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 451
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-26 03:12:16 PM  
15 votes:

GAT_00: So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


I'm not really afraid they're going to come after me.. I'm not militia and I don't wear camo. When you go through the background check to own a gun you are doing enough to notify the government what you have. When I purchased my M&P assault rifle it took around 2 weeks before I could go pick it up. I'm cool with that.. They got my info, my DL#, they did a full look at my record to see if I was allowed to own a gun. The did the same thing with that guy in CT that killed 24 people.. He was rejected so he just stole the guns he wanted. I'm cool with background checks and I'm even cooler with that happening in a private sale (it would actually protect ME the seller) and I'm really cool with it happening in gun shows. But that's it. If I want to carry it in public as Fark It indicated I will require a license which I have and it took about 6 weeks to get. It's a carry and conceal permit. I paid a fee and that fee went to process my GBI background check.. Tangible.

What I won't do is register my guns. I'm not going to play more TSA type farking games with the government to help create an illusion that someone is being "protected." It's creating a process that isn't necessary, will do absolutely no good, will change absolutely nothing, would have prevented zero of the mass murders we've seen in the past 20 years.

So I'll toss the question back to you.. What legitimate reason is there TO register?
2013-01-26 01:14:18 PM  
14 votes:

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

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


Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.
2013-01-26 04:25:25 PM  
13 votes:

vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.


Yet another idiotic comment.. congrats to making it to level 5. My M&P 15-22 uses a .22lr round. A person could be shot 5-10 times and still survive the encounter with that gun. My .45 is chambered and the barrel is rifled (i know because I rifled it) for hydroshock bullets which will put a hole the size of a grapefruit in a person. That person will be lucky if they survive one round and certainly not two in an intense situation. If I had time to aim they won't last a single round.. the M&P is much harder to aim and the target would have opportunity to shoot back regardless. So proposing the banning of the M&P assault rifle accomplishes absolutely nothing because the 10 rounds in the .45 would be much more devastating.

This is what happens when you have someone that knows nothing about guns talking about gun control. And M16 is perfectly legal to own if you want to go through the lengthy and expensive process of owning it. It will cost about $4000 and it will take about 6 months to make happen but it can be done. What person who is intent on doing a mass shooting will go through that process? You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

This is what is frustrating to gun owners.. People like you that are clueless when it comes to such things discussing them like you actually know what you're talking about.
2013-01-26 02:38:02 PM  
13 votes:
California and its SKS laws show that registration can indeed lead to confiscation.
First SKS Sporters owners were required to register them.
Then, because gun-haters never stop hating, they made them completely illegal.
And they had a complete list of everyone who had one, so they knew right were to look.
2013-01-26 04:36:38 PM  
12 votes:

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

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


Do you actually understand how offensive it is to us law abiding gun owners when people like you make statements like that?

How about instead of blaming the millions of us who have never, and will never, do anything wrong, we institute a "Project Exile", like Virginia did in the 1990s? Mandatory jail time for felons who are found in possession of a gun or ammunition, and mandatory 5 years added to your sentence if you're convicted of using a gun in a crime? Violent crime went down double-digit percentages every year for the years this was in effect.

I mean, sure, it's easier to take guns away from non-criminals, but this whole "put the bad guys in jail" think worked pretty well for Virginia. Can we try that first, please, before you come and try to tell me what I can't own?

The assault weapons ban was so ineffective last time that the best thing Feinstein could say about it was that it "made the banned guns more expensive". Can we, instead, use punishment of actual criminals, which has proven to be effective?

/whoa. Radical. Punish the bad guys.
2013-01-26 03:54:15 PM  
12 votes:

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any other gun.

People like you who have no farking clue what you're talking about are the problem. You think that assault rifle I own is more dangerous than the .45 I own? I can shoot a 1 inch group at 25 yards all day with that .45 and I pump out 30 rounds in 10 seconds. Do you even know what that means? Again.. you're a moron reaching high to become an idiot.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:41:10 PM  
12 votes:
Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.

Or to hold the owners responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.
2013-01-26 12:42:15 PM  
12 votes:
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.
2013-01-26 01:34:57 PM  
11 votes:
Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 12:46:33 PM  
11 votes:
So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.
2013-01-26 12:39:23 PM  
11 votes:
Good.
2013-01-26 05:02:52 PM  
10 votes:
I don't have any guns, but when people are anti-gun/pro gun control, you aren't helping anything with the bs name calling. Saying 'gun nuts', or saying guns are replacements for small dangly bits, or any of those childish things just push people away from your side. I see gun owners explain how things work much better than I've seen gun control advocates explain their side. Due to the sheer immaturity and childlike name calling, you are hurting your argument. So much so, that while I used to be 'meh' on guns, I'm now leaning towards the gun owner's point of view. It may start with 'oh just register your gun, nothing will happen', but when governments want to crack down further, it'll just be that much easier. Right now it's just registration, what will it be tomorrow?
2013-01-26 04:35:57 PM  
10 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
The government and you anti gun pillow biters can go fark yourselves.
2013-01-26 12:44:55 PM  
10 votes:
Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.
2013-01-26 02:30:06 PM  
9 votes:
That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.
2013-01-26 04:55:40 PM  
8 votes:

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.



Some do not support bans or confiscation, but others do. So when a real gun-grabber gets in power, will the registrations be sealed? Or will those in power be able to use the registrations, which people like you claim could never be used for confiscation, as probable cause to justify confiscations that would otherwise violate the fourth amendment?

I'm in favor of all-around gun reform that protects legal gun owners and causes an actual decrease in deaths. But mandatory registration, without some heavy restrictions on using the data, is just an open door for a knee-jerk ban/confiscation of whatever scary looking gun the next killer uses.
2013-01-26 04:50:07 PM  
8 votes:
Link
NY originally proposed confiscation. This is why I will never register my guns.
2013-01-26 02:11:53 PM  
8 votes:

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?



Let's put that back in context, shall we?


Amos Quito: End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

vpb:  Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealer

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

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


There. See how silly you look?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 02:08:56 PM  
8 votes:

xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.


Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.
2013-01-26 02:01:53 PM  
8 votes:
True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.
2013-01-26 01:38:12 PM  
8 votes:

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



Makes confiscation a whole lot easier.


vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.



End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Naturally,
2013-01-26 12:50:52 PM  
8 votes:

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


Sure.  What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?
2013-01-26 04:49:20 PM  
7 votes:

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)
2013-01-26 04:37:24 PM  
7 votes:

vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make. If M-16s weren't more effective than bolt action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it? This argument has been shot down many times before.


This is one of the more pathetic arguments anti-gun nuts make. Don't equate an M-16 with a selective rate of fire and so-called "assault rifles" available to civilians. You make yourself look stupid, or at least a disingenuous farktard.
2013-01-26 03:18:43 PM  
7 votes:

GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.



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.

Why is that?

Sure, here in America you have a "right" to free speech, but why should you be able to do so under a pseudonym?

Sure, you may be a law abiding citizen, but we all know that there ARE people out there who might say things that are offensive, threatening or even treasonous. Hell, some people might even abuse their "right" to speech by inciting others to do bad things.

Don't you think this whole "free speech" thing is getting out of hand?

Are you ready to register your keyboard?
2013-01-26 01:50:41 PM  
7 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito:

End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealers.



4.bp.blogspot.com


"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.
2013-01-26 01:27:16 PM  
7 votes:

Fark It:
Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation,


Saying it doesn't make it true.
2013-01-26 12:50:55 PM  
7 votes:
And when you call the cops to report a break-in and they see your unregistered gun, you get to go to jail and become someone's wife.

