Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   State of NY to legal firearms owners, "Register your weapons, it's the law." Legal firearms owners to the State of NY, "Guns? I don't own any guns, and you can't prove it so go fark yourselves"   (nypost.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17872 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (3 years 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 | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2013-01-27 08:52:41 AM  

omeganuepsilon: That some nutjob abuses a given right, in order to victimize others, is collateral damage.


There, that's somewhat better.
 
2013-01-27 08:57:44 AM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


NY is way different than it used to be. Now you can bring your family to Times square and not worry about getting mugged by any of the junkies. There are hardly any graffiti tagged train cars either. It could be something as simple as actually getting criminals off the street. Because tougher gun laws didn't clean up the train cars.
 
2013-01-27 09:07:44 AM  

omeganuepsilon: justtray: See above guy saying, "they said militia, and they meant for everyone to be in a militia, so therefore they meant for everyone to have guns." Which is clearly not necessarily true

*Cribbed from Silly Jesus in another similar thread*
A thread you were in, by the way.

Below I emboldened and otherwise highlighted some more James Madison quotes, and some other choice bits, and deleted some others for the sake of room.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the ...



Very nice selection of quotes.

Thanks for posting.
 
2013-01-27 09:09:12 AM  

GAT_00: Amos Quito: Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name, DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.


violentsalvation: The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation.

Seriously, bullshiat.  And in the event your weapons are stolen, the ability to report they were stolen and establish that any following activities committed by someone using them is not your fault is a positive.

xynix: What legitimate reason is there TO register?

See above for one.



I keep a list of my firearms for the purposes of insurance and reporting them in the event of theft. If they are stolen, I can walk right to the police and say "HI, these firearms were stolen, this is the description, and these are the serial numbers." That allows the police to then record the firearms as stolen, and flag those serial numbers for searching through the list of any firearms they discover later on.

A pre-identification of the serial numbers to the government does not prevent the above from happening, and it is not necessary for the above to occur. Because registration is not necessary to achieve that goal, then using that as an example of a benefit is faulty logic. It's a typical salesman tactic "This model car comes with an advanced crash safety system called 'seat belts', and that's why you should buy this car."

You can't claim that it provides a benefit if enacted if the benefit is already realized.
 
2013-01-27 09:12:49 AM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


As Chicago shows, a gun ban doesn't make a city any safer either.

It shows that a gun ban doesn't really impact crime in either direction. It can sound like it would on the surface, less guns mean less shooting, right? It sounds good and it's a quick way for politicians to look like they are doing something without addressing the real economic, social and cultural problems that lead to violent crime.

Violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991, it was dropping slowly before the 1994 AWB, and it kept dropping after it expired in 2004. It's as if the assault weapons ban didn't have a substantial impact on the crime rate in the US. Link

Mass shootings like Aurora and Sandy Hook are outliers in a well established downward trend in the overall violent crime rate. Why should we make major national policies based on exception cases instead of the general trend?

If gun control isn't meaningfully about reducing crime, what's the point? It is just hatred of guns? It is fear of guns? Is it blind trust in police authority to protect people? It is illogical and irrational to further restrict ownership of a class of objects that have well defined legal uses (hunting, target practice, self defense) when the restriction would serve no apparent purpose of improving public order or safety and would only satisfy an illogical fear or hatred of the item in question.
 
2013-01-27 09:15:41 AM  

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: 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.

NY is way different than it used to be. Now you can bring your family to Times square and not worry about getting mugged by any of the junkies. There are hardly any graffiti tagged train cars either. It could be something as simple as actually getting criminals off the street. Because tougher gun laws didn't clean up the train cars.


That sounds... Too simple.
It's the Rube Goldberg like nature of assault weapons bans that gives them their charm.
 
2013-01-27 09:15:51 AM  

Amos Quito: Very nice selection of quotes.

Thanks for posting.


I made a similar post in the past, as have others, and that was the first to come up on google with actual relevancy, so I stopped looking for mine when that had several entries talking about exactly what the thread has devolved into.

What bugs me is that these same people have seen them before, maybe even replied in those threads and keep denying that they exist. My ignore(or alternatively, favorite w/ a negative note) list has grown in this thread. I can understand ignorance and will help put information on the table, but not of the demonstrably willful variety. That later variety makes providing information futile.
 
2013-01-27 09:16:34 AM  

doglover: They must've pulled it then. I looked all over youtube


Sonsofbiatches! Well, I've got another grandma and I can easily get a van.
 
