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  
•       •       •

17845 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 | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 08:06:57 PM

PsiChick: muck4doo: 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.

No, I was saying that the law is functionally obnoxious but nothing else (although, since it's totally unsupportable and paves the way for illegal behavior on the part of officials, is deserving of a smackdown). My original post was just saying 'FU != protest'. I had to clarify because I went off on a tangent and forgot to rewrite it.


Ah. Got it. My apologies then. You may still have to register this comment though.
 
2013-01-26 08:07:04 PM

BronyMedic: justtray: I would think by all the times you guys use them, you would have realized by now which of your arguments are logical fallacies. But you just keep spewing them out, over and over again.

And as someone who makes it a habit to call people out over fallacious arguments, I'm going to point out you're now resorting to the Fallacist's Fallacy to declare victory.


You're racist for calling him out on his racism.

His argument was invalid. Registration would lower supply, factually. Saying that since it's possible to still get guns therefore we shouldn't make it harder, is a logical fallacy, and false. Just like your exact same argument.
 
2013-01-26 08:07:17 PM

BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.


Yup.
 
2013-01-26 08:08:23 PM
So if you treat everyone like criminals, they start to behave like criminals.
...and this outcome was totally unexpected by their idiot lawmakers?

/new plan: every time a politician comes up with an idea, do the exact opposite.
 
2013-01-26 08:08:42 PM

fredklein: 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?

Illegally, of course.

Steal it from someone. Buy it on the black market. Buy it in Mexico and smuggle it in.

Registration stops none of these.


It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.

Glad we could clear this up for you guys who are still feigning confusion over it.
 
2013-01-26 08:09:53 PM

BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.


You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.
 
2013-01-26 08:10:02 PM

craig328: LavenderWolf: I don't see the leap in reasoning that makes registering firearms an infringement on using them.

You have to register to vote, how is this different?

Indeed. A good question. So ask yourself, what does a voter registry seek to address and whose interests does that serve? Voting is the process by which the representatives who comprise our government are chosen. Those representatives have the power to change the very fundamental nature of government. Therefore, I'd suggest that a voter registration serves the interests of the government in that such ostensibly ensures that only citizens of the country can exercise their right whose product is the formation of the government.

Since a voter registry serves the interests of the government, whom then do you assume a firearms registry serves?

There's that line of thought but there's also the very stark difference that firearms were addressed specifically in the Bill of Rights while the word "vote" (or any derivative of the word) is not. In fact, our current voting laws were an amalgam of the 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. In other words, it wasn't strongly defined by the framers and has required updates and revisions more than once.

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.


All of the amendments to the Constitution are part of it and in full force as though they were there originally. The rights recognized by the amendments are no different from the rights recognized by the original document.

Now, as to who it benefits to a gun registration requirement, the answer is, ostensibly, everyone. Law-biding gun owners can say "Yep, I do have guns. You knew that; here they are, safely within my possession." The police can say "Well, the weapon used was registered to X person; check out that person to see if the gun was stolen, sold without transferring the ownership, etc." or "Well, the gun used was unregistered. Now we need to find out where these unregistered guns are coming from." Though the process would take time, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them unlawfully.

Yes, believe it or not, but sometimes people do things (such as supporting gun control measures like a registration requirement) without having an overarching goal of disarming you and doing bad things to you in your disarmed state.
 
2013-01-26 08:10:08 PM

justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: I would think by all the times you guys use them, you would have realized by now which of your arguments are logical fallacies. But you just keep spewing them out, over and over again.

And as someone who makes it a habit to call people out over fallacious arguments, I'm going to point out you're now resorting to the Fallacist's Fallacy to declare victory.

You're racist for calling him out on his racism.

His argument was invalid. Registration would lower supply, factually. Saying that since it's possible to still get guns therefore we shouldn't make it harder, is a logical fallacy, and false. Just like your exact same argument.


Do you have evidence it would lower the supply if guns? Also, why are we trying to make it hard for law abiding citizens to get guns in the first place?
 
2013-01-26 08:10:44 PM

BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.


Wow, BronyMedic is attacking someone else for being rude and condescending?

That's remarkable. hey Brony, how about you address the topic at hand, rather than just post your usual personal insults?

Short list since your attention span is short: How do you propose to get the criminals to obey the laws you propose? What with them being, you know, criminals and all?
 
2013-01-26 08:11:10 PM

truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?


The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.
 
2013-01-26 08:11:29 PM

justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.


What a pussy.
 
