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  
•       •       •

17849 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 01:28:01 AM  

Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: doglover: Harry Knutz: And what right is the Second Amendment affirming? The right to self-defense? The right to musket ownership? The right to what?

To allow the people of the United States to have and use weapons.

Not toys, not curios, not scale models, but weapons. It's explicitly stated.

Arms in the 18th century were very different from the arms of today. Is the Constitution an evolving document or not?

sure. just as it protected muskets and rifles of the time, it protects our arms today, and will protect future weapons-40w phased plasma rifles, phaser rifles, disruptors, etc.

So I see you agree that the Constitution is a living document. Subject to reintepretation, if you will. Thus you'd be okay if a future Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment is limited to one gun per person with ammunition quotas, right?

How did you get to this conclusion? The 2A says "arms", not "muskets" or "weapons of the late 18th century" or anything like that. It says arms.There is no reinterpretation needed for arms to mean... arms.

Arms at the time the Constitution was written were very different from the arms of today. How do you know that the Framers would be alright with extending the right to "bear arms" to modern weaponry?

I'll tell you how: you're interpreting the amendment to fit your own bias. I have a different bias. It's all subject to interpretation. Therefore it's not unreasonable to discuss what "well-regulated" means as well. Restrictions and whatnot.


Founding fathers had no cars or computers. Government should be able to search those anytime.

/This is how tards like harry think
 
2013-01-27 01:28:12 AM  

Harry Knutz: Oh wait. That's your argument. Militias = private citizens. I get it now.


Wait. Are you saying the militia = the military? Because, if you are, that throws a completely different wrinkle into play. If the militia is the military, then any and everybody who is restricted from bearing arms is ineligible from participating in the militia, by definition. Thank you! You've just exempted a whole lot of people from the Draft!
 
2013-01-27 01:29:00 AM  

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

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

New York City very nearly is. Our violent crime per capita rate is lower than almost anywhere else, and our overall crime rate is incredibly low. New York City saw the fewest homicides in 50 years despite population growth. This isn't the 1980s.


maybe it's the restriction on soda sizes. not having to burn off all that excess sugar and caffeine.
 
2013-01-27 01:30:07 AM  

TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: You're making this too easy, buddy.

Do you have a point? The 2nd Amendment exists so we can own guns.

I thought you said it says "BEAR ARMS." Guns are arms, yes. But that's not what the Second Amendment says. Stop reading things into it that aren't there.

Oh wait. That's your argument. Militias = private citizens. I get it now.

You might be the dumbest guy on Fark. What's your damn point because right now it appears your going through a lot of trouble setting it up when we all figured out you want to ban guns or drastically alter the constitution.

You're adorable. Do you keep pictures of your guns on your iphone to show the relatives at Christmas?

I don't own guns and what does that to do with anything? You just going to troll now?


Wait. You don't own guns? A bunch of folks in here don't think you have the right to comment on the issue, then. I think you should respect their opinions on the matter.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:03 AM  

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: doglover: Harry Knutz: And what right is the Second Amendment affirming? The right to self-defense? The right to musket ownership? The right to what?

To allow the people of the United States to have and use weapons.

Not toys, not curios, not scale models, but weapons. It's explicitly stated.

Arms in the 18th century were very different from the arms of today. Is the Constitution an evolving document or not?

sure. just as it protected muskets and rifles of the time, it protects our arms today, and will protect future weapons-40w phased plasma rifles, phaser rifles, disruptors, etc.

So I see you agree that the Constitution is a living document. Subject to reintepretation, if you will. Thus you'd be okay if a future Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment is limited to one gun per person with ammunition quotas, right?

How did you get to this conclusion? The 2A says "arms", not "muskets" or "weapons of the late 18th century" or anything like that. It says arms.There is no reinterpretation needed for arms to mean... arms.

Arms at the time the Constitution was written were very different from the arms of today. How do you know that the Framers would be alright with extending the right to "bear arms" to modern weaponry?

I'll tell you how: you're interpreting the amendment to fit your own bias. I have a different bias. It's all subject to interpretation. Therefore it's not unreasonable to discuss what "well-regulated" means as well. Restrictions and whatnot.