2013-01-27 09:23:00 AM  

Harry Knutz: 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?


That's the great part about the Constitution. You don't need to know, or care if they would be 'alright' with it. That's for us to determine. We have the ability to update our Constitution with the times by the legal process of altering what it says by making amendments to it.

Ignoring the Constitution, even if convenient and done with the best of intentions, delegitimizes the very government and is such a dangerous precedent to establish that it should terrify anyone with even marginal critical thinking capability. The changing times is the reason that the Constitution was designed to be changed, the reason that it is hard to change is to ensure that the governed have the time to properly evaluate the consequences of the proposed change.
 
2013-01-27 09:26:19 AM  

JustFarkinAround: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: jehovahs witness protection: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: LOL...17 rounds in the Glock 17.
I have several 32 round Glock mags too, But they're meant for a plinker toy I have.

In NY the current allowed is 10. I have a 9mm with a 10 round clip, but I'm pretty sure there are some counties that only allow 3 hunting.

Oh,,,that's not a rifle. It's my hand gun. Same magazines also fit a folding rifle.

FTFM

Um...I am not kidding when I say this...In my part of NY some people hunt with hand guns. I'm not even sure if it's legal, but they do it. Anyway, hand gun or not, the current in NY state is 10 in a magazine, "civilian" rifle/hand gun.

That sucks when you're target shooting.
Would my 15 shot semi-auto .22 rifle be illegal?

/staying out of NY

I have a semi-auto .22, yes it would be legal. That was my point with my post. You can still own these things under the new SAFE act, you just can't load more than 7, even if it's a larger magazine. What is that supposed to do? Hubby and I had a discussion about the 9mm and the .22. I guess they have to have a "military" style something, (like a high powered scope, etc.), to be considered "bad" under the act.

@take_flight - you are very misinformed about the SAFE act: (1) in their haste to do 'good' - they didnt exclude .22 weapons or mags (2) you have 1 year to sell your high cap mags out of state

In a nutshell, you are farked!


Actually, I am not misinformed, my dad is actually a judge in NY and is very aware of the new laws. The way it has been being reported is confusing at best. First of all, there are no legally personally owned high capacity magazines in NY over 10. It is very clearly stated that the law has changed from a 10 round magazine to a 7, but if you have the 10 round magazine before April 15 th, which my 9mm does, you must only load 7. Also, it has changed from two "add-ons" to one for it to qualify. For example, a pistol style grip or high powered scope, which my 9mm has none...not even a scope, and the .22 is "aged out", and the scope can easily be removed. No pistol style grip or modifications on either. You must note, however, that I do not live in NYC...their gun laws are much different from the rest of the state, and I live in one of the counties that have more lax laws now.

Anyway, although the 15 round clip for the .22 would be not be legal here today, you can still own the gun, and as of today you can still purchase a 10 round magazine. After April 15 however, you can only load 7 rounds.
 
2013-01-27 09:54:45 AM  

take_flight: JustFarkinAround: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: jehovahs witness protection: take_flight: jehovahs witness protection: LOL...17 rounds in the Glock 17.
I have several 32 round Glock mags too, But they're meant for a plinker toy I have.

In NY the current allowed is 10. I have a 9mm with a 10 round clip, but I'm pretty sure there are some counties that only allow 3 hunting.

Oh,,,that's not a rifle. It's my hand gun. Same magazines also fit a folding rifle.

FTFM

Um...I am not kidding when I say this...In my part of NY some people hunt with hand guns. I'm not even sure if it's legal, but they do it. Anyway, hand gun or not, the current in NY state is 10 in a magazine, "civilian" rifle/hand gun.

That sucks when you're target shooting.
Would my 15 shot semi-auto .22 rifle be illegal?

/staying out of NY

I have a semi-auto .22, yes it would be legal. That was my point with my post. You can still own these things under the new SAFE act, you just can't load more than 7, even if it's a larger magazine. What is that supposed to do? Hubby and I had a discussion about the 9mm and the .22. I guess they have to have a "military" style something, (like a high powered scope, etc.), to be considered "bad" under the act.

@take_flight - you are very misinformed about the SAFE act: (1) in their haste to do 'good' - they didnt exclude .22 weapons or mags (2) you have 1 year to sell your high cap mags out of state

In a nutshell, you are farked!