You're hardcore, dude.
2013-01-26 06:48:46 PM  
6 votes:
i1121.photobucket.com

These handy stats from the FBI might help some of the SHARPER kids in the class understand why BANNING SCARY ASSAULT weapons is actually nothing more than an appeal to EMOTION - a flaccid jerk-off.

Of course the s-l-o-w-e-r kids in the class won't get it, but they're too busy looking for their galoshes and sun-screen anyway.

Here's a link to the FBI page
2013-01-26 04:57:27 PM  
6 votes:

enry: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.


Are you aware that the NRA has spent decades in training police, military, and civilians in firearm safety? Do you know that the NRA spent millions of dollars in the 1990s to support "Project Exile", a program in Virginia that created mandatory jail time for criminals who use guns? Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?

No? You don't know these things? Perhaps you should learn more about the organization you insult. And yes, of course I can provide cites for all of my claims.

When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.
2013-01-26 04:51:55 PM  
6 votes:

vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

We need to legalize drugs to free up some prison space.


Legalizing drugs would do more to reduce violent crime than any gun control measure you could come up with. The war on drugs is a complete failure. We could direct those billions of dollars into treatment and education programs, and we'd be eliminating the huge profits that motivate drug trafficking and the attendant violence.

/see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organiz e d_crime
2013-01-26 04:46:25 PM  
6 votes:

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

It is if you believe they will come around and confiscate them eventually. A lot of people would like to see it happen.


It already has happened. It's not like people are inventing a hypothetical bogeyman, they are simply noting precedent.
2013-01-26 03:22:03 PM  
6 votes:

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation. It's happened in NYC and later in California with SKS's. If people are OK with that, OK. But they should admit it and not pretend their agenda has anything to do with preventing gun violence. The car registration comparison is silly.
2013-01-26 02:54:03 PM  
6 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


You only have to register your car if you plan on using public roads. I have no problem registering and acquiring licensing for guns meant to be carried on my person in public for self-defense, should I so desire.
2013-01-26 02:52:41 PM  
6 votes:

GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing.  When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

syrynxx: hen, because gun-haters never stop hating, they made them completely illegal.
And they had a complete list of everyone who had one, so they knew right were to look.

2013-01-26 05:17:16 PM  
5 votes:
Yes, register those firearms you legally purchased prior to any law that mandated it. Don't worry about douchebag progressive media outlets taking that registration information and publicizing it.
2013-01-26 05:05:58 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


Well, CT already had an assault weapons ban, and the school was a Gun Free Zone.
The evil black rifle used was grandfathered under the state law, much like the current propsed AWB.
What law would have prevented it from happening?

If you believe in complete public disarmament and weapon confiscation, just say so. Short of that, what's your solution?
2013-01-26 04:59:29 PM  
5 votes:

GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?


That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"
wee
2013-01-26 04:53:10 PM  
5 votes:

vpb: We already know gun control works


If this statement were true, Chicago and DC and NYC would be crime-free.
2013-01-26 04:52:17 PM  
5 votes:

enry: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.


The problem Enry is that the NRA is the only lobbyist group fighting for people that know how guns actually work. I don't agree with their tactics and the cold dead hand bullshiat either. However if you read this thread and see the epic amount of ignorance in it in regards to guns and what they do you'll see, to some extent, why the NRA has to be so vocal.

The NRA actually does a lot of legitimate work and their safety programs of which I'm an instructor should be mandatory before gun ownership. The lobbyist side of the NRA has to create this kind of buzz and storm of derp in order to counter the Vpbs of the world that think some guns are more dangerous than other guns. People who think an M16 can be acquired easily or who think that criminals will register a gun. We have to counter people like that or we will in fact lose our rights to own fire arms and the NRA is the only voice out there that keep morons from making pointless and redundant laws like a "gun registry."

The NRA is the only organization keeping people who think a .22 "assault rifle" is more dangerous than a .45 hand gun.
2013-01-26 04:46:44 PM  
5 votes:
I love the fact that all the so-called "law abiding" gun owners in this thread are proving the point of the anti-gun crowd. They're all ready to commit weapon offenses, citing the constitution, over a law that in no way infringes upon their right to keep or bear arms.

It's a shame they didn't make it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. That would deal with the problem in a much more final way.
2013-01-26 04:45:34 PM  
5 votes:

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


It's be great if we got some people that actually knew a lot about the firearms industry and culture to play a part in the legislation, but all that seems to happen is the NRA runs around with fingers in their ears shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS".

Maybe if the NRA spent more time doing legitimate work, we might have better legislation, or the ability to prosecute the laws already on the books, or hell, a head at the ATF.
2013-01-26 04:40:36 PM  
5 votes:

NewportBarGuy: And when you call the cops to report a break-in and they see your unregistered gun, you get to go to jail and become someone's wife.



What magical land do you live in where the cops come to your house right away when you report a robbery? Everywhere I've lived, they take the report over the phone, give me the report number, and tell me to turn it in to my insurance. In a few jurisdictions, they allow you to file a report online with no police interaction whatsoever.
2013-01-26 04:37:22 PM  
5 votes:

BSABSVR: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

So you drive without insurance?


If you can't see what's wrong with that analogy you should not be participating in this discussion.
2013-01-26 04:32:25 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


The appeal to emotion continues unabated, I see. Are there any other things you'd like to see built on the backs of dead children, or are you just doing what you guys always do, make tomorrow's bans the new normal to set the stage for the next opportunity?
2013-01-26 04:11:49 PM  
5 votes:

GAT_00: 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.


Nah. What you're asking for is another process which isn't needed and won't be followed by most gun owners. Do you know that when you buy a gun from a gun store that the serial number and owner are sent to the local ATF and then the federal BATF? Your DL# is associated with the SN of the gun. If my gun is stolen I would simply call the police and notify them that it was stolen and give them the SN. If you want to sell the gun you can choose to sell it through a gun broker and unassociate your DL# with the SN. You can also simply create a bill of sale and get it notarized so the ownership can be tracked. This would be rectified by making all gun sales require a background check which I would be fine with as again.. It would protect me when I swap guns with a buddy.

What you're asking for is redundant and unlike that idiot Vpb I know you're a smart guy.. People who don't own guns don't know the process and that's fine. The only thing to be accomplished by creating a "registration" division of the BATF is to create a profit center for an already bloated government that will serve no purpose other than to be redundant to a division of the BATF that already does this. Also.. FEES. So nah.
2013-01-26 03:49:19 PM  
5 votes:

vpb: A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.


This is what "reasonable" and "commonsense" looks like to anti-gunners.
2013-01-27 12:01:13 AM  
4 votes:

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?


Call it a hoax.

Many of their writings of the time(Especially Thomas Jefferson) they specifically state otherwise. Maybe study a little history there, Sparky.
2013-01-26 10:23:14 PM  
4 votes:
HERE IS A GOD DAMN REASONABLE COMPROMISE ON GUN CONTROL

"No restriction upon a law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restrictions placed upon those engaged in law enforcement."

There you go. A standard that can keep up with developing technologies.
If the police can have it, you as a law-abiding citizen may have it. If the police can't have it, then you can't have it. If you're required to have certain training to have a certain weapon, it has to be available to you at no personal cost.

Here's the fun part: If you want to argue that the police should be BETTER armed than those they are charged with defending, then their role is clearly that of oppression rather than defense. Under the law, a police officer does not have more right to protect themselves than anyone else.
2013-01-26 07:44:19 PM  
4 votes:
I'm just confused how the same people that biatch about the TSA and the Patriot Act can support any firearms' laws that are pitched by politicians as being passed for "everyone's safety."

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

/Darwin
//The terrorists have won
2013-01-26 07:08:52 PM  
4 votes:
My Fellow Liberals,

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

Put the Derp down.

