle. If more people thought like you, we would all be a lot better off.
 
2013-01-26 07:36:16 PM  

Harry Knutz: 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.


The weapons were obtained legally? So Amdam Lanza legally killed his mother and legally took possession of firearms belonging to somebody other than himself?
 
2013-01-26 07:36:42 PM  

GoldSpider: If it saves ONE INNOCENT CHILD'S life, it's worth it.


No idea if you are being serious or sarcastic.
 
2013-01-26 07:37:35 PM  

Cheviot: The law already requires that all fully automatic weapons be registered, and a fee paid yearly to continue to own them. The Supreme Court held that the only parties constitutionally protected against registering such firearms were convicted felons, not as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but of the 5th, as they would have to admit to a felony to register the weapon.

Let's let that sink in. The Supreme Court has already held that firearm registration requirements are not unconstitutional.

So, I ask again, given that the constitutional argument was already voided by the Supreme Court, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?


Before I go there...is that the example you really want to use? Are you familiar with just how shaky the ground is that you'd be on if this is your argument?

To give you a hand, whether you're aware or not, the laws you're referring to are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, neither of which has been challenged at the SCOTUS (actually, the 1934 law was challenged, was found to be unconstitutional at the lower court level but was overturned at the SCOTUS because the original defendant was murdered before the case got heard...the defense had nobody to argue their side and the court dismissed it without a hearing on that basis).

Several states have enacted laws on the past few years that will eventually find their way to the SCOTUS that are designed to challenge many aspects of those two older laws. If your argument is "well, it's required now for some things therefore it should be allowed to be required for all" then perhaps we wait a few years and see how you feel about that. The federal laws significantly overstep the 10th Amendment and the interstate commerce clause...they just haven't ever been challenged on that basis.
 
2013-01-26 07:37:42 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.


They can pry it from my cold dead hands. I have no problem with that, but the barrel is going to be kind of hot when they do.
 
2013-01-26 07:38:26 PM  

muck4doo: PsiChick: Okay. Can you please explain to me WHAT THE FARK YOU'RE DISAGREEING ABOUT? I don't like the law, dipshiat! FFS, not everyone is your farking enemy.

You register this post yet? I can't comment back on it till you do.

/OK. Maybe I misunderstood you original post. :)


Lol, my Boobies was just pointing out that 'FU' isn't an actual protest, it's a temper tantrum. Lawsuits, in this case, work better.

/What did you  think I said?
 
2013-01-26 07:38:30 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?


In the words of the next Democratic Presidential Candidate - 'What difference does it make?' Passing new laws won't bring those kids back.
 
2013-01-26 07:38:41 PM  

LavenderWolf: Meanwhile, my completely sound argument - some firearms are, in fact, more capable of killing more people, faster - is unaffected.


Yeah, I'm the one changing meanings, you said "more dangerous", and that is what I replied to.

You are a shining example of intellectual honesty yourself.
/sarcasm

As for killing "more people, faster", you're now splitting coont hairs. Swapping magazines takes very minimal time, even a bolt action among an unarmed populace can be very devastating. If you were as familiar with firearms as you claim you'd know this.

The distinction of varying types of firearms as to which are "more dangerous" is trivial, at best, and the same goes for which can "kill more people, faster".
 
2013-01-26 07:38:45 PM  

muck4doo: justtray: Why? Because I'm not soft on crime?

You know who else wasn't soft on crime?


I guess since you're resorting to Godwins and ad hominem, you have conceded the argument.

So instead I'll just say, it gives me personal satisfaction that you might one day be a criminal for going against democracy, and I hope you stick to your convictions instead of being a coward. Though I suspect you really are one, nothing but a keyboard commando, rambo wanna-be. And you have to live with that.
 
2013-01-26 07:40:35 PM  

justtray: 1. As per UK, you're just being semantic. Not really worth continuing to talk to you if you're going to be totally dishonest, but I'll indulge the rest of this post.