Founding fathers had no cars or computers. Government should be able to search those anytime.

/This is how tards like harry think


I didn't know you were a mind reader! How exciting! What number am I thinking of?
 
2013-01-27 01:31:37 AM  

Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: Oh wait. That's your argument. Militias = private citizens. I get it now.

Are you denying that?

I think militias = militias. I think if the Framers meant individuals they would have said individuals.



"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I guess this is the point where you say that "people" only refers to individuals who were around during the writing of the constitution, so with genetic drift and immigration from a wider variety of countries, only a handful of families still count as people under the definitions used at the time.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:38 AM  

violentsalvation: justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.

You mean you can't refute the quotes listed.


No, not remotely. Half of them don't even support the argument. I'm certain the other half are out of context

I'm not really inclined to go look them all up considering they come from a dishonest shill, so I'm certain of their invalidity to begin with.
 
2013-01-27 01:33:30 AM  

justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.

You mean you can't refute the quotes listed.

No, not remotely. Half of them don't even support the argument. I'm certain the other half are out of context

I'm not really inclined to go look them all up considering they come from a dishonest shill, so I'm certain of their invalidity to begin with.

None of those quotes affirms my assumptions and beliefs, so I'll ignore them

Yes, we know.
 
2013-01-27 01:34:52 AM  

ElBarto79: I myself am a gun owner, that said it doesn't matter if you know about guns or not, gun crime affects us all. Should we allow only drug users to make drug laws?


Apples and orangutans. There's a difference between the two.
 
2013-01-27 01:35:15 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Harry Knutz: Arms in the 18th century were very different from the arms of today. Is the Constitution an evolving document or not?

Abortion is a constitutional right. Shall we also limit that to an 18th century technological level? Shall we limit the press to an 18th century printing press with hand-set type?


Don't try to derail the train. Abortion is not a constitutional right.  Roe v. Wade was interpreted as an invasion of right to privacy protected under the First Amendment, which is extremely reaching.  The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  The 'fringe' is the outermost portion of an object, so a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment says that every single firearm restriction is unconstitutional.

I agree that abortion should be available and legal, so don't come with torches.  But it ain't in the Constitution.  The right to keep and bear military-class arms is.
 
2013-01-27 01:36:47 AM  

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: You're making this too easy, buddy.

Do you have a point? The 2nd Amendment exists so we can own guns.

I thought you said it says "BEAR ARMS." Guns are arms, yes. But that's not what the Second Amendment says. Stop reading things into it that aren't there.

Oh wait. That's your argument. Militias = private citizens. I get it now.

You might be the dumbest guy on Fark. What's your damn point because right now it appears your going through a lot of trouble setting it up when we all figured out you want to ban guns or drastically alter the constitution.

You're adorable. Do you keep pictures of your guns on your iphone to show the relatives at Christmas?

I don't own guns and what does that to do with anything? You just going to troll now?

Wait. You don't own guns? A bunch of folks in here don't think you have the right to comment on the issue, then. I think you should respect their opinions on the matter.


That opinion would still be way less retarded than the ignorant rabble coming from you.
 
2013-01-27 01:40:56 AM  

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


I see what you did there.
 
2013-01-27 01:42:28 AM  

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

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.


When you point fingers 3 point back at you.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:15 AM  

syrynxx: The right to keep and bear military-class arms is.


I agree with this, most likely with usage restrictions on explosives and things that are indiscriminate in nature, like the nukes that Harry Knutz mentioned earlier. I believe the goal was for citizens to be at parity with a modern solider.
 
2013-01-27 01:47:48 AM  

kptchris: You are required by law to register your AUTOMOBILE. Which of course can kill someone, or be used as law abiding transportation.

You are now required by law to register your GOD DAMN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HAS NO OTHER INTENDED PURPOSE THAN A WEAPON OS MASS SLAUGHTER.

Deal with it you pussies. Grow up.


Nice argument you've got there. Sorry bout your small penis.
 
2013-01-27 01:53:29 AM  

Harry Knutz: I'll tell you how: you're interpreting the amendment to fit your own bias. I have a different bias. It's all subject to interpretation. Therefore it's not unreasonable to discuss what "well-regulated" means as well. Restrictions and whatnot.