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

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

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

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

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

I am highly unconvinced that registration prevents any crimes. How could gun registration prevent a crime, really? Explain to me how gun registration could honestly prevent crimes instead of just enabling later gun confiscation?
2013-01-26 06:42:11 PM  
4 votes:

Securitywyrm: chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.

Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'


California and the SKS

California passes law requiring all SKS owners to 'register' this type of weapon.
California then passes new law banning SKS ownership, and has a 'hit list' of people who now own something 'illegal.' Especially in a place like New York, that's 'sufficient cause' for a search warrant shortly after the second law gets passed.

How about this for a god damn reasonable compromise

"No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.
2013-01-26 05:53:05 PM  
4 votes:
Gun laws are rediculous.

I used to live in WNY - Buffalo had insane crime. They also had one of the "toughest" gun laws in the country. However, that didn't stop people from getting shot in broad daylight and regular people like me getting robbed in the streets. Ever call 911 and have the police not show up? Good times.

I move to Vermont. Absolutely no gun laws. And surprisingly, very little crime.

Thus, I submit to you that the problem in our nation isn't the guns. It's something else. And likely a variety of reasons that idiotic laws like the ones Cuomo and Silver pushed will not impact at all.
2013-01-26 05:12:42 PM  
4 votes:

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


Yet, proposals have been pushed to do just that, and states HAVE used registration to enforce retroactive bans. See California and the SKS and Walther P-22, as well as NYC and so-called "assault weapons"
2013-01-26 05:09:34 PM  
4 votes:
On the whole car registration doesn't lead to confiscation argument: I beg to differ, in California, Boxer and her pals have tried several times to rid the roads of cars over a certain age in the name of 'environmental protection'. It was really a ruse to prevent people from owning cheaper cars and also to checkmate the entire used car and spare parts industries. Nice way to ensure everyone either used public transportation (which makes you dependent on the govt) or were forever saddled with higher registration fees and a new car loan to pay off (which makes you dependent on the banks).
And how were they going to do it? By forcing you to sell your car to them for 500 bucks when you went to register it if it was too old, no matter its actual value.
Hey, you wanna keep driving? Go buy a new car! You got 5 bills in your pocket. If not, use that money for a bus ticket, loser!
2013-01-26 05:04:51 PM  
4 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


Have the people pushing for car registration ever pushed for outright bans and confiscations on cars?

have governments ever used registration lists to demand that legally owned be turned over because they're no longer legal due to a change in the law and/or an attorney general issued an opinion invalidating a prior one?

No? Then Shut The fark Up.
2013-01-26 05:02:35 PM  
4 votes:

kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.


I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"
2013-01-26 04:47:15 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


You people are such idiots. If you'd just read a little history you'd realize that the problem isn't the guns. It's the farking crazy people. If you take the guns away they'll go back to using bombs or whatever else they can get their hands on.
2013-01-26 04:44:41 PM  
4 votes:

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-26 04:40:25 PM  
4 votes:

Princess Ryans Knickers: Only criminals have something to hide.


Yea, law abiding citizens don't deserve privacy. What the hell is wrong with them?
2013-01-26 04:30:15 PM  
4 votes:
It takes guns to take guns.
2013-01-26 04:03:08 PM  
4 votes:

vpb: violentsalvation:

The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation. It's happened in NYC and later in California with SKS's. If people are OK with that, OK. But they should admit it and not pretend their agenda has anything to do with preventing gun violence. The car registration comparison is silly.


So why haven't the cars been confiscated?  Obviously the gun bans in California and New York aren't unconstitutional of they would have been overturned in court by now, so the 2nd amendment argument is nonsense.

One of the reasons that we have prison is to give people a reason who don't understand or care about the purpose of a law a reason to obey it.  So there's your reason to register your guns.  To stay out of PMITA prison.

Or, if it's that important to you, go there.


So that's what it comes down to. "Register your guns because we say so, no other reason, and if you don't you'll go to jail."

You don't have to register a car to use it on private property. The cars would be seized, if they were used in the commission of a felony. The comparison is apples and pudding pops.
2013-01-26 02:43:09 PM  
4 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.


Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?
2013-01-26 02:27:32 PM  
4 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


Yeah making legal owners register their guns will really prevent mass shootings. Because everyone who has done a mass shooting or blown up a building registers their ordinance. They're the most lawful people out there don't you know? Not a single person has stolen a gun used in a mass shooting .. especially not that guy that killed 24 people in CT who absolutely did not steal his guns from a legal owner.

You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.
KIA
2013-01-27 04:59:05 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-01-27 12:45:17 AM  
3 votes:

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 whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"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


"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story
2013-01-26 11:38:57 PM  
3 votes:

Xcott: We have a whole new class of gun owners that buy them not to hunt, but to execute watermelons---and to do this, they need the awesomest firepower available.


Implying executing watermelons and other recreational shooting hasn't been in vogue for millenia.

The best shooters in the Roman era were slingers. The best slinger spends a lifetime learning to shoot. One island in particular had shepherds whose mothers would not feed unless they could hit their bread with a sling. On the battlefield they were worth their weight in silver.

The best shooters in the Medieval era were English longbowmen. The best longbowman spends a lifetime learning to shoot. England had mandatory archery practice for all men. Thus it is that a bunch of peasants had the marital skills and strength necessary to break up heavy cavalry charges by full time professional soldiers on giant horses in an age when the heavy cavalry charge was the epitome of warfare.

The best shooters in WW2 were all country boys. Across all the armies, the best snipers, tail gunners, and all around good soldiers were rural and grew up sniping squirrels and plinking cans.

A lifetime shooting means that, by 18 or so, you're quite good at it. This has always been true and applies to every projectile from the thrown rock to newest gun on the market. Whatever you use, the best of the best spend the most time practicing.

So watermelon executions, while seeming kind of insane from a practical standpoint, are actually an important element to national security and the reasoning behind the second amendment. Practice is practice and most elements of good shooting transfer between weapons.
2013-01-26 09:03:57 PM  
3 votes:

the ha ha guy: justtray: You're going to have to source those for me, because I find them to be total BS.

California: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989

Legislators imposed mandatory registration for firearms that were grandfathered into a ban, then passed a retroactive ban and confiscated those that were registered under the grandfather clause.


I find it sad that people forget what registration can lead to and what governments can do with those lists. Anyone here Jewish?
2013-01-26 08:36:36 PM  
3 votes:

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


Wrong.

It can be =/= IS

In this case, it is not a fallacy.

Our very founders noted that, historically, the first step in tyranny is limiting power of the people. That much is true, and is applicable today in 3rd world countries still. But even in the discussions of the times of the US in it's infancy, it's mentioned directly, that to be unable to defend one's self is practically inviting ne'er do wells to accost you.

Scale is irrelevant, be it a bandit, a foreign nation, or a domestic threat(to include a government gone bad).

His argument is not that it's inevitable, only that it is one less safeguard the people have against such things, and there is real historical(even modern) precedence for such worry.
2013-01-26 08:31:53 PM  
3 votes:
Abstinence only education
It doesn't work, do away with it

War on drugs
It doesn't work, do away with it

Killing terrorists
It doesn't work, do away with it

Guns
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
2013-01-26 08:27:39 PM  
3 votes:

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

"There's a good chance this won't be abused by the authorities" isn't a very strong pretext for enacting such a law.