Actually, I am not misinformed, my dad is actually a judge in NY and is very aware of the new laws. The way it has been being reported is confusing at best. First of all, there are no legally personally owned high capacity magazines in NY over 10. It is very clearly stated that the law has changed from a 10 round magazine to a 7, but if you have the 10 round magazine before April 15 th, which my 9mm does, you must only load 7. Also, it has changed from two "add-ons" to one for it to qu ...


I also forgot to mention that if you do own an assault style weapon as defined by the new SAFE act, you are still allowed to own it, but you must register your ownership with the police by April 15, 2014...the forms will be available April 15, 2013.

It's also worth mentioning that any "banned", (and I use that term loosely), magazines can still be owned but they must be modified to accept only 7 rounds, and that this all may possibly be changed before the enact date because even the NY Sheriff's Association doesn't agree with it as written. The Sheriff's Associations stance is that the new SAFE act will only effect legal gun owners and not do much to change gun violence.
 
2013-01-27 10:13:20 AM  

kim jong-un: The changing times is the reason that the Constitution was designed to be changed, the reason that it is hard to change is to ensure that the governed have the time to properly evaluate the consequences of the proposed change.


That's half the reason right there that gun owners are so pissed off in NY. They rushed through that law at light speed in the middle of the night without time for public input or review. Don't we get upset when they pull that trick to vote themselves pay raises and other nonsense? The very fact that they're trying to avoid the public and meet while people are asleep should be a red flag that something isn't right, and that maybe they really don't have the people's best interests in mind. Heck, even if you agree with the law, it should worry you that they're willing to go about it that way, that should scare anyone.
 
2013-01-27 10:14:04 AM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


This just in! SCOTUS forced DC to throw out their defacto ban a few years back. So, you know, the fact that citizens in DC can protect themselves with firearms against those who would illegally use them to do them harm might have a bit of an effect on that. Also, DC and NYC still have some of the highest murder rates per capita in the US, so no, strict gun control ISN'T working there.
 
2013-01-27 10:31:06 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?


Registration would not have prevented Sandy Hook, therefore it is not actually doing anything about it.
 
2013-01-27 10:33:27 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty round magazine
Link to article

So, one half-full(not over half-full), likely swapped when entering or exiting a room.
In no way refutes the notion that the victim's odds of survival might have better with lower cap mags.



Smaller magazines would have added a second or two delay. The same people would have died, just a couple seconds later.
 
2013-01-27 10:42:49 AM  

Harry Knutz: pedrop357, omeganuepsilon, et al

Stop dicking around. Answer.


Since that's not consistent with their statements on the topic, in the Federalist Papers and other sources, it's a meaningless question. What would you say to Ghandi if he walked in the door, took a big bite of a hamburger, and shot your dog?
 
2013-01-27 10:52:51 AM  

Harry Knutz: I would say, "Ah! So now we know with certainty what you meant." And then I'd call my Senator and start pushing for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

/I would also wonder about the time machine, just so you know



You don't NEED a mythical time machine, you just need to read the Federalist Papers, where the founding fathers already told you what they meant. You are familiar with these, I assume, if you claim to have understanding of the constitution and the context around it, right? You should go read that, it won't actually take long. Should be easy to find on the Interwebs.

Oh, and it will show you that you're completely full of shiat, by the way. Just so you know. But you are pretending to speak for them, and you're lying about what they themselves said on the topic. And then you ask why people don't take you seriously, and you get pissy that people don't "just answer the question"? Wow, dude.

Go a read a book.
 
2013-01-27 10:59:47 AM  

djh0101010: Harry Knutz: I would say, "Ah! So now we know with certainty what you meant." And then I'd call my Senator and start pushing for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

/I would also wonder about the time machine, just so you know


You don't NEED a mythical time machine, you just need to read the Federalist Papers, where the founding fathers already told you what they meant. You are familiar with these, I assume, if you claim to have understanding of the constitution and the context around it, right? You should go read that, it won't actually take long. Should be easy to find on the Interwebs.

Oh, and it will show you that you're completely full of shiat, by the way. Just so you know. But you are pretending to speak for them, and you're lying about what they themselves said on the topic. And then you ask why people don't take you seriously, and you get pissy that people don't "just answer the question"? Wow, dude.

Go a read a book.


Eh he's just trolling. I played along and answered his questions, but he never responded back. I wonder why?
 
2013-01-27 11:01:48 AM  
I am also against requiring background checks for private sales. Just like registration is a necessary component of confiscation, checks on private sales are a necessary component of registration. In any case, even if the gun control advocates get their way with private sales, there is still nothing stopping 2 like-minded individuals from ignoring the law. so suck it, biatches.
 