The right to keep and bears arms is a right of the people, not militias. The clause about militias is completely irrelevant to the right, other than to provide context and justification as to why the Right shall not be infringed. As an exercise, replace "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" with "I like pie" and see if the Amendment still makes sense.

hint: The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the government is not allowed to do. Can you guess which part of the Second Amendment is the right part?
 
2013-01-27 02:01:30 AM  

Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: doglover: Harry Knutz: And what right is the Second Amendment affirming? The right to self-defense? The right to musket ownership? The right to what?

To allow the people of the United States to have and use weapons.

Not toys, not curios, not scale models, but weapons. It's explicitly stated.

Arms in the 18th century were very different from the arms of today. Is the Constitution an evolving document or not?

sure. just as it protected muskets and rifles of the time, it protects our arms today, and will protect future weapons-40w phased plasma rifles, phaser rifles, disruptors, etc.

So I see you agree that the Constitution is a living document. Subject to reintepretation, if you will. Thus you'd be okay if a future Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment is limited to one gun per person with ammunition quotas, right?

How did you get to this conclusion? The 2A says "arms", not "muskets" or "weapons of the late 18th century" or anything like that. It says arms.There is no reinterpretation needed for arms to mean... arms.

Arms at the time the Constitution was written were very different from the arms of today. How do you know that the Framers would be alright with extending the right to "bear arms" to modern weaponry?

I'll tell you how: you're interpreting the amendment to fit your own bias. I have a different bias. It's all subject to interpretation. Therefore it's not unreasonable to discuss what "well-regulated" means as well. Restrictions and whatnot.


You might try reading a book on the subject sometime. Seriously. One side of the argument is backed by the discussions among the authors of the constitution, which make it pretty clear what they were trying to do. Then there's you desperately grasping at straws trying to twist it into your preferred meaning.

They
 
2013-01-27 02:02:05 AM  

justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.

You mean you can't refute the quotes listed.

No, not remotely. Half of them don't even support the argument. I'm certain the other half are out of context

I'm not really inclined to go look them all up considering they come from a dishonest shill, so I'm certain of their invalidity to begin with.


Oh. Alrighty then. Your certainties and presumptions fit your interpretation and you can't be bothered to explore deeper. That's OK, I don't expect anyone to read all those writings in the course of a thread and come back in time for the discussion. Seriously, fark that, I agree.

But I really don't know why new constitutional interpretations come up at this point, with a couple hundred years precedence of individual gun ownership and numerous decisions from the SCROTUM. I know you were just referencing Heller, so I know you don't ignore them, and I'm not giving you shiat personally on this, I'm not even accusing your of it. I just see these reinterpretations in every thread that ignore every other detail, and I just don't get it.
 
2013-01-27 02:03:25 AM  

pyrotek85: syrynxx: The right to keep and bear military-class arms is.

I agree with this, most likely with usage restrictions on explosives and things that are indiscriminate in nature, like the nukes that Harry Knutz mentioned earlier. I believe the goal was for citizens to be at parity with a modern solider.


Considering the Greek influence on America's government, that's a reasonable assumption.

Back in Athens, the hoplites had to buy their own gear. Poor people couldn't afford it and wound up being attendants.

Knights had to buy their own horses and gear, too. That's why so many aristocrats were knights. Again the poor were less well equipped and trained.

The idea that the Constitution is to level the playing field so that any citizen with enough coin could arm himself to be on par with any soldier is not only constitutional, but historically how millitaries are run. In times of great need, when the state calls on the militia, they would have had no need to arm them or train them to use said arms.
 
2013-01-27 02:03:59 AM  

Xcott: But seriously, I think you're missing the point. I'm not equating sirens with guns, I'm just explaining to this dude why SWAT teams get to have serious weaponry---for the same reason firemen get to have a serious ride, because they need it for their job.


If SWAT doesn't get magically teleported when I call the police, then I want the same equipment they use until they get here.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:07 AM  

violentsalvation: justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.

You mean you can't refute the quotes listed.