It's not even a 'good chance', it's not like they haven't abused laws before. Even if the current government won't, what about later on? The government is constantly changing, we should be very careful about granting them new powers or creating new agencies.
2013-01-26 06:52:49 PM  
3 votes:

Harry Knutz: But that's the entire point. There are responsible, educated gun owners who could train themselves to swap out magazines in a split second if they had to. They don't have to. What extended magazines do is enable anyone to unload a deadly hail of bullets. Without training. Without thought. It's not unreasonable to question the necessity of an extended magazine in this context. I don't personally know you, obviously, but I do not begrudge you your hobby in the slightest. You have all the appearance of being exactly the type of person I would want to own guns, if anybody is to own them. So why can't we sit down together and come up with some common sense restrictions that strike a fair balance?


Good point - allowing the average Joe access to bullet counts practiced individuals would only have needs a level of control.. All for compromises and balance but to me bans don't make sense. The compromise for me is background checks on everyone. I'm all for background checks across the board from personal dealings to gun shows. I don't mind giving my gun store dealer a $10 gratuity to handle the sale of a gun and in fact when I buy guns online that's exactly what happens. A guy from Montana ships the gun to Scott who lives in Cumming (yes i know) and I go up to his place and sign some paperwork.. Give him a 10er and I have a new gun that was tracked by the BATF. I use Scott whenever I sell or trade a personal gun as well just to make sure the paperwork is all pointed in the right direction. This is all to protect me you see or to protect someone else selling a gun.

I will never support any ban on any gun or clip though and I will never go through another registration process for the purposes of paying a made up tax on information that is redundant. That is the core of the argument.. Government doing something to create the illusion of "protecting the population" via TSA like methods which in fact have absolutely no success in stopping anything from happening. The fact that I can literally print an extended magazine via a 3D printer and all I need to add is a spring I got from a gunshow or online (because we're not going to ban a farking spring) to complete it makes this conversation about bans even less relevant. If I'm a criminal I'll just print whatever is banned and steal whatever isn't.

The gun laws as they are aren't fine. There is a gaping hole in the background check process but even with that said it would not have changed practically any of the mass murders that have happened. Almost universally the guns used in those crimes were obtained illegally.
2013-01-26 06:44:53 PM  
3 votes:

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?



The point is that school shootings are extreme outliers in the entire 'gun crime' argument.  Trying to find a solution for extremes is just a waste of time, and all you end up doing is stomping on the rights of millions of legal, law-abiding citizens who just want to go about their lives without egregious government intervention.

It'd be like your state saying that all persons with a heart condition are prohibited from driving, because a couple people had serious crashes after having heart attacks while driving.  Would a law like that be beneficial for all persons on the road, because you removed a hazard?  Yes.  Is is good law, good practice, or sensible? Not in the least.
2013-01-26 06:35:32 PM  
3 votes:

enry: When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.

Guess I struck too close to home.

Lemme put it this way: Having Wayne LaPierre hold a press conference blaming everything but guns for a mass shooting (involving guns) in a school does nothing to help you. He could have talked about mental health issues as it pertains to gun ownership and safety, he could have talked about closing loopholes, he could have talked about responsible gun ownership.



Guess you missed my point. Imagine my surprise.

Guns are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic. They don't actually do anything by themselves. Weird, but true. Criminals, on the other hand, are people who do bad things, usually in an escalating pattern of evilness.

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

See, what I'm thinking, is that way we punish the bad guys, and don't punish the 99.999% of gun owners who, you know, aren't criminals.

Virginia enjoyed a double-digit drop in violent crime for every year that Project Exile was in place. It punishes the bad people, and doesn't punish or disarm their victims. Can you come up with any coherent reason why this shouldn't be the first thing we institute nationally?

If you want to punish the law abiding people rather than the criminals, I'm REALLY confused as to what you hope to accomplish, and how you think doing so would be better than putting the bad guys in jail.
2013-01-26 05:58:37 PM  
3 votes:
How about this.

"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding citizen to bear arms with greater restriction that that which applies to all law enforcement within the borders of the country."

There... you... go. If the police can have an AR-15, so can you. If the police can have an automatic shotgun, so can you. If the police CAN'T have a rocket launcher... you can't have one either.
Bonus: Arguments against this, by definition, argue that the police should be better armed than the people they're supposed to protect (law-abiding citizens). The only reason for law enforcement to have superior weaponry than the people they are supposed to protect is if their mission has changed from 'protection' to 'oppression.'
2013-01-26 05:39:54 PM  
3 votes:

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

Or to hold the owners responsible if they fail to secure them properly and they are stolen and used in a crime, or if they are sold to a criminal.


There's a gap in this logic between the pro and anti control groups.

One of the major reasons people cite for gun ownership is to defend their home. How can you lock a gun in a safe or use a trigger lock and still have access to it to protect yourself? Do you ask the criminal to wait while you unlock your safe/lock? So if a law such as the one you suggest went in effect, I can see that in a lot of people's eyes that the next argument used by gun control advocates will be "well, you can't get to it in time anyway, so why do you need it at all?"

If someone steals a knife from someone's kitchen and then stabs someone with it, should the knife owner be charged?
2013-01-26 05:37:34 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?

Gun registries have been used for confiscation, and confiscations based on registries have been proposed.

Gun registries open the door for confiscation.


In exactly the same way that having a gun opens the door to robbing a bank.

You're using faulty logic, and you're basing it on paranoia.
2013-01-26 05:36:27 PM  
3 votes:

LavenderWolf: Um, I think you're overreacting somewhat? Gun registry != confiscation.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; am I missing something?


Gun registries have been used for confiscation, and confiscations based on registries have been proposed.

Gun registries open the door for confiscation.
2013-01-26 05:35:37 PM  
3 votes:

kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.


I'm not sure we're the ones foaming at the mouth crazy, paranoid about something that isn't going to happen, when we've provided examples that it has happened. In the USA. Registration has led to confiscation.
2013-01-26 05:27:29 PM  
3 votes:
You know that if you, say, have a restraining order out against you, you have to give up your guns. Same if you're convicted of a violent felony. Requiring registration for guns facilitates getting guns from those who can't legally own them. "Law-abiding" is a moment-in-time thing. Someone may be perfectly law-abiding when they purchase a gun, then not so much so later.

Are all you paranoid sociopaths genuinely too dumb to see the legitimate uses of registration, or are you being disingenuous?
2013-01-26 05:25:03 PM  
3 votes:

BronyMedic: xynix: The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.

It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.


It's interesting that you're obsessed with thinking that the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners, would want to do that sort of thing. Project much,
BronyMedic?

/apparently, I'm not allowed to attack you in suitably strong linguistic terms. Hopefully the modiots will let this go through.

//seriously, Brony, do you actually understand how much you come across as being a pompous, judgmental ass?
2013-01-26 05:22:19 PM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?


Because registration lists have been published in newspapers, used for confiscation, and proposed to be used for confiscation. Also, it's a protected right to own a gun.
2013-01-26 05:20:42 PM  
3 votes:
In most the rest of the world, having reasonable access to health care is considered a basic human right.

In the United States, owning a gun is considered a basic human right. (Based on a very.... unusual interpretation of what some dead guys said around 300 years ago).

In the United States, guns are religion. They provided freedom, liberty, and everything good. That all came from a gun, and nothing else. Like the sun God who gives you warmth. So is the philosophy of someone who was entitled in a very different world. Also religion.

This is why you can't debate it. Because it is viewed as a religious, AND a human right. How do you change that?
2013-01-26 05:18:27 PM  
3 votes:

xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.
2013-01-26 05:16:07 PM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: gja: Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one

Seriously?  I don't like your argument so you aren't allowed to use it?


No, just hypocritical bullshiat for antigun types to jump all over the "we register cars" bit when they usually (always?) get twisted out of shape when people point how cars kill more than guns despite being regulated, licensed, etc.
2013-01-26 05:12:04 PM  
3 votes:
Ill say it again.
Watching anti-gun people discuss guns is like watching young earth creationists discuss carbon dating.