2013-01-26 08:12:23 PM

justtray: fredklein: 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?

Illegally, of course.

Steal it from someone. Buy it on the black market. Buy it in Mexico and smuggle it in.

Registration stops none of these.

It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.

Glad we could clear this up for you guys who are still feigning confusion over it.


Sounds like you think just like the racists did that tried this crap before. They wanted to make it hard for black people to get arms, and used the same thinking that you do now to keep those "inferiors" from being armed.
 
2013-01-26 08:12:57 PM

justtray: You're racist for calling him out on his racism.


What does that even mean. When did race even come into this? Please quote in this thread where TheJoe03, or myself, have ever mentioned anything about race?

It's a non sequitor at best, and a willful - borderline poisoning the well - red herring.

However, unlike you dismissing arguments which have some truth in them strictly because they contain a logical fallacy, I'm not dismissing your argument because it does, I'm dismissing it because it's irrelevant and quite literally makes no sense in this context.

justtray: Saying that since it's possible to still get guns therefore we shouldn't make it harder, is a logical fallacy, and false.


Actually, if you would use your reading comprehension skills, oh intellectual superior person you, you'd realize that I said the suggestions you made were unrealistic and didn't really address the problems with gun crime you think they did. All they would do would be to punish people willing to abide by the law disproportionately, and unconstitutionally.

It's not even a matter of it being a "perfect solution", like you argue people seem to be in opposition of it because - it's a matter of being a useless intervention which doesn't address the roots of gun crime, and only serves as a socially emotional crutch.
 
2013-01-26 08:13:08 PM

LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.


And yet it's happened before. As pointed out in this thread by others in relation to guns, and myself in relation to cannabis.
 
2013-01-26 08:13:50 PM

justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.


Oh lookie who just started their "inferior" list
 
2013-01-26 08:14:04 PM
Shall Not Be Infringed. Period. End of discussion.

Look, every Politician KNOWS this.
Leon Panetta KNOWS this.
So does Obama, Bloomberg, Cumo and everyone in the NY State Legislature as well as every Supreme Court Justice living and dead.

Ginsburg, Stomayor, all of them.
They KNOW this is what the Second Amendment MEANS, what its intended to DO...
And they DESPISE IT WITH A PASSION because it gets in their WAY.

These people are EVIL, not stupid.
And its long past time we just said it, and moved on.
Let THEM do the "catching up" for a change.

ALL of the guns are OURS.
None of the guns are YOURS, capice'

You want them?
Come and GET THEM.
Cause we're DONE talking about it.
 
2013-01-26 08:14:51 PM

djh0101010: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

Wow, BronyMedic is attacking someone else for being rude and condescending?

That's remarkable. hey Brony, how about you address the topic at hand, rather than just post your usual personal insults?

Short list since your attention span is short: How do you propose to get the criminals to obey the laws you propose? What with them being, you know, criminals and all?


The idea is that once the legal firearms are easily accounted for, tracking the unlawful sale and use of firearms becomes much, much easier.
 
2013-01-26 08:14:53 PM

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

What is the benefit of registration? I honestly don't know.


Nobody does. Even those who support gun registration have no idea what value it brings to farking anything.
 
2013-01-26 08:15:33 PM

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

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

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


If you aren't going to register them, don't bother reporting them stolen. If they're stolen and used in the commission of a crime, don't be surprised if you wind up arrested.

/registration doesn't hurt anyone
//anyone not in favor of sensible laws like this is in favor of mass shootings
 
2013-01-26 08:16:11 PM
LavenderWolf SmartestFunniest 2013-01-26 07:58:39 PM


Gdalescrboz: 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

No, retard, the point wasn't "Well it's small scale, so not a big deal."

It was "Okay, you might have taken guns from a few people, but good farking luck on a 'big gun grab' the far-right is constantly worried about."

Issues of scale. Not an issue of whether something is a "big deal" or not.


Hey no problem, i can argue that retarded claim as well. Slavery is extremely small in proportion. The estimate is between 12 and 27 million people are enslaved in the world, CURRENTLY. Taking the high estimate, only .0038% of the people on Earth, .0017% on the low end. Guess we can move along, thanks for putting our minds at ease with your "scale" argument Lavender, you dumbass
 
2013-01-26 08:16:29 PM
Seriously though. I commend these NYers in not registering there guns.

Here in Chicago, where the Democratic voter base can't stop shooting and killing each other, there's mandatory training and registration of all firearms. All of this costs hundreds of dollars, simply to keep a gun in your house as protection. All because, as mentioned, the Democratic voter base wants to blame the guns for their shiat community. And I give a hearty f*ck you to the city for this law. I ain't registering shiat.
 