No, I'm calling you out for being obtuse and purposefully disingenuous by suggesting every First World Country has enacted bans on firearms successfully. In reality, even the "nanny state" of the UK still allows private firearm ownership, although it's very restrictive in doing so. It's not a ban in the sense you seem to be referring to.

If you feel that's not worth continuing to talk to me, so be it.

justtray: 2. No, it would not be impossible to control the gun market with the free market solutions. 100% tax on all guns. Property tax on each weapon. Supply would fall drastically. You're so ridiculously ignorant to economics I again wonder why I am wasting words with you. Anyway, it would simply be a matter of time, but without any question, not impossible to reduce supply without banning or taking any guns at all.


Which would never happen. Ever. You're fantasizing about such a drastic change in the political climate of the United States that it wouldn't even be the United States. It's not ignorance of economics, it's a cold fact of life. A "100% tax on all guns" would require the approval of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to push through into federal law. It'd fail at one, if not more, of those three steps.

Even if you did manage that, private gun sales and trades would still occur, and not even at "gun shows"

justtray: 3. Bans are without question, constitutional. Per heller -

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56

It's just a matter of semantic classification. And that's without overturning the hypocritical, activist ruling abortion of an interpretation that is Heller. The moment one of the Conservative Justices goes, Heller is gone.

Anyway, I won't be responding to you further if you insist on being ignorant and indignant with me.


Apparently disagreeing with you is "ignorant and indignant". I'm sorry you're so offended.

McDonald v. Chicago clarified what was stated in Heller. De Facto and actual bans on firearm ownership are not "reasonable" limitations on the second amendment that Heller declared constitutional.
 
2013-01-26 07:40:48 PM  

justtray: muck4doo: justtray: Why? Because I'm not soft on crime?

You know who else wasn't soft on crime?

I guess since you're resorting to Godwins and ad hominem, you have conceded the argument.

So instead I'll just say, it gives me personal satisfaction that you might one day be a criminal for going against democracy, and I hope you stick to your convictions instead of being a coward. Though I suspect you really are one, nothing but a keyboard commando, rambo wanna-be. And you have to live with that.


How a gun grabber thinks.
 
2013-01-26 07:41:22 PM  

vartian: 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.


I believe Cuomo has already made it quite clear that registration is a step to confiscation as it has historically been.

The question is, where does all this control freakism by statists end? I believe it never ends until everyone is fully controlled. Has a believer in the state ever said 'we have enough laws, we have enough power, it's time to stop'? I don't think so. Each concession they are given only results in greater demands of control over the people.
 
2013-01-26 07:41:39 PM  

craig328: shArkh: 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."

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


Sorry, no: this specific policy wouldn't prevent psychos from doing psycho things.

Other laws would. Sandy Hook would have been prevented if firearm hoarding didn't become a derpy mainstream hobby. There are lots of schizo kids out there, but their moms didn't decide to go into gun stockpiling instead of needlepoint.
 
2013-01-26 07:41:52 PM  

ko_kyi: justtray: To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

Gotcha. I don't agree, but just wanted to hear your rationale. You would jail hundreds or thousands of otherwise innocent people to stop maybe a half dozen crimes in the state of NY. I wouldn't. We don't have to agree.


Since your apparently justification for not doing i is a total fantasy, yes, we will simply have to disagree.

The reality is everyone but a very small minority will register their weapons. And those few who do not will not be martyrs of freedom, but criminals who are forgotten. Remember that, might serve you well.
 
2013-01-26 07:42:08 PM  
Firearms ownership in America is a right and it is responsibly exercised by tens of millions of people. Taking the number of firearms owners in the USA (between 42-55 million - using a median of 50 million) and the number of shootings each year (approximately 100,000 which includes all types -- self inflicted, which are the majority, justifiable, murder, and negligent), every year 99.998% of gun owners don't shoot anybody.

Gun laws seek to treat all gun owners as potential criminals when the evidence is clear that the vast majority are not. It is trite, but the simple fact is that criminals don't obey laws so mass registration has no effect on their behavior.