No, not remotely. Half of them don't even support the argument. I'm certain the other half are out of context

I'm not really inclined to go look them all up considering they come from a dishonest shill, so I'm certain of their invalidity to begin with.

Oh. Alrighty then. Your certainties and presumptions fit your interpretation and you can't be bothered to explore deeper. That's OK, I don't expect anyone to read all those writings in the course of a thread and come back in time for the discussion. Seriously, fark that, I agree.

But I really don't know why new constitutional interpretations come up at this point, with a couple hundred years precedence of individual gun ownership and numerous decisions from the SCROTUM. I know you were just referencing Heller, so I know you don't ignore them, and I'm not giving you shiat personally on this, I'm not even accusing your of it. I just see these reinterpretations in every thread that ignore every other detail, and I just don't get it.


That's ok, I don't expect you to actually read them in full in their context either. Hell, you can't even read the half of them that openly don't support your view, so clearly you aren't going to explore deeper on the ones you mistakenly think do. Then the entire premise of your belief system would crumble.

I already dismantled Frank N whatever's quote. You can see in the other quotes miltias are directly listed. The only interpretations to individuals are in reference to belonging to a miltia, even in the quotes listed.

So forgive me if I don't humor your dishonest willful ignorance.
 
2013-01-27 02:18:32 AM  

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: It's a thought experiment. Stupid realities are totally kosher for thought experiments. They're meant to instigate discussion.

I answered it, I discussed it, stop biatching that I think this experiment you made up is full of stupid realities.

I think extended magazines and people who insist they're necessary are stupid. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm merely pointing out what a thought experiment is intended to do. Its reason for existing, if you will. Much like guns. Which solely exist to kill things.


http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74164281/

The attackers left, but a half-hour later a crowd of as many as 20 people stood on the lawn yelling threats and epithets. A beer bottle crashed through the living room window as the youngsters watched in horror.
 
2013-01-27 02:26:52 AM  
http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe- act


•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs' Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.
 
2013-01-27 02:40:23 AM  

justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.

You mean you can't refute the quotes listed.

No, not remotely. Half of them don't even support the argument. I'm certain the other half are out of context

I'm not really inclined to go look them all up considering they come from a dishonest shill, so I'm certain of their invalidity to begin with.

Oh. Alrighty then. Your certainties and presumptions fit your interpretation and you can't be bothered to explore deeper. That's OK, I don't expect anyone to read all those writings in the course of a thread and come back in time for the discussion. Seriously, fark that, I agree.

But I really don't know why new constitutional interpretations come up at this point, with a couple hundred years precedence of individual gun ownership and numerous decisions from the SCROTUM. I know you were just referencing Heller, so I know you don't ignore them, and I'm not giving you shiat personally on this, I'm not even accusing your of it. I just see these reinterpretations in every thread that ignore every other detail, and I just don't get it.

That's ok, I don't expect you to actually read them in full in their context either. Hell, you can't even read the half of them that openly don't support your view, so clearly you aren't going to explore deeper on the ones you mistakenly think do. Then the entire premise of your belief system would crumble.

I already dismantled Frank N whatever's quote. You can see in the other quotes miltias are directly listed. The only interpretations to individuals are in reference to belonging to a miltia, even in the quotes listed.

So forgive me if I don't humor your dishonest willful ignorance.


I've read them. I know some are misused out of context, but what talking points you think you've dismantled you've only done through cherry picking what works for you. And in the end I guess you do ignore a couple hundred years precedence of individuals owning firearms and the decisions from the Supremes. Except you reference Heller for when the argument shifts that way, like you suddenly acknowledge it. That's sad, I mean, you can just come out and say you want to amend the Constitution. And you know what? You'd get my respect for your honesty.
 
2013-01-27 02:43:46 AM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

In what way are voting and unrestricted movement not rights?

justtray: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

Please, do elaborate.

If I'm wrong tell me. I don't remember the right to vote in the Constitution. If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected so i don't make the same mistake again.

I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution, but you seem to be wanting to assert that particular right when it comes to your firearms.


Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Go learn yourself something.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:12 AM  

Xcott: Securitywyrm: Xcott: SWAT teams get all sorts of weaponry because of the nature of their job. Unless you and your buddies are planning on going after a few street gangs and meth labs, it's hard to justify needing the same degree of firepower.