2013-01-26 08:17:05 PM

justtray: fredklein: 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?

Illegally, of course.

Steal it from someone. Buy it on the black market. Buy it in Mexico and smuggle it in.

Registration stops none of these.

It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.

Glad we could clear this up for you guys who are still feigning confusion over it.


No, it doesn't 'make it harder'. The only ones affected by gun registration is law abiding owners. Law abiding gun owners don't commit crimes. Only criminals commit crimes... And they don't/won't register their guns- they'll continue to get the illegally.
 
2013-01-26 08:17:10 PM

justtray: It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.


I imagine it's just as easy to steal a registered firearm as it is an unregistered one.
 
2013-01-26 08:17:36 PM

craig328: shArkh: djh0101010:

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


What a smashing idea! I'm certain that'll deter those pesky psychos who go into a school with a couple of drum magazines, empty-up and then save the last bullet for themselves.
"If it jams, I might get an extra 5 years! Better not bother then."

:| really?

Hang on...are you saying that a new law wouldn't prevent the psychos from doing psycho things?

/ keep going...you're almost there...just connect that last dot


Oh fark off you twat. Keep pretending the damage potential of a high-cap AR has nothing to do with the fact that mass-murdering psychos use them as weapon-of-choice and that making it harder to reach that upper level of potential for them would be a bad thing. It makes you look like such a considerate human being. farking americans. Abortions r bad but lul let's keep it easy for the crazies to run & gun. Why, they don't even have to register them! Keep it up skippy, one day hopefully you'll get first-hand enlightenment.
 
2013-01-26 08:18:44 PM

justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.


Ignoring BronyMedic? We don't agree on everything, but dude's cool. Stop being a pussy.

And this coming from someone that hates MLP
 
2013-01-26 08:19:06 PM

justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.


And nothing of value was lost.

djh0101010: Wow, BronyMedic is attacking someone else for being rude and condescending?

That's remarkable. hey Brony, how about you address the topic at hand, rather than just post your usual personal insults?


Oh, hi. I see you're still trying to troll while not reading anything I've posted. Good for you. Maybe you can regale us about more tales of how you're such a martyr for humanity like last night.

djh0101010: Short list since your attention span is short: How do you propose to get the criminals to obey the laws you propose? What with them being, you know, criminals and all?


My, my. You're entirely disingenuous tonight. You're even arguing me after I'm (quite actually) agreeing with you in this thread. It's obvious you just get pissed off THAT MUCH by my continued existence on FARK. I'm proud of that.

The whole point of laws is to ensure that society is protected and justice is served after the crime is committed. The fact that a law is on the books is no guarantee, in and of itself of deterrence of ANY crime, involving a gun or not.

It's almost as if Crime is a complex, multifactorial phenomenon in our society, and you're just tying to grossly oversimply the root causes and motivations because you perceive someone is coming to get your guns.
 
2013-01-26 08:19:31 PM

LavenderWolf: Now, as to who it benefits to a gun registration requirement, the answer is, ostensibly, everyone. Law-biding gun owners can say "Yep, I do have guns. You knew that; here they are, safely within my possession." The police can say "Well, the weapon used was registered to X person; check out that person to see if the gun was stolen, sold without transferring the ownership, etc." or "Well, the gun used was unregistered. Now we need to find out where these unregistered guns are coming from."


Or "Our records show that you own a gun that has been retroactively banned, please take a seat in the back of the car while we retrieve the illegal firearms from your home."

Yes, some politicians really do think that the government "needs to start taking guns" from otherwise law abiding citizens.
 
2013-01-26 08:19:54 PM

muck4doo: justtray: fredklein: 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?

Illegally, of course.

Steal it from someone. Buy it on the black market. Buy it in Mexico and smuggle it in.

Registration stops none of these.

It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.

Glad we could clear this up for you guys who are still feigning confusion over it.

Sounds like you think just like the racists did that tried this crap before. They wanted to make it hard for black people to get arms, and used the same thinking that you do now to keep those "inferiors" from being armed.


Ah, yes, the tried and true tactic of just accusing your opponent of "acting racist."
 
2013-01-26 08:19:56 PM

muck4doo: justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.

Oh lookie who just started their "inferior" list


The funny part is you're not even worthy enough to be on it. You offer too much ignorant humor to be ignored. I keep you around for entertainment purposes only.
 