2013-01-27 11:03:38 AM  

TheJoe03: So what about the people shouting tyranny during Bush?


They were also retards. They confused "tyranny" with losing an election.

Actually, check that. A lot of that shouting of "tyranny" isn't just spontaneous derp, it's actually driven by a media apparatus that makes money by scaring you into thinking the world is about to end. This is why some subset of people always act like Americans are about to be put into camps.

There is, however a huge difference between hippie derp and wingnut derp. When hippies go derp, they end up organizing peace marches with puppet theater about freeing Mumia. When wingnuts go derp, they stockpile weapons. Sometimes, like in the early 90s, they start drilling in the woods and spreading stories about UN FEMA ZOG conspiracies.

This eventually ends with a horrible tragedy, even though everyone involved can swear up and down that they are responsible and law-abiding. It's not you, it's raw numbers: the bigger the trend, the greater the chance that someone will ruin it for everyone. Sometimes it's because the growing trend picks up a few real fanatics or nutbags, who then blow up a federal building when you just wanted to pretend drill against the pretend antichrist. Sometimes it's because you get a bunch of morans who leave their guns on the coffee table despite having toddlers. Eventually you get enough of the kind of people who should never pick up a gun. And sometimes you just have random chance, where some responsible gun owner just turns out to have a schizo or a psychopath for a kid.
 
2013-01-27 11:04:35 AM  

LavenderWolf: al's hat: 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?

Little bit different. Anybody with a chemistry set can produce street drugs. You aren't going to make Viagra in your basement, but you can make meth, speed, LSD, crack, krokodil, etc.

Guns are harder to manufacture than street drugs. You might be able to make a pop gun, maybe even something with multiple shots, but you aren't going to make an MP5 out of raw materials.

You literally could not have chosen a worse comparison.


I can make a machine gun in my basement out of off the shelf hardware components. It won't be pretty, but it will sling lead downrange.
 
2013-01-27 11:04:47 AM  

manimal2878: 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?

Registration would not have prevented Sandy Hook, therefore it is not actually doing anything about it.


Doesn't CT have registration?
 
2013-01-27 11:10:53 AM  

djh0101010: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty round magazine
Link to article

So, one half-full(not over half-full), likely swapped when entering or exiting a room.
In no way refutes the notion that the victim's odds of survival might have better with lower cap mags.

Smaller magazines would have added a second or two delay. The same people would have died, just a couple seconds later.


Well, unless someone jumped the shooter during those few seconds.

That's actually what happened in the Tuscon shooting: someone stopped the shooter as he was changing his extended magazine. We know that people rushed the shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting, although we cannot know if he would have been vulnerable when changing magazines.
 
2013-01-27 11:14:18 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


They didn't have airplanes either, but the military has an Air Force.

You also might want to look at the Constitution thing. Nope it doesn't say anything about cars or computers, but it does say "unreasonable search and seizure." And car searching was a Supreme Court decision, not a Constitutional amendment.
 
2013-01-27 11:20:49 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.


Um, they did. Right where it says "The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The framers were also very specific about who the Militia was. As you've been told several times in this very thread, with quotes and cites.

You don't like it. You don't agree with it. We get that. There's a process to get it changed, please go ahead and try. Or maybe you could, instead, focus on something helpful and effective, like putting criminals in jail longer if they misuse guns.
 
2013-01-27 11:22:12 AM  

RINO: ... it can be argued that some number of lives may have been saved if he had to stop to reload....


A. He did reload.

B. It took the police over twenty minutes to respond. He could have done the same thing with a machete, or any number of things.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:12 AM  

Harry Knutz: pedrop357: Harry Knutz: justtray: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: Frank N Stein: Harry Knutz: Here's a thought experiment for everyone who self-identifies as a defender of the Second Amendment:

The Framers of the Constitution themselves -- John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Farking Washington -- spontaneously appear today via time machine right in the middle of the Supreme Court Building and announce unambiguously that the Second Amendment only applies to militias that are organized and regulated by the federal government, specifically the executive branch, and ownership of any and all arms does not in any way apply to private citizens but rather is solely limited to the federal government to loan out to militia members for use strictly in militia-related activities.

What do you do?

This is a retarded question.

It's a thought experiment. You do have thoughts, don't you? Answer.