1. The military is not law enforcement.
2. So why should SWAT be allowed to be better armed than a law abiding citizen? Are you saying that a police officer has more right to life than you or I?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I answered that question and you quoted the answer in your response: SWAT teams get all sorts of weaponry because of the nature of their job. It doesn't mean that they have more "right to life," it means that they face down armed assailants as part of their job.

Likewise, you don't get to drive around in a fire truck, turning on the siren and running red lights. Firemen do. Not because they have more rights, but because that truck is part of their job.


Except that protecting you is NOT one of the jobs of the police. Supreme court already ruled on it.
 
2013-01-27 03:04:16 AM  

Zeke The Octopus: kptchris: You are required by law to register your AUTOMOBILE. Which of course can kill someone, or be used as law abiding transportation.

You are now required by law to register your GOD DAMN ASSAULT RIFLE THAT HAS NO OTHER INTENDED PURPOSE THAN A WEAPON OS MASS SLAUGHTER.

Deal with it you pussies. Grow up.

Nice argument you've got there. Sorry bout your small penis.


The registration of automobiles is to ensure compliance with the laws required to bring the vehicle onto public roads. You don't have to register it if you don't bring it onto public roads.
And please... could you define 'assault rifle' for us? Because I don't think that term means what you think it means.

How about this for a reasonable compromise
"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding to keep and bear arms beyond that which is restricted to law enforcement." There you go, a reasonable adaptive standard. If the police aren't allowed to have an 'assault rifle' then you aren't either. An individual in law enforcement has no greater LEGAL authority to use deadly force protect his or her life than any other law-abiding citizen, so why should they have superior capacity to do so?
 
2013-01-27 03:04:30 AM  
Two things:

1. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". We need to quit using marketing terms when discussing serious matters. There is semi-automatic, automatic, and select-fire weapons.

2, "Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
 
2013-01-27 03:17:28 AM  

Securitywyrm: How about this for a reasonable compromise
"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding to keep and bear arms beyond that which is restricted to law enforcement." There you go, a reasonable adaptive standard. If the police aren't allowed to have an 'assault rifle' then you aren't either. An individual in law enforcement has no greater LEGAL authority to use deadly force protect his or her life than any other law-abiding citizen, so why should they have superior capacity to do so?


they'll just worm around it by creating a special class of officers with one round in their shirt pockets as the basis of comparison. The Barney Fife Corps.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:23 AM  

syrynxx: This is an exact parallel of leftist wingnuts who don't own guns thinking that anyone who owns a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is a serial killer in waiting.


Well, except it's not an exact parallel, at least unless you settle the matter of whether a fetus is a person or not. Old men talking about women's reproductive rights is dealing with something that in no way (except maybe existentially- and boy does it seem to do that!) threatens them. If gun owners only shot each other, your argument would have merit. The fact that non-gun-users can get caught in the crossfire means it is not an exact parallel. You could make the argument that fetuses are getting caught in the crossfire of women's reproductive rights, but you are assuming that we'd all agree on that point, which I'm sure we all won't. I assume you would at least cede the point however, that sometimes non-gun owners occasionally get shot. The exact parallel you would be looking for would be arguing that fetuses need the right to vote or that vaginas are killing 10,000 people a year in vicious attacks. (I left out the 20,000 gun suicides, but left out the cases of people who die by vagina through the results of people seeking out vaginas and getting AIDS.)

I hope you enjoy my absurd argument. It is, after all, your exact parallel. I disagree with the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and believe that a reasonable interpretation of it allows us to ban broad classes of guns, but I'd agree that as much as I'd like it to say we can ban all guns that would probably require repealing it. What bothers me most about the rabid rights views on guns is the rhetoric that insists that they have the right to take up arms to overrule the majority if the majority decides they don't get their guns (and does so in a way that the courts find Constitutional). That is the same fascist mentality that I'm sure someone has already wrongly used as 'Hitler Banned the Guns'. Hitler didn't ban the guns.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-owne r ship
 
2013-01-27 03:32:07 AM  

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


If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who treat guns as fetish items need to learn to fark. Once you can cause a women to faint with pleasure, you'll have better things to do than play with guns.
 