Should rights be determined on the basis of what the worst of society is capable of? Every riot has started by freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Genocides have begun with speech. Rights carry risks and free societies understand this.

In Canada we have a registration system that registers owners and certain guns - such as certain semi auto rifles and pistols. We also have frequent calls by some politicians to ban and confiscate the very weapons that have been registered. All of this despite the fact that 99.99%+ of firearms owners in Canada are completely safe and would never harm anyone. The long gun registration system cost over a billion $ and achieved nothing. Surprisingly, it has been scrapped.

In the last 25 years Canada has passed a number of gun laws. Every time there is a tragedy, prohibitionists call for yet tougher laws while never admitting that the laws they said were going to stop gun violence have failed. That is because they don't care that lawful gun owners are no risk, or that gun laws don't stop criminals. The bottom line is that the vast majority of anti gun people hate gun ownership and won't be satisfied until the populace is unarmed and the only people with guns are the police, military, and of course, the criminals.
 
2013-01-26 07:42:38 PM  

PsiChick: muck4doo: PsiChick: Okay. Can you please explain to me WHAT THE FARK YOU'RE DISAGREEING ABOUT? I don't like the law, dipshiat! FFS, not everyone is your farking enemy.

You register this post yet? I can't comment back on it till you do.

/OK. Maybe I misunderstood you original post. :)

Lol, my Boobies was just pointing out that 'FU' isn't an actual protest, it's a temper tantrum. Lawsuits, in this case, work better.

/What did you  think I said?


Looked to me like you were saying you didn't have a problem with making people register their arms.
 
2013-01-26 07:43:31 PM  

justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

How wild registration reduce the amount of guns or gum crime?

By creating a system of liability for weapons transferred to people who would use them for illegal acts. It creates a disincentive.


Why would someone intent on doing illegal acts register?
 
2013-01-26 07:43:45 PM  

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


Well, I was gonna ask this, but...
 
2013-01-26 07:43:51 PM  

LavenderWolf: 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?


Slavery wasn't a big deal either because only a very small number of people owned slaves. That's your logic at work, you farking schmuck
 
2013-01-26 07:44:19 PM  
I'm just confused how the same people that biatch about the TSA and the Patriot Act can support any firearms' laws that are pitched by politicians as being passed for "everyone's safety."

Look, people die. It's unfortunate. Make logical arguments and quit the fear mongering shiat.

/Darwin
//The terrorists have won
 
2013-01-26 07:45:02 PM  

TheJoe03: justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

How wild registration reduce the amount of guns or gum crime?

By creating a system of liability for weapons transferred to people who would use them for illegal acts. It creates a disincentive.

Why would someone intent on doing illegal acts register?


How would someone intent on doing illegal acts get their weapon?
 
2013-01-26 07:45:06 PM  

justtray: Since your apparently justification for not doing i is a total fantasy, yes, we will simply have to disagree.


Except said "fantasy" has in fact occurred in California, which has been pointed out repeatedly. Whether you choose to acknowledge history or not is irrelevant.
 
2013-01-26 07:46:17 PM  

GoldSpider: Xcott: 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

Why? Those aren't the people committing these murders.


What? Adam Lanza's mom was instrumental in his kid being a mass murderer instead of some shmo sending death threats to Garrison Keillor.

There are schizo kids out there, and the more people get into recreational firearm hoarding, the greater the odds one of those kids is going to live with a stash of guns.
 
2013-01-26 07:46:40 PM  

justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

How wild registration reduce the amount of guns or gum crime?

By creating a system of liability for weapons transferred to people who would use them for illegal acts. It creates a disincentive.

Why would someone intent on doing illegal acts register?

How would someone intent on doing illegal acts get their weapon?


Keep digging your hole
 
2013-01-26 07:46:45 PM  

justtray: Since your apparently justification for not doing i is a total fantasy, yes, we will simply have to disagree.


As is your benefit for doing so.
 
Displayed 50 of 1299 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report