Kudos to the handful of Americans still residing in NY.
2013-01-26 05:08:51 PM  
3 votes:
I used to be a lot more in favor of ensuring that gun ownership stayed legal, but hearing from all these gun nuts is driving me further and further into the outright confiscation of everything camp. You farking gun nuts try to shoot down every single reasonable change in gun laws on the stupidest of grounds. The argument that "criminals won't obey gun laws so we shouldn't have laws" is patently false for everyone capable of farking reading; automatic weapon use in this country is virtually nil because of the de facto ban, and other countries that have implemented forms of gun control have seen serious declines in the rate of gun violence since. So every single time one of you mongoloids tries to pull that shiat, all it does is make me realize how utterly full of shiat you are on other things. Oooh, and then the protests about registration, while out of the other sides of their mouths they pillory the Democrats - and only the Democrats, mind you - when guns don't get properly tracked, as in Fast and Furious. Making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons against theft, which would seriously cut down on straw purchases? Socialism! Closing the gun show loophole? That's somehow an assault on every single freedom.

Fark them all. I loathe Cuomo for being a snake in the grass, but all of you worthless farks who won't bother to actually be part of the conversation got exactly what you farking deserved. I know that there's no real reason to ban muzzle brakes or flash suppressors, but you know what? You worthless farks have been so intransigent, so completely unhelpful in the gun control debate that I'm dancing for joy over it. The tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of enough schoolchildren (slaughtered with a weapon exempted from gun control because the gun control lobby bribed the Connecticut legislature) that the American people are more anti-gun than they've been in a generation, and now you motherfarkers have brought this down on yourself. Enjoy the confiscations of your penis extenders for failure to register. Enjoy the bureaucratic bullshiat that will be heaped on purchases of firearms. Enjoy having to track down seven-round magazines and hand in all your old ones. Maybe that will teach you a lesson about what happens when the only input you offer is "No" and the rest of us have to muddle along on our own.
2013-01-26 05:04:26 PM  
3 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: xynix: When people who have no idea what they're talking about or people that are reacting to a particular event start dicking around with our bill of rights we're in trouble.

awesome..now go and bring free speech and right to trial back will ya? i know you are busy with "guns" right now but being a staunch supporter of the "bill of rights", you might have noticed those things being eroded first.

start there, work down to guns.


Why not just defend all our rights at once?
2013-01-26 05:04:19 PM  
3 votes:

fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"


I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.
2013-01-26 05:02:36 PM  
3 votes:
Historic experience here and in Canada shows that when you try to force gun owners into a registration and licensing system, there's usually mass opposition and mass noncompliance,"

Some context around the Canadian legislation, just for fun:

The administration of the day, in response to very high-profile urban handgun crimes (Lepine's Montreal massacre in particular, in addition toToronto gang-related crime), introduced a long-gun registry that affected mostly rural owners who used their firearms as typical farm equipment - coyote and gopher control. The legislation was introduced in the HOC with a pricetag of 2 million, which ballooned to BILLIONS in short order.

The effect the legislation had on urban hand gun crime was pretty much what you'd expect. Urbanites had no problem with the tremendous leap in logic as they were not affected - it was Joe & Martha in Thunder Bay & Medicine Hat. Probably more people participated than not because law-abiding farming folks did not want to run afoul of the law, regardless of what an ass the law was. That, and Canadians generally do what they're told.

It didn't affect criminals, it just created potentially more 'criminals' - those who refused to pay a new fee, the proceeds of which supported the bureaucracy that implemented the fees (snake eating itself.jpeg)

The legislation has since been rescinded, and rightfully so. The money would have been much better spent if diverted into mental health services and urban gang policing.

So...... what are y'all having for afternoon tea?
2013-01-26 04:56:39 PM  
3 votes:
Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!
2013-01-26 04:54:51 PM  
3 votes:

Schubert'sCell: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.


Because gov't is static right?
2013-01-26 04:50:32 PM  
3 votes:

violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.


You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.
2013-01-26 04:50:29 PM  
3 votes:

vpb: xynix: True story.. I'm a gun owner and I will never register my gun with any agency.. state or federal. I'm not going to be forced to do something criminals don't have to do. The government can go fark themselves.

Another criminal with access to guns.

You should really move somewhere where they don't have government.  Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or Somalia.  You can be all Mad Max there.


You're an idiot.
2013-01-26 04:45:43 PM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-26 04:43:00 PM  
3 votes:

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


It is if you believe they will come around and confiscate them eventually. A lot of people would like to see it happen.
2013-01-26 04:41:44 PM  
3 votes:

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


Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.
2013-01-26 04:35:40 PM  
3 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


How will the government knowing someone has a gun stop that person from committing a crime?

It won't... unless the government takes the gun before a crime is committed, which is a non-starter.
2013-01-26 04:32:59 PM  
3 votes:

xynix:
This is what is frustrating to gun owners..


Having to compensate for a small dick?
spr
2013-01-26 04:31:53 PM  
3 votes:
d3u67r7pp2lrq5.cloudfront.net
2013-01-26 04:14:12 PM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: 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.



My guns don't need to be registered for me to be able to report them stolen.
2013-01-26 04:01:00 PM  
3 votes:
Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 03:33:26 PM  
3 votes:

xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.


I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.
2013-01-26 02:59:45 PM  
3 votes:

xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:


So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.
2013-01-26 02:55:18 PM  
3 votes:

xynix: What do I get for my gun registration fee?


You get to keep the guns that we've approved! For now.
2013-01-26 02:39:22 PM  
3 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.
2013-01-26 02:20:22 PM  
3 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?



Far more silly, actually.

t-lay.com

You're in the right place.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 01:42:37 PM  
3 votes:
Amos Quito:

End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealers.
2013-01-28 08:03:02 AM  
2 votes:

Xcott: Phinn: "Privacy" is the dumbest word in Constitutional law, for the simple reason that ALL Constitutional rights are a form of privacy.

The right to public assembly is a right to privacy?


It's the right to "peaceable" assembly, ass-itch.

Abortion isn't all that private, either, considering how many strangers are typically in the room. It's no less of a private transaction than buying cocaine. But for some reason, some people think the first is private and the second is public (and thus a legitimate area of state control).

Once upon a time, before the US government degraded civilization, people understood that one's income and asset holdings were private. The relationship between employer and employee was private.

The point is that calling some behavior a form of "privacy" adds nothing to the word "right."

Whoever came up with the phrase "right to privacy" was deeply confused about the nature of the State -- he failed to grasp that all State actions invade some area of life that would otherwise be private. State power and privacy are always zero-sum and mutually exclusive. One is called "powers" and the other are "rights."
2013-01-27 09:57:36 PM  
2 votes:

Xcott: 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.


I never said it was impossible, just that it is a very small opportunity created by an otherwise arbitrary limit. I've got no idea how many bullets are in his gun or how many guns he has, and being asked to tackle the man is a tall order.
He is likely to screw up any of a dozen reasons but "fewer bullets" wont be one to them. If he's aware of the limit he'll modify his assault to take it into account.

People get away with tackling gunmen because the gunmen do make mistakes, but I don't see a practical way we can force a mistake.
Mandating they change magazines more often in the chance they'll fumble is just wishful thinking. You might as well pray for a double feed jam.

Putting the AWB back into place seems to help democratic politicians far more than its going to help any unfortunate soul caught in this kind of predicament.