2013-01-27 03:34:14 AM  

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: doglover: Harry Knutz: And what right is the Second Amendment affirming? The right to self-defense? The right to musket ownership? The right to what?

To allow the people of the United States to have and use weapons.

Not toys, not curios, not scale models, but weapons. It's explicitly stated.

Arms in the 18th century were very different from the arms of today. Is the Constitution an evolving document or not?

sure. just as it protected muskets and rifles of the time, it protects our arms today, and will protect future weapons-40w phased plasma rifles, phaser rifles, disruptors, etc.

So I see you agree that the Constitution is a living document. Subject to reintepretation, if you will. Thus you'd be okay if a future Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment is limited to one gun per person with ammunition quotas, right?

How did you get to this conclusion? The 2A says "arms", not "muskets" or "weapons of the late 18th century" or anything like that. It says arms.There is no reinterpretation needed for arms to mean... arms.

Arms at the time the Constitution was written were very different from the arms of today. How do you know that the Framers would be alright with extending the right to "bear arms" to modern weaponry?

I'll tell you how: you're interpreting the amendment to fit your own bias. I have a different bias. It's all subject to interpretation. Therefore it's not unreasonable to discuss what "well-regulated" means as well. Restrictions and whatnot.

Founding fathers had no cars or computers. Government should be able to search those anytime.

/This is how tards like harry think

I didn't know you were a mind reader! How exciting! What number am I thinking of?


Any number not found in the constitution. I know what you are thinking right now though, the founding fathers didn't have telephones. Those should be able to be tapped anytime the government wants to.
 
2013-01-27 03:40:43 AM  

vpb: Amos Quito:

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

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


I am perfectly fine with two dozen dead kids per year as a price to pay for a second amendment. Hell, it's a god damned bargain.
 
2013-01-27 03:50:52 AM  

Yogimus: I am perfectly fine with two dozen dead kids per year as a price to pay for a second amendment. Hell, it's a god damned bargain.


OK. Give me a list of their names. Please limit it to children you know.

Maybe we should have a lottery where 24 children a year are sacrificed to the gun god. We can restrict it to the children of gun owners.
 
2013-01-27 04:15:45 AM  

Without Fail: Yogimus: I am perfectly fine with two dozen dead kids per year as a price to pay for a second amendment. Hell, it's a god damned bargain.

OK. Give me a list of their names. Please limit it to children you know.

Maybe we should have a lottery where 24 children a year are sacrificed to the gun god. We can restrict it to the children of gun owners.


Can we send 24 idiots like yourself in their place?
 
KIA
2013-01-27 04:59:05 AM  
You know, when a bunch of nutjobs flew jet planes into the World Trade Center, we didn't have a discussion about ending jet travel, limiting types of jets, changing features of jets or how much fuel they would carry.

When a bunch of nutjobs drove a van loaded with explosives into the World Trade Center parking garage and detonated it, we never spoke about eliminating vans or who could buy them nor about new restrictions on explosives.

When a whacko packed a moving van full of ANFO and detonated it in Oklahoma City destroying a daycare in the federal building there, nobody for a moment talked about ending rental vehicle schemes.

All of these killed men, women, children, yet nobody attributed them to anything other than insane people.

The media and masses have the ability to distinguish between crazy, stupid or terrorist people and the tools they use for their crazy, stupid or terrorist work. Maybe people here can do the same.

Maybe.
 
KIA
2013-01-27 05:12:49 AM  

justtray: Even though the UK has 4x th amount of violent crime as the US, they still have 4x lower homicide rate.


So, you're just fine with being beaten, raped and robbed and left to live as a broken shell of a human being while your government does nothing to stop the criminals. Great. Why don't you go somewhere else and do that.
 
2013-01-27 06:49:27 AM  
I'm trying to think of a way to effectively prevent a nut-job from entering a School\movie theater\hospital \ police station \ university \ Grocery store \ someones home \ Army Installation... etc etc... and systematically killing each and every human being it encounters, with guaranteed safety from encountering any form of violent resistance.