It's a thought experiment insomuch as you projecting what you believe the second amendment to be, despite what people like Jefferson and Adams said on the matter (in which they were pretty adamant on the citizenry owning weapons).

It doesn't deserve a serious answer.

Can you provide me some full, in context quotes to support those assertions? Because all the ones I've seen people post on facebook are incomplete bastardizations taken out of context or omitting parts that are enirely contrary to this line of thinking.

I'm conducting a thought experiment, not a forensic analysis of the actual text. This is a hypothetical. Answer.

I answered. Now, what would YOU do if they said that it meant for the PEOPLE to be as well armed as the government?

BTW, my first questions would still revolve around the design and operation of the time machine.

I would say, "Ah! So now we know with certainty what you meant." And then I'd call my Senator and start pushing for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

/I would also wonder about the time machine, just so you know


The pillar of your argument against the 2nd amendment is the founding fathers traveling back in time to change their minds? Holy shiat, I was more right than I thoughts
 
2013-01-27 11:32:11 AM  

Xcott: djh0101010: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty round magazine
Link to article

So, one half-full(not over half-full), likely swapped when entering or exiting a room.
In no way refutes the notion that the victim's odds of survival might have better with lower cap mags.

Smaller magazines would have added a second or two delay. The same people would have died, just a couple seconds later.

Well, unless someone jumped the shooter during those few seconds.

That's actually what happened in the Tuscon shooting: someone stopped the shooter as he was changing his extended magazine. We know that people rushed the shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting, although we cannot know if he would have been vulnerable when changing magazines.


It's too small an opening.
Otherwise it would be easier to argue that you could shoot someone while they change magazines, rather than make a flying tackle and wrestle the gun away from them (hoping they don't have a round in the chamber while topping off, hoping they don't have a second weapon, hoping they don't slam the buttstock in your face, etc...).
If the attacker can count and has allotted himself time to change magazines, he'll never run dry in either case.
The best cops and CCW folks can hope for is to pin him down , but an arbitrary magazine limit affects us a lot more than a madman.

He planned his attack, you didn't plan your response.
 
2013-01-27 11:32:35 AM  

Without Fail: 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.


There's that sexual preoccupation again.

Some of you anti-gun types really need help.
 
2013-01-27 11:43:29 AM  

KIA: 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.


And when a nutjob shot up a school and killed a bunch of little kids, we didn't speak about eliminating schools or regulating little kids.

But why would we? This is a silly comparison. Timothy McVeigh killed a bunch of people with explosives. He didn't kill people with a van, or with the concept of a rental company. Explosives are regulated, although there are limits to how you can regulate something attainable through chemistry.

Likewise, it wasn't the airlines that killed people on 9/11, it was hijackers who got on the planes---and now we do have stronger regulations about who can get on a plane, including no-fly lists and stiffer airplane security.

It's silly to analogize this way, because none of the things you mention are primarily designed for killing things. That's why you can kill someone with a shovel, but shovels aren't and cannot be regulated---but weapons typically are.
 
2013-01-27 11:51:57 AM  
I hope these people understand that the state is more than willing to pry their guns from their cold, dead fingers.
 
2013-01-27 11:56:26 AM  

way south: It's too small an opening.
Otherwise it would be easier to argue that you could shoot someone while they change magazines, rather than make a flying tackle and wrestle the gun away from them (hoping they don't have a round in the chamber while topping off, hoping they don't have a second weapon, hoping they don't slam the buttstock in your face, etc...).
If the attacker can count and has allotted himself time to change magazines, he'll never run dry in either case.
The best cops and CCW folks can hope for is to pin him down , but an arbitrary magazine limit affects us a lot more than a madman.

He planned his attack, you didn't plan your response.


Exactly. As I said earlier, these spree killers will carry dozens of magazines in a bag or wear MOLLE gear, but a CCW holder will likely have a single pistol and often only a single spare magazine, if that. The attacker already has every advantage, why give them more?
 
2013-01-27 11:57:18 AM  

djh0101010: Since that's not consistent with their statements on the topic, in the Federalist Papers and other sources, it's a meaningless question. What would you say to Ghandi if he walked in the door, took a big bite of a hamburger, and shot your dog?


Well, Ghandi was a legendary dick. I wouldn't put it past him.

I'm still waiting to hear what state the NREMT issued you a license in, Rescue Randy.
 
2013-01-27 11:58:46 AM  

pyrotek85: He planned his attack, you didn't plan your response.