If a magazine limit gets put into place, it will be a victory of fear and politics rather than logic.
2013-01-27 09:12:49 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:02:03 AM  
2 votes:

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.
KIA
2013-01-27 05:12:49 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:40:23 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:53:29 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:28:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:26:42 AM  
2 votes:
People who don't own semi-automatic rifles for fun should not be allowed to participate in voting on that issue.  It is exactly a parallel of all the fat wrinkled 60-yr-old Republicans arguing about legislation for birth control for 20-yr-old women.  60-yr-old fat wrinkled men don't have sex, so they think that anyone who has sex is a slut or a prostitute.  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.

I don't recall the exact joke, but it involved some female reporter complaining about military rifle training because it equipped the guys to become killers.  The general's retort was that the reporter was equipped to become a prostitute.

Let's register every time a woman has sex. Gay men too.  That will certainly cut down on prostitution.  Law-abiding women should have no problem with this.
2013-01-27 01:23:08 AM  
2 votes:

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?


Publishing is very different today than it was in the 18th century. When the Constitution was created, publishing was a slow and labor intensive process that that required very expensive specialized equipment that was difficult to obtain. Now, any fool can publish his gibberish to the entire world! The Founders never intended for that to happen!

That's called sarcasm.

The Constitution affirms your Rights, it does not speculate how you can exercise those Rights because that is not important. You have the right to free speech. It doesn't matter that you can publish instantly throughout the world instead of spending days hand typesetting your manifesto that will only be available to a few hundred people at most. You have the Right to bear arms. It does not matter that arms have evolved with technology. In both cases, the right still exists despite technology. In fact, those Rights are even more important because of technology.
2013-01-27 01:18:41 AM  
2 votes:

Harry Knutz: So I see you agree that the Constitution is a living document. Subject to reintepretation, if you will.


That's not how it works.

If you want to change the Constitution, you have to go through a process. It's explicit and spelled out in the document itself.
2013-01-27 12:50:54 AM  
2 votes:
I can't believe that so many here not only don't understand their Constitutional Rights and exactly why they exist, but they are also willing to part with them of their own free will. And will also beg for majority rule to change our founding documents, which is exactly why the documents were written to protect all of our rights regardless of polling.
I will also shortly be called a gun nut for sharing this opinion, if history holds true.
2013-01-27 12:37:37 AM  
2 votes:

justtray: Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

-James Madison

I'm not sure which part of this you think supports an individual right to own arms. You guys really have to make some loose connections to get to that. 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, and I would further argue that even if it were, it is certainly not relevant to today's society.


Fine. Get 3/4 of the states to agree and we can reword the amendment. The bill of rights protects the rights of everyone, minority or not, and regardless of whether some people think those rights are relevant or not.
2013-01-27 12:35:07 AM  
2 votes:

justtray: I'm not sure which part of this you think supports an individual right to own arms. You guys really have to make some loose connections to get to that. 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, and I would further argue that even if it were, it is certainly not relevant to today's society.


You don't know what the militia is. That's fine, expect that you will not (for one reason or another) accept the definition when told.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
2013-01-27 12:28:43 AM  
2 votes:

vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".


So you don't have a problem living in a society where everyone is a criminal because the definition of "criminal" is changed to be all inclusive?
2013-01-27 12:04:51 AM  
2 votes:

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?


Ask them why they didn't write it that way. Nowhere does it say the Federal Government can regulate the militia.
2013-01-26 11:48:02 PM  
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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.

Where did you get the notion that it was just one?

"Reloaded frequently" in this context implies more than 5 magazines.

Where did you get the notion that more than one magazine was half-full?


Because I read the farking article and I can understand context.
2013-01-26 11:43:44 PM  
2 votes:

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

Our non-gun crime rate exceeds many developed nations total crime rate. While the UK's gun-crime rate is much lower than ours, it went up nearly 600% in some areas after their latest gun grab. Also, their knife-crime rate is about twice our gun-crime rate.

show your work. show the stats. post the facts. citation needed. that's just bullshiat.


Very well.
- Gun crime up 600% in parts of UK
- The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
- States' crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws
- http://johnrlott.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/so-did-piers-morgan-and-chris t iane.html
- Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime
- http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

I also recommend the book "Living with Guns: A liberal's case for the second amendment".
2013-01-26 10:52:54 PM  
2 votes:

Maximer: justtray: Maximer: Maximer: In Australia the buyback program was part of the Medicare Levy Amendment Act of 1996. You could probably find something on it around the internet somewhere.

Here's something useful that goes into quite some detail... http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf

Thank you. I am more interested in the the timeline from registration to weapon bans, but this is interesting too. I found this gem in there;

1. In commenting on the ANAO's draft report, the
Attorney-General's Department advised that the
Department considered the buy-back scheme to be an
outstanding success which had resulted in a reduction
of almost 650 000 firearms in the community. The
Department considered that outcome to be strongly
supported by a majority of Australians, including a
majority of gun owners.

Way less guns than us here, of course, but the fact that gun owners supported it I find interesting.

Very true. That's something worth highlighting, too. The gun culture in the US and Australia is vastly different. This law was effective because a vast majority of the population supported it. However, here in the US, there is significantly lower support and the people who oppose the law are extremely passionate. Those two facts combined make the implementation extremely difficult.

And, I remember scanning it somewhere (can remember exactly where though), but I believe at the passage of those laws about 80 to 90% of the Australian population supported the changing of the gun laws. Here, there only support of that amount is in Universal Background Checks (which I agree with provided there are exemptions made for immediate family). However, Assault Weapon Bans and High-Cap Magazine bans have a much lower level of support making their passage, enforcement, and effectiveness much reduced.


That's because magazine size restrictions are bullshiat that only makes target shooting a pain in the ass.

The AWB was only effective at keeping me reloading my little dinky little 5 round mags all summer at camp. A few banana clips in the .22 caliber would have been a godsend.

Meanwhile, there's no school shooters who would have been stopped by a ban. Even Sandyhook saw the lunatic discarding 30 round mags more than half full. And these mass killings are a recent and tiny fraction of all gun crime, which is down overall. So targeting them via guns is insane.
2013-01-26 10:25:53 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

Yeah, it worked GREAT for Hitler.

The US is just like Nazi Germany. Good point. It should be telling that so many gun nuts resort to Godwin.


Godwin doesn't apply when Hitler is referenced is a relevant action.
2013-01-26 10:09:47 PM  
2 votes:

justtray: They registered their weapons after the ban went into place, in 1992. I don't see how that defeats the argument. They had at least 3 years to register their weapons.



It's a little more complex than that.

1. Impose a ban on a certain weapon, while allowing weapons registered under a grandfather clause.

2. Extend the registration time.

3. Overturn the registration extention.

4. Grant immunity to those who registered during the then-legal extension, but only if they forfeit their weapon.

And I won't even get into the AG declaring a one model to be legal, then prosecuting those who owned that "legal" gun.
2013-01-26 09:13:46 PM  
2 votes:

justtray: the ha ha guy: justtray: You're going to have to source those for me, because I find them to be total BS.

California: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989

Legislators imposed mandatory registration for firearms that were grandfathered into a ban, then passed a retroactive ban and confiscated those that were registered under the grandfather clause.

Are you sure?


The Roberti-Roos law effectively banned the SKS rifle with the
detachable magazine, however, it didn't ban it completely. Although gun
shops couldn't sell the SKS with a detachable magazine anymore, owners
of the gun could still keep them as long as they complied with a
background check and had the gun registered.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/#cz3DmMsO1BcOaUMW.99



From your article:
"However, AB 48 also set up a state-run buyback program of SKS "Sporters"
because then-Attorney General Dan Lungren in 1997 - under political pressure
in a run for the governor's office - reversed an earlier decision about SKS rifles
with detachable magazines, effectively making them illegal
after owners had registered them
."