Option A: make sure that no one on the premises ,or in the immediate vicinity thereof, are armed or trained to deal with such a situation.

Option B: make sure that each and every Adult, each and every senior student, that has the decency and capacity to actually want to protect those dear tho them, are actually armed, and trained to deal with exactly what this thug is there to do.


I dono , a damn hard one to figure out... I give up...

I still think every Granny should be packing a desert-eagle in her handbag, a would-by criminal should be forced to live in perpetual mortal danger and should be fearing for it's pathetically miserable little mistake, called a life, whenever it's wondering the streets looking for it's next victim.
 
2013-01-27 07:17:41 AM  

djh0101010: I've shot tens of thousands of rounds so far in my lifetime, and I haven't killed anyone.


Yet.
 
2013-01-27 07:26:15 AM  

wee: vpb: We already know gun control works

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



Good point:

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/28/nyc_hits_record_low_murder_rate_in.p hp

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/dc-murder-rate-lowest-sinc e- 1961/

But...but...Chicago.

I don't think gun bans make that dramatic of a difference but ignoring the crime stats in NYC and DC and only focusing on the ones in Chicago because they agree with your worldview is a disingenuous argument to make.
 
2013-01-27 07:56:22 AM  
About 1,590,000 results (0.28 seconds)

Search Results

The Sandy Hook Hoax Fake Actors Exposed
 
2013-01-27 08:02:03 AM  

Wyalt Derp: djh0101010: I've shot tens of thousands of rounds so far in my lifetime, and I haven't killed anyone.

Yet.


You haven't raped anyone yet, Wyalt Derp. Yet.

You haven't killed anyone with a screwdriver over a drug deal gone south yet, Wyalt Derp. Yet.

You haven't parked your van on an old lady and then lit the van on fire to make a youtube video called "Grandma Got Run Over By a Wyalt Derp" yet, Wyalt Derp. Yet.

If you're going to assume law abiding citizens are ticking time bombs, rest assured you will reap the whirlwind of that bad choice almost instantly.

Luckily, most of America is smarter than you, so we won't devolve into a banana republic overnight. But do read a few more books, drink a little less beer, and generally think a little more before you try levy empty accusations.
 
2013-01-27 08:10:12 AM  

doglover: You haven't parked your van on an old lady and then lit the van on fire to make a youtube video called "Grandma Got Run Over By a Wyalt Derp" yet, Wyalt Derp. Yet.


You don't know shiat.
 
2013-01-27 08:14:38 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I don't think gun bans make that dramatic of a difference but ignoring the crime stats in NYC and DC and only focusing on the ones in Chicago because they agree with your worldview is a disingenuous argument to make.


It does, however show that gun bans alone don't fix problems.

Violent crime is more due to complex social, cultural and economic problems than availability of firearms.

The weapons are more the tinder and heat. . .the guns are the spark. Lots of tinder, just takes a little spark to set it off. No spark and it's got to get very hot to ignite on its own. Not a lot of tinder, going to take a lot of sparks to get it going.

In Wyoming, 59.7% of the population has a gun (the rate is over 50% in 9 states), and in the home of Fark, Kentucky, it's 47.7%. Link

Ownership rate in New York State? 18%
Ownership rate in Illinois? 20.2% (and that's for the state, lumping rural gun owners with urban Chicago)

With around 3 out of every 5 people in Wyoming owning guns, you'd think it would be the most violent state in America if guns were responsible for murder and crime.

Nope, the US Census Bureau puts Wyoming as 43 in violent crime, the 7th most peaceful state in the Union.
Illinois is #13 on that list, and that's again combining the more rural parts of the state with big Chicago. Link
There isn't a very strong correlation at all between ownership rates of firearms and violent crime rates. It's almost as if big cities are going to have other problems that make people engage in violent crime, and that crime is going to happen with or without guns unless those problems are addressed, but rural areas won't have those problems and will be more peaceful even with lots of gun owners.
 
2013-01-27 08:18:34 AM  

djh0101010: I've got 12 years as an NREMT licensed EMT. People like you sadden me and cheapen and insult the many hours of work I spent to achieve this license. While I've known for years that sometimes NREMT certified people are sometimes stupid, it saddens me every time I find one of us like you.