Exactly. As I said earlier, these spree killers will carry dozens of magazines in a bag or wear MOLLE gear, but a CCW holder will likely have a single pistol and often only a single spare magazine, if that. The attacker already has every advantage, why give them more?


While it can be argued that a CCW can slow an attacker down bent on a spree killing, you also have a point here in saying that a single magazine in the hands of an untrained person forced to defend himself will not do much unless you get a lucky shot in, unless you hope you get the lucky spree killer who offs himself when confronted.
 
2013-01-27 11:59:50 AM  

LeGnome: I hope these people understand that the state is more than willing to pry their guns from their cold, dead fingers.


The state doesn't have the numbers to do that for very long. Should that come to pass, I'll gladly head to NY and help the gun owners there defend their rights.
 
2013-01-27 12:01:03 PM  
Hey look, a gun thread! It's been months since we've had one!
 
2013-01-27 12:01:44 PM  

Zeke The Octopus: 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.


Oh, well then, you win +1 internet.
 
2013-01-27 12:18:51 PM  

BronyMedic: pyrotek85: He planned his attack, you didn't plan your response.

Exactly. As I said earlier, these spree killers will carry dozens of magazines in a bag or wear MOLLE gear, but a CCW holder will likely have a single pistol and often only a single spare magazine, if that. The attacker already has every advantage, why give them more?

While it can be argued that a CCW can slow an attacker down bent on a spree killing, you also have a point here in saying that a single magazine in the hands of an untrained person forced to defend himself will not do much unless you get a lucky shot in, unless you hope you get the lucky spree killer who offs himself when confronted.


Lucky shot? Most shooting distances are between 7-10 yrds or so, you really don't need to be a marksman to handle that, even with the stress involved. I'm not knocking formal training, but the public seems to have this idea that you need an enormous amount of skill to use a handgun effectively. At least two faculty members attempted to rush Lanza when he forced his way in. If they were close enough to attempt that they were likely close enough to fire on him and would have landed a number of shots.

Why is it that spree killers and other criminals are always considered to be great shots but someone who takes the time to get a CCW and train regularly will just miss? One of the reasons people joke about cops being bad shots is that some only shoot when required for qualification, which can be as little as once or twice a year. Gun enthusiasts often shoot several times a month, and more than the single 50 round box the cop does.
 
2013-01-27 12:26:23 PM  

pyrotek85: Lucky shot? Most shooting distances are between 7-10 yrds or so, you really don't need to be a marksman to handle that, even with the stress involved. I'm not knocking formal training, but the public seems to have this idea that you need an enormous amount of skill to use a handgun effectively. At least two faculty members attempted to rush Lanza when he forced his way in. If they were close enough to attempt that they were likely close enough to fire on him and would have landed a number of shots.


You're not shooting at a piece of paper that is not firing back at you in a controlled range setting. You're shooting at a moving target who is firing large quantities of high velocity ammunition in your general direction. You're engaging in a firefight, for lack of better and more accurate words.

You are in a high stress situation, with adrenaline coursing through your system. You are NOT going to take the time to make an aimed shot at someone while exposing yourself to fire. You're going to do what every person who is undrilled in engaging in such a firefight does. You're either going to freeze, or you're going to make semi-aimed shots like he is while moving from cover to cover.

Those people you mention are heroes. However, they were also shot the moment they emerged into his field of fire. He had no hestiation, either.

pyrotek85: Why is it that spree killers and other criminals are always considered to be great shots but someone who takes the time to get a CCW and train regularly will just miss? One of the reasons people joke about cops being bad shots is that some only shoot when required for qualification, which can be as little as once or twice a year. Gun enthusiasts often shoot several times a month, and more than the single 50 round box the cop does.


No one is saying that "spree killers and other criminals" are considered great shots. What we ARE saying is that CCWs are not tactical operators. They are every day people who simply want to be given the opportunity to protect theirselves and their loved ones. You're making them out to be more than that. Plinking a paper target on a range is NOT the same as shooting a moving target that is shooting back at you. There is a reason that Law Enforcement, and the Militaries of the world, train under as realistic as possible conditions in the way they do. Unless you constantly compete or practice in a practical shooting course, you're NOT going to act like them in a firefight. You're going to protect yourself first.

The department I volunteer with requires it's armed officers to attend a monthly practical shooting course, and requires quarterly requalifications. COALEA standards also require strict requalification and continuing education requirements. Even police, who train with their weapon to engage active shooters panic, and make semi-aimed shots.