And a newer article from the same source:

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3747/
"WorldNetDaily obtained a copy of a proposed letter designed to notify
the estimated 1,550 assault weapons owners who were allowed to register
after March 30, 1992. The letter, dated June 8, 1999, would have told
the gun owners to turn in their registered weapons.

"You are advised to relinquish the assault weapon to a police or
sheriff's department pursuant to California Penal Code section 12288 or
render the weapon permanently inoperable," the letter said.

The letter also stated that the Justice Department would refund any
registration fee paid when the gun was registered. However, nowhere in
the letter did it mention any compensation for the firearm itself."
2013-01-26 09:11:40 PM  
2 votes:

Harry Knutz: I disagree. Trust is foundational to society. Trust is what allowed humans to form collectives in the first place. Saying governments should never be trusted is tantamount to saying you don't believe in civilization. And if that's the case, perhaps you truly don't have a place in society.


Oh, bull. "We don't need a bill of rights, people should just trust the government to do the right thing." Our entire constitution is about *not* trusting government. They didn't want a standing army, or even a "select" militia, because they were afraid of the government being too powerful. They created three separate branches of government to balance each other because they didn't think people in power could be trusted. Then they reserved many powers to the states and the people themselves, so that *they* could balance the federal government.

That doesn't mean we should come up with a crackpot conspiracy theory behind everything, but we should absolutely be considering ways in which the government could abuse any new power it may be given. That's especially true when state governments have already abused the power, and others have advocated for abusing it at the federal level.
2013-01-26 09:08:57 PM  
2 votes:

Xcott: sweet-daddy-2: In almost two years on FARK I have laughed,cried,rolled my eyes,and facepalmed.
But never have I become angry.That you should call me a traitor is loathsome.But forget that,your post is full of nonsense.Your misconceptions and lack of imagination render you a danger to a free society.

Then learn to read. Unless you are "a bunch of derptards," I was obviously not referring to you.

The people in this article are not resisting a tyrannical dictatorship. They are resisting a democratically elected government, whose democratically elected legislature created a new policy according to the state constitution.


A government that doesn't effectively represent a vast majority of the state. If New York City fell into the sea, New York would turn from blue to red overnight.
2013-01-26 09:08:17 PM  
2 votes:
There is a simple answer to all this

i.imgur.com
2013-01-26 08:56:43 PM  
2 votes:

illbeinmybunk: The talk has been "how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals"


That hasn't been the talk, but it would have been more interesting. I'm all for instant check, closing the gun show loophole for handguns, a reasonable waiting period for someone's FIRST gun (don't see the point of later ones), treating the diagnosed mentally ill with more caution (drawing this line would be an interesting conversation), and programs like Project Exile mentioned above.
2013-01-26 08:44:17 PM  
2 votes:

LavenderWolf: TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM AMERICANS LIKE THE RIGHT WING IS CONSTANTLY AFRAID OF IS PATENTLY ABSURD. IT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, OR IF YOU'RE A PESSIMIST, MILLIONS.



Except it has been done within the US, and some politicians are seriously proposing another round of gun confiscations.

An unregistered gun, legal or illegal, is currently protected by the fifth amendment. But a registered gun, legal or illegal, is protected by nothing more than faith that those in office won't institute a retroactive ban and use the registration as probable cause to get a warrant to confiscate the newly banned gun.
2013-01-26 08:40:23 PM  
2 votes:
I've learned from this thread that there are some liberals who actually believe in protecting rights and are able to carry on a logical conversation, but a large percentage REFUSES to reason with others and is DETERMINED to control people. What you have shown tonight is that you are borderline insane. Fortunately "you people" are anti gun and aren't a real danger to others.

/you know who you are
2013-01-26 08:39:25 PM  
2 votes:

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

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

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

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

In which democracy did that happen, historically?

I mean that is your argument right?


If I recall correctly California had people register their SKSs, then banned them a while later, conviently using the registration lists to know who to visit.
2013-01-26 08:37:21 PM  
2 votes:

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


+1
2013-01-26 08:36:18 PM  
2 votes:

al's hat: Actually, by definition straw purchases are an illegal act. It's buying a gun for someone who is not legally allowed to do so.


Prove it. Prove I bought this pistol for my buddy lenny who just got out of jail for rape. I just wanted to own a pistol that had some sweet polymer frame lines. What Lenny does with his money is his own business. I don't know why he had 760 dollars.

Or, rather. Hey. I reported that gun stolen the MOMENT I saw it missing. I never knew Lenny took it from me. Now, it wasn't a Straw Purchase, because you can't prove any of that cold, hard cash changed hands.

Proving a Straw Purchase is like proving you were fired for your religion. It requires a complete idiot.
2013-01-26 08:30:07 PM  
2 votes:

truthseeker2083: I didn't say anything worse would happen, merely that I'm uncomfortable about opening that door. I know what the government did once it had the Patriot act, I only shudder to think of what will happen if we give them power over more of our rights.


Will I need to register every one of my rights in order to use them? Where's the form to register my 1st, 4th, & 5th Amendments? I'll get to those other ones later...
2013-01-26 08:25:12 PM  
2 votes:

justtray: What's MLP?

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

Anyway, nothing of value was lost.


Remember folks, if you don't have any substance of argument left, you can always ignore someone and then threadshiat on their Saturday morning entertainment choices!
2013-01-26 08:24:35 PM  
2 votes:

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


Aren't gun control advocates making the same argument? If someone owns a certain gun, they could potentially do something wrong with it?
2013-01-26 08:23:42 PM  
2 votes:

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


"There's a good chance this won't be abused by the authorities" isn't a very strong pretext for enacting such a law.
2013-01-26 08:23:38 PM  
2 votes:

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

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.


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

History provides plenty of examples where registration had led to confiscation. Does this absolutely prove it will this time? No. But it makes it a very real and reasonable possibility- one to be avoided.
2013-01-26 08:23:22 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Just like tracking the sale of illegal drugs is so much easier because legal drugs are prescribed?
2013-01-26 08:20:38 PM  
2 votes:

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


You mean all TWO of the mass shootings last year that were carried out with an AR, right?
2013-01-26 08:06:02 PM  
2 votes:

Xcott: djh0101010: Guns are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic. They don't actually do anything by themselves. Weird, but true. Criminals, on the other hand, are people who do bad things, usually in an escalating pattern of evilness.

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

How does that prevent the next Sandy Hook or VT shooting? The killer was a messed-up kid who took his own life, and probably didn't give a crap what his hypothetical prison sentence would be.

He also had no criminal background: it wasn't an escalating pattern of evilness, it was just suddenly this guy killing a bunch of kids.

You know what would have stopped this schizo kid from shooting up a school? Not living with a gun "enthusiast" mom. This is what made him different from most other schizo kids who don't shoot up schools: this one lived with an arms stash, because it has become a giant fad to stockpile weapons. This guy's mom could have taken up knitting, but she got into "doomsday prepping."

I agree that some limits on extended magazines are not going to reverse the trend. It's better to have some policy that just reduces the stunning increase in firearms sales and discourages firearm hoarding as a trendy new hobby. Something like a 100% sin tax on all firearm and ammunition sales would help. Alternatively, we could use this disaster to effectively shame the conservative media empire that has been scaring half the country into buying gold and AR-15s. We wouldn't have nearly as many people preparing for the economy collapsing if nobody was feeding that dreck to them.


This sort of precaution will completely have NO effect on the VT, the CONN, and the other mass muderers. Those people are 3% of the murderous death creators, at most.

Punishing convicted criminals for their actions, is a much better approach. This way, we jail the people who misuse guns to attack good people, while we encourage the good people, who are not criminals, to help law enforcement to stop the bad guys.

It's not just a fantasy. Project Exile, in the 1990s in Virginia, had mandatory jail time for felons using guns, and violent crime dropped double digit percentages every year that was in effect.