Oh, wow. An NREMT "Licensed" EMT? Bullshiat. There are no "NREMT Licenses". The NREMT just certifies that you can pass their test. States issue licenses. What state are you licensed in?

That's nice. You're clearly the greatest Martyr since Anne Frank.

djh0101010: So, to be clear, BronyMedic, it's obvious to the world that you're a big-city democrat union droid. How about you drop that baggage and talk about what can actually make our patients safer? It offends me, deeply, when people like you pretend that you care about our EMS patients, but, instead, really only care about your failed and unworkable political point of view.


Well, I have a feeling they'd be far safer when people who pretend to care about them like you would never touch them.

But that's beside the point.

In reality, I've never been a member of a union. I'm actually pretty Anti-Fire and EMS union because of the amount of bullshiat they promote. But, thanks again for assuming an awful lot.
 
2013-01-27 08:21:54 AM  

muck4doo: Can we send 24 idiots like yourself in their place?


I already served my 4 years in the military.
Chickenhawks are always happy to have someone elses children die for their benefit.

Would you be prepared to have 24 children a year that you knew die for your right to own a gun?
If not, why are you so farking ready to risk my childs life?
 
2013-01-27 08:35:00 AM  

Silverstaff: does, however show that gun bans alone don't fix problems.

Violent crime is more due to complex social, cultural and economic problems than availability of firearms.


No argument here.

But as NYC and DC show, just having a gun ban doesn't make a city more vulnerable to crime either.
 
2013-01-27 08:38:41 AM  

doglover: drink a little less beer


Speak for yourself!

The difference is, even kneewalking drunk we could out argue these simpleton's and trolls. The guy you quoted, his name is even akin to le trole.

While the following guy's name isn't bad, it's evident in his posts he's unable to actually credit factual recorded history.

justtray: I'm not really going to humor all the quotes listed here. Half of them are missing important segments, and the other half specifically refer to miltias in them.

You have to be pretty damn dishonest to keep using them and willfully ignoring those components when you read them.

The guy bolding quotes from Silly Jesus (a retarded troll I've had on ignore for more than 6 months) is the most willfully ignorant, frankly. Read what you bolded dude.


A couple select quotes

omeganuepsilon: "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason


omeganuepsilon: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison



If you want to contest the applicability of those quotes, it's your duty to reference the context that makes them unfit. Not simply say "you can't use that" as if you're some spoiled child on a playground making up the rules as he goes along as long as they help him win.

It is for this, that you are an intellectual child, that people ignore and mock you. If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to reply to the points that don't mesh with your agenda, not stick your head in the sand and pull ad hominems out of your anus just because.
 
2013-01-27 08:40:01 AM  

Wyalt Derp: doglover: You haven't parked your van on an old lady and then lit the van on fire to make a youtube video called "Grandma Got Run Over By a Wyalt Derp" yet, Wyalt Derp. Yet.

You don't know shiat.


They must've pulled it then. I looked all over youtube.... joking aside, the point is EVERYONE is potentially going to commit a crime tomorrow. It's highly illogical to assume everyone with a gun is going to potentially shoot you, though, as the estimated number of legal firearms in the US is 300,000,000. That's almost one per person. There's less than even 300,000 intentional shootings. Thus, guns are 99% safe. That's a much better average than cars and bicycles.
 
2013-01-27 08:48:12 AM  

Without Fail: muck4doo: Can we send 24 idiots like yourself in their place?

I already served my 4 years in the military.
Chickenhawks are always happy to have someone elses children die for their benefit.

Would you be prepared to have 24 children a year that you knew die for your right to own a gun?
If not, why are you so farking ready to risk my childs life?


Another moron reaching high to become an idiot.

We're not risking individuals. It is in fact a risk to be alive at all.

That some nutjob abuses a given right to victimize others is collateral damage. You cannot really through any means really prevent that from happening, unless you're going to restrict millions of innocent people's rights, and historically that has a way of becoming a victimization of those millions with no/limited rights.

If you can't see that you need to take a few more remedial civics courses.
 
Displayed 50 of 1299 comments

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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