Expecting a CCW to be better than that is insanity.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:30 PM  

BronyMedic: djh0101010: Since that's not consistent with their statements on the topic, in the Federalist Papers and other sources, it's a meaningless question. What would you say to Ghandi if he walked in the door, took a big bite of a hamburger, and shot your dog?

Well, Ghandi was a legendary dick. I wouldn't put it past him.

I'm still waiting to hear what state the NREMT issued you a license in, Rescue Randy.


Way to focus on a minor point while being wrong in every point you make. You're right, license is from the state, registry is with the national group. BFD.

Doesn't change the fact that you're eternally wrong on this, and nearly every other topic. Let me guess, you're one of those guys who walks around with their steth around their necks.
 
2013-01-27 12:42:36 PM  

pyrotek85: way south: It's too small an opening.
Otherwise it would be easier to argue that you could shoot someone while they change magazines, rather than make a flying tackle and wrestle the gun away from them (hoping they don't have a round in the chamber while topping off, hoping they don't have a second weapon, hoping they don't slam the buttstock in your face, etc...).
If the attacker can count and has allotted himself time to change magazines, he'll never run dry in either case.
The best cops and CCW folks can hope for is to pin him down , but an arbitrary magazine limit affects us a lot more than a madman.

He planned his attack, you didn't plan your response.

Exactly. As I said earlier, these spree killers will carry dozens of magazines in a bag or wear MOLLE gear, but a CCW holder will likely have a single pistol and often only a single spare magazine, if that. The attacker already has every advantage, why give them more?


Because in his plan he might carry ten magazines in a chest rig (assuming he hasn't modified his magazines, in violation of the law, or doubled up on magazine slots to carry twenty).
At best a CCW or cop might have one magazine in his gun and two spare, which is alot to conceal. Many just have what's in the gun.
The gunman can have anywhere from two hundred to three hundred rounds. Meanwhile the AWB has moved me from sixty to thirty rounds.

The AWB worked more in his favor than it did ours because he's considered how much ammo he wants to do the deed. Our carry is reduced by law.

/ideally I don't want crazy people to have a gun, but no law can guarantee that.
/since he's not going to obey a magazine limit, why should we agree to one?
 
2013-01-27 12:46:45 PM  

BronyMedic: You're not shooting at a piece of paper that is not firing back at you in a controlled range setting. You're shooting at a moving target who is firing large quantities of high velocity ammunition in your general direction. You're engaging in a firefight, for lack of better and more accurate words.

You are in a high stress situation, with adrenaline coursing through your system. You are NOT going to take the time to make an aimed shot at someone while exposing yourself to fire. You're going to do what every person who is undrilled in engaging in such a firefight does. You're either going to freeze, or you're going to make semi-aimed shots like he is while moving from cover to cover.

Those people you mention are heroes. However, they were also shot the moment they emerged into his field of fire. He had no hestiation, either.

No one is saying that "spree killers and other criminals" are considered great shots. What we ARE saying is that CCWs are not tactical operators. They are every day people who simply want to be given the opportunity to protect theirselves and their loved ones. You're making them out to be more than that. Plinking a paper target on a range is NOT the same as shooting a moving target that is shooting back at you. There is a reason that Law Enforcement, and the Militaries of the world, train under as realistic as possible conditions in the way they do. Unless you constantly compete or practice in a practical shooting course, you're NOT going to act like them in a firefight. You're going to protect yourself first.

The department I volunteer with requires it's armed officers to attend a monthly practical shooting course, and requires quarterly requalifications. COALEA standards also require strict requalification and continuing education requirements. Even police, who train with their weapon to engage active shooters panic, and make semi-aimed shots.

Expecting a CCW to be better than that is insanity.


You don't have to make perfectly aimed shots like you do with paper, and some gun owners do take tactical courses of varying degrees. Plenty of regular people don't seem to have any problem successfully defending themselves, even in a firefight. If you're just trading shots with the creep while you're both hiding behind cover, then good. It gives the cops time to get there, since it took them 20min to respond to Sandy Hook. Better than getting gunned down immediately and letting him proceed on his merry way. Bottom line is you don't need to be as well trained as cops or swat teams, slowing them down (or causing them to kill themselves as many do) can be enough. Worst case, you still get shot and die, so what's the harm in trying?
 
2013-01-27 12:59:34 PM  

kim jong-un: That's the great part about the Constitution. You don't need to know, or care if they would be 'alright' with it. That's for us to determine. We have the ability to update our Constitution with the times by the legal process of altering what it says by making amendments to it.