2013-01-26 08:20:15 PM

LavenderWolf: craig328: Law-biding gun owners can say "Yep, I do have guns. You knew that; here they are, safely within my possession." The police can say "Well, the weapon used was registered to X person; check out that person to see if the gun was stolen, sold without transferring the ownership, etc." or "Well, the gun used was unregistered. Now we need to find out where these unregistered guns are coming from." Though the process would take time, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them unlawfully.

Yes, believe it or not, but sometimes people do things (such as supporting gun control measures like a registration requirement) without having an overarching goal of disarming you and doing bad things to you in your disarmed state.


Scenario to get your take on...

Let's assume you live in an apartment building. Someone in your apartment building gets shot. Can the cops look in a database to see who has guns in that building and then use that information as reasonable suspicion or probable cause to get a warrant to search all of those people's apartments simply because they own guns?
 
2013-01-26 08:20:38 PM

shArkh: Keep pretending the damage potential of a high-cap AR has nothing to do with the fact that mass-murdering psychos use them as weapon-of-choice and that making it harder to reach that upper level of potential for them would be a bad thing.


You mean all TWO of the mass shootings last year that were carried out with an AR, right?
 
2013-01-26 08:21:22 PM

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

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

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

If you aren't going to register them, don't bother reporting them stolen. If they're stolen and used in the commission of a crime, don't be surprised if you wind up arrested.

/registration doesn't hurt anyone
//anyone not in favor of sensible laws like this is in favor of mass shootings


Slight improvement on "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"
 
2013-01-26 08:21:40 PM

Frank N Stein: Ignoring BronyMedic? We don't agree on everything, but dude's cool. Stop being a pussy.

And this coming from someone that hates MLP


And the sad thing is I wasn't even my normal, condescending and hyperbolic semi-serious self with him. I just disagreed with his methodology and pointed out why it was unrealistic.

Some people can't stand their world view being questioned.

/No one on FARK will agree with anyone else 100% on everything. People need to get over that, and realize that they have more in common with others than they think.
 
2013-01-26 08:21:42 PM

truthseeker2083: LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

And yet it's happened before. As pointed out in this thread by others in relation to guns, and myself in relation to cannabis.


That doesn't make it not a slippery slope argument.

There are plenty of cases where a gun registry has NOT led to the confiscation of guns, and you damned well know it.
 
2013-01-26 08:22:42 PM

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


So you don't register your car? Do you own a house? Does the local assessor know about it?
 
2013-01-26 08:22:55 PM

muck4doo: justtray: Wayne 985: If it helps reduce gun trafficking, or holds violators to a harsher penalty, I'm all for it. Every firearm should be registered.

There we go. Someone possesses common sense.

Your comments need to be registered with the government before appearing in public. Many idiots like yourself and Charles Manson have shown that speech by idiots leads to deaths. Please register first before posting again. After your thoughts have been approved you can then proceed to practice your first amendment rights.


Telling your cult to murder people is restricted by law. Funny that.
 
2013-01-26 08:23:22 PM

LavenderWolf: djh0101010: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

Wow, BronyMedic is attacking someone else for being rude and condescending?

That's remarkable. hey Brony, how about you address the topic at hand, rather than just post your usual personal insults?

Short list since your attention span is short: How do you propose to get the criminals to obey the laws you propose? What with them being, you know, criminals and all?

The idea is that once the legal firearms are easily accounted for, tracking the unlawful sale and use of firearms becomes much, much easier.


Just like tracking the sale of illegal drugs is so much easier because legal drugs are prescribed?
 
2013-01-26 08:23:32 PM

justtray: muck4doo: justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.

Oh lookie who just started their "inferior" list

The funny part is you're not even worthy enough to be on it. You offer too much ignorant humor to be ignored. I keep you around for entertainment purposes only.


I'm glad you found me worthy enough to be an amusement item, King George.
 
2013-01-26 08:23:38 PM

LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.


No. The slippery slope is only a fallacy if you cannot show the links from A to Z. If you can show the links, it is not a fallacy.

History provides plenty of examples where registration had led to confiscation. Does this absolutely prove it will this time? No. But it makes it a very real and reasonable possibility- one to be avoided.
 
2013-01-26 08:23:42 PM

LavenderWolf: There are plenty of cases where a gun registry has NOT led to the confiscation of guns, and you damned well know it.


"There's a good chance this won't be abused by the authorities" isn't a very strong pretext for enacting such a law.
 
2013-01-26 08:23:48 PM

Frank N Stein: justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.