Ignoring the Constitution, even if convenient and done with the best of intentions, delegitimizes the very government and is such a dangerous precedent to establish that it should terrify anyone with even marginal critical thinking capability. The changing times is the reason that the Constitution was designed to be changed, the reason that it is hard to change is to ensure that the governed have the time to properly evaluate the consequences of the proposed change.


Here in the United States, states and local government have the power to require the registration of firearms, to make failure to register a crime, and to confiscate any firearms that aren't registered.

That's the thing about not being in a country not run by the enlightened dictator of Best Korea, er, president for life, the Great Father's Primary Descendent, er, whatever: Here we have a form a government where the courts interpret the laws that our legislatures pass.

We also have a metric shiat-load of idiots who believe that only half of Amendment II exists and that Amendment II overrides the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8 to arm, organize, and discipline the militia. They claim that Congress can not regulate the Militia.


And unlike in Best Korea, we can't just have them taken out back and shot in the head for playing morons on the internet.

However, if they do take up arms against the United States, which they keep threatening to do, they can be shot down like dogs in the street. (But not barbecued.)
 
2013-01-27 01:13:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: We also have a metric shiat-load of idiots who believe that only half of Amendment II exists and that Amendment II overrides the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8 to arm, organize, and discipline the militia. They claim that Congress can not regulate the Militia.



You're confused, lad.

The Second Amendment was intended to PROTECT the People from the abuses of tyrants - especially those who might have a standing army (or militia, if you will) at their disposal.


But don't take my word for it. Read what the guys who crafted and passed the Bill of Rights ad to say.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:46 PM  

way south: Xcott: That's actually what happened in the Tuscon shooting: someone stopped the shooter as he was changing his extended magazine. We know that people rushed the shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting, although we cannot know if he would have been vulnerable when changing magazines.

It's too small an opening.


If it's too small an opening, how did it happen in Tuscon? You're telling me that something that really happened couldn't happen.

Not that this is enough to justify magazine limits. I think the only real justification for magazine limits is, like a banning of "assault" rifles, an effort to discourage the weekend warrior Rambo types---the ones who have been taking perfectly wholesome pastimes like hunting and perfectly legitimate needs like self defense, and turning them into some kind of Mad Max soldier of fortune fest.

In fact, a big part of the reason we're now facing more gun control is that those ITG derptards have become the self-appointed voice of the 2nd amendment, alienating the public.
 
2013-01-27 01:28:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: However, if they do take up arms against the United States, which they keep threatening to do, they can be shot down like dogs in the street. (But not barbecued.)


That would be unnecessary. If people advocate armed insurrection against the United States, the best thing to do is to point out that this is treason---then they all choke to death on a huge butthurt salad because you called them traitors for being the world's biggest patriots.
 
2013-01-27 01:30:34 PM  
I used to own guns, but then there was that horrible boating accident. I lost them all, and was lucky I didn't drown. It was tragic.
 
2013-01-27 01:45:52 PM  

Amos Quito: The Second Amendment was intended to PROTECT the People from the abuses of tyrants - especially those who might have a standing army (or militia, if you will) at their disposal.


Not that any of this matters: the courts have long interpreted the 2nd amendment as providing an individual right to have firearms.

Nobody parsing the exact wording of the 2nd amendment is going to change the legal reality of today's right to bear arms. Unless their goal is to convince themselves that today's government is illegitimate.
 
2013-01-27 01:46:44 PM  

djh0101010: BronyMedic: djh0101010: Since that's not consistent with their statements on the topic, in the Federalist Papers and other sources, it's a meaningless question. What would you say to Ghandi if he walked in the door, took a big bite of a hamburger, and shot your dog?

Well, Ghandi was a legendary dick. I wouldn't put it past him.

I'm still waiting to hear what state the NREMT issued you a license in, Rescue Randy.

Way to focus on a minor point while being wrong in every point you make. You're right, license is from the state, registry is with the national group. BFD.


Doesn't change the fact that you're eternally wrong on this, and nearly every other topic. Let me guess, you're one of those guys who walks around with their steth around their necks.


What state do you basic in, DJH. Answer the question, since you seem to think your four years more of being an EMT-Basic makes you more special and knowledgable in every way, apparently, than a Critical Care Pediatric/Neonatal Flight Paramedic.
 
Displayed 50 of 1301 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | 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