Ignoring BronyMedic? We don't agree on everything, but dude's cool. Stop being a pussy.

And this coming from someone that hates MLP


What's MLP?

As for BronyMedic - I can always tell I'm ignoring someone of no value when I get to their profile and see pictures of MyLittlePony and a long self-identification of being an admitted troll.

Anyway, nothing of value was lost.
 
2013-01-26 08:24:35 PM

LavenderWolf: The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.


Aren't gun control advocates making the same argument? If someone owns a certain gun, they could potentially do something wrong with it?
 
2013-01-26 08:24:43 PM

LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

And yet it's happened before. As pointed out in this thread by others in relation to guns, and myself in relation to cannabis.

That doesn't make it not a slippery slope argument.

There are plenty of cases where a gun registry has NOT led to the confiscation of guns, and you damned well know it.


...has NOT led to the confiscation of guns...yet...
 
2013-01-26 08:24:51 PM

justtray: Frank N Stein: justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.

Ignoring BronyMedic? We don't agree on everything, but dude's cool. Stop being a pussy.

And this coming from someone that hates MLP

What's MLP?

As for BronyMedic - I can always tell I'm ignoring someone of no value when I get to their profile and see pictures of MyLittlePony and a long self-identification of being an admitted troll.

Anyway, nothing of value was lost.

 
2013-01-26 08:24:57 PM
LavenderWolf
Excuse me, between .17% and .38% of the world are enslaved.
To put that in to perspective of gun confiscation. The events that occured in NY affected 19million people, or .27% of the world. Yeah, the argument can be made that according your argument of scale. Gun confiscation in NY is a bigger issue, or equivalent to, modern day slavery
 
2013-01-26 08:25:07 PM

LavenderWolf: muck4doo: justtray: fredklein: 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?

Illegally, of course.

Steal it from someone. Buy it on the black market. Buy it in Mexico and smuggle it in.

Registration stops none of these.

It makes it harder. That's the point. Yes, it's not a "perfect solution." That doesn't mean it's without benefit, logically and factually speaking.

Glad we could clear this up for you guys who are still feigning confusion over it.

Sounds like you think just like the racists did that tried this crap before. They wanted to make it hard for black people to get arms, and used the same thinking that you do now to keep those "inferiors" from being armed.

Ah, yes, the tried and true tactic of just accusing your opponent of "acting racist."


It's history. You act the part, don't be offended when people point out who you are acting like.
 
2013-01-26 08:25:12 PM

justtray: What's MLP?

As for BronyMedic - I can always tell I'm ignoring someone of no value when I get to their profile and see pictures of MyLittlePony and a long self-identification of being an admitted troll.

Anyway, nothing of value was lost.


Remember folks, if you don't have any substance of argument left, you can always ignore someone and then threadshiat on their Saturday morning entertainment choices!
 
2013-01-26 08:26:25 PM

justtray: Frank N Stein: justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

You started it, I just finished it. Look in a mirror next time.

Anyway, welcome to ignore.

Ignoring BronyMedic? We don't agree on everything, but dude's cool. Stop being a pussy.

And this coming from someone that hates MLP

What's MLP?

As for BronyMedic - I can always tell I'm ignoring someone of no value when I get to their profile and see pictures of MyLittlePony and a long self-identification of being an admitted troll.

Anyway, nothing of value was lost.


Lol nm I realize how funny this is now.
 
2013-01-26 08:26:43 PM

LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: LavenderWolf: truthseeker2083: I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

And yet it's happened before. As pointed out in this thread by others in relation to guns, and myself in relation to cannabis.

That doesn't make it not a slippery slope argument.

There are plenty of cases where a gun registry has NOT led to the confiscation of guns, and you damned well know it.


I didn't say anything worse would happen, merely that I'm uncomfortable about opening that door. I know what the government did once it had the Patriot act, I only shudder to think of what will happen if we give them power over more of our rights.
 
2013-01-26 08:26:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: As a result, it can be argued that some number of lives may have been saved if he had to stop to reload. But to be fair, yes, he did illegally obtain those weapons by shooting his mother in the face with them.

He did reload multiple times. He left partially loaded magazines in various classrooms. Magazine capacity was not an issue for him, nor would limiting magazines have done anything for him.

All you've shown is he didn't empty magazines before reloading. That in no way proves smaller magazines wouldn't have made the murders more difficult.

You may now proceed to your next fallacious argument.


I wonder where he learned to do that?
 
Displayed 50 of 1301 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report