When the Brady campaign, AND the NRA agree on something, and it's proven to work, perhaps that thing should be promoted. Please go read about Project Exile, and, please then follow this up by telling your congressman and senators that you want them to at least consider it.
2013-01-26 07:56:11 PM  
2 votes:
Before Cannabis was fully illegal, one step the government took was to require tax stamps for the purchase. Then, they didn't approve any tax stamps, so no one could legally own cannabis. What are the chances the government uses gun registration in the same way? 'You must register to own this gun... oh, wait, we aren't approving any more registrations...' It's happened before, and it will happen again unless we stop it.
2013-01-26 07:43:51 PM  
2 votes:

LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.

So it only counts if they go big? Smaller actual events, and larger proposals don't count?

So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?


Slavery wasn't a big deal either because only a very small number of people owned slaves. That's your logic at work, you farking schmuck
2013-01-26 07:42:08 PM  
2 votes:
Firearms ownership in America is a right and it is responsibly exercised by tens of millions of people. Taking the number of firearms owners in the USA (between 42-55 million - using a median of 50 million) and the number of shootings each year (approximately 100,000 which includes all types -- self inflicted, which are the majority, justifiable, murder, and negligent), every year 99.998% of gun owners don't shoot anybody.

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

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

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

In the last 25 years Canada has passed a number of gun laws. Every time there is a tragedy, prohibitionists call for yet tougher laws while never admitting that the laws they said were going to stop gun violence have failed. That is because they don't care that lawful gun owners are no risk, or that gun laws don't stop criminals. The bottom line is that the vast majority of anti gun people hate gun ownership and won't be satisfied until the populace is unarmed and the only people with guns are the police, military, and of course, the criminals.
2013-01-26 07:41:22 PM  
2 votes:

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

You sound like a child. Which would not be such a bad thing, except that you are probably armed.


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

The question is, where does all this control freakism by statists end? I believe it never ends until everyone is fully controlled. Has a believer in the state ever said 'we have enough laws, we have enough power, it's time to stop'? I don't think so. Each concession they are given only results in greater demands of control over the people.
2013-01-26 07:40:48 PM  
2 votes:

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

You know who else wasn't soft on crime?

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

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


How a gun grabber thinks.
2013-01-26 07:34:35 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


More death wished upon those who disagree with him, as well as a homophobe jab. This is the face of your typical gun grabber, America.
2013-01-26 07:28:21 PM  
2 votes:

PsiChick: Amos Quito: Good.

Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law. I'm all for protesting laws, but standing in the streets screaming F-bombs is not a protest, it's a temper tantrum. A good lawsuit would clear this clusterfark right up, especially since the law has no rationale at all behind it--sitting in the street screaming is more than slightly retarded when you have that option.


So let the gop pass anything they want in regards to womans reproductive issues/abortion and just challenge it in court?
2013-01-26 06:54:03 PM  
2 votes:

GoldSpider: Securitywyrm: "No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.

Sounds reasonable to me.


Same here. The militarization of police forces is no small issue. IFVs for police? DAFUQ?
2013-01-26 06:52:27 PM  
2 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


Heller specifically protected firearms that are in common use. Also the idea that the government would pay market value for seized firearms is laughable.
2013-01-26 06:46:36 PM  
2 votes:

Xcott: sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.

It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?


You anti gun folks are starting to lose it.
2013-01-26 06:39:12 PM  
2 votes:

Cheviot: In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?



In and of itself, registration is not a problem. What IS a problem is that quite a few politicians have used registrations to enact retroactive bans and confiscate guns made illegal under the new law.
2013-01-26 06:36:11 PM  
2 votes:
Everybody with a firearm should e-mail the President and inform him that today you did not commit any crimes with your guns. Every single day.
2013-01-26 06:21:48 PM  
2 votes:
Most guns used in crimes are small arms, usually stolen or purchased through some straw buyer.

Record which guns the dealers sold and stop getting your panties in a twist over big, scary rifles.
2013-01-26 06:20:48 PM  
2 votes:

Gdalescrboz: Guns really bring out the retarded in the far left.


Under the surface of the far left there is usually a person who wants a monopoly on violence and is secretly itching to get those with different politics imprisoned or shot. For the greater good, of course.
2013-01-26 06:08:13 PM  
2 votes:

PsiChick: Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law.


That's what all pot smokers do... though I'm sure no Farkers would ever violate the drug laws, of course. Honestly, who among us hasn't broken the law -- whether deliberately or inadvertently -- at least once in their lives? And yet in the vast majority of cases we hurt nobody by doing so. Legality is not morality, except to craven authoritarian types who believe that the government is the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong (at least when the political party they support is in power; otherwise, they're all for civil disobedience, f*ck the system, rage against the machine, etc.)

As far as guns are concerned, the philosophical case for ignoring gun control laws is even more straightforward than the 2nd Amendment: the government rules with the consent of the people (at least when it is not a tyrannical government, in which case every citizen would have a duty to resist it). Since the State governs with our consent, it can only use force because we have granted it the power to do so in order to protect us, which logically means that the use of force originates with the people. Now, in the event that the State is unable or unwilling to protect the lives of its citizens from immediate danger -- which, let's face it, is most of the time -- the people are perfectly entitled to see to their own defence with whatever means they deem necessary; after all, the use of force originated with them in the first place.

tl;dr -- if you live in Detroit where 911 response times are be measured in hours because of local governmental corruption and mismanagement, you are entitled to own a handgun to secure your own safety and that of your dependents regardless of what the government of Michigan or the feds might have to say about it. After all, it's your country -- not the government's.
2013-01-26 05:47:05 PM  
2 votes:

LavenderWolf: If gun registry == gun confiscation, by the same logic, gun ownership == gun violence.

/I love guns, to be honest. Just wish the pro-gun side could make arguments that don't amount to "SEE! THEY'RE TAKIN' ERR GUNS!" every other week.



The pro-gun side isn't pushing that myth, the anti-gun side is:

http://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?ArticleID=14934&SectionID=1&Sub S ectionID=335&S=1
"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those out there. Because if they're out there they're just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public's hands. There are just too big of guns."
2013-01-26 05:41:23 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.


Wow...that's an awfully broad brush you're painting xynix with, Ace. Why do you assume that he's a criminal? Is it
just because he has stated that he will not comply with the gun registration laws? We have this thing - maybe its a quirk because we were once an upstart little country - called civil disobedience. It has been used throughout our country's history to protest that which people think is wrong.

For the record, I am not a gun owner. We live in an isolated enough area where my husband and I have thought about it more than once but my oldest son is - even with medication - an unstable person. We don't want to tempt fate by having a firearm in the house if he ever decides to go apeshiat again and go after one of us.

That being said, I am in total opposition of forcing law abiding citizens to register their firearms. Why? Because it will only BE law abiding citizens who register them. The criminals who commit the acts that this law is supposedly designed to prevent will still commit those acts. This law won't prevent that.

Like someone up-thread already said - the government already gets your info when you buy a firearm and when you apply for a concealed carry permit. They don't need an itemized list of the firearms that you own.
2013-01-26 05:39:11 PM  
2 votes:
The same people saying defending gun registration are the same people that said gun owners were just paranoid for thinking the gov't wants us to register guns. It's hilarious watching you defend something that will "never" happen
2013-01-26 05:29:46 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?

Because registration lists have been published in newspapers, used for confiscation, and proposed to be used for confiscation. Also, it's a protected right to own a gun.


Freedom of information act does not apply to the BATF who currently has a record of every legal gun owner. A gun registry may be accessible under the FoIA and yes that puts the fear of God into me. The government already knows what guns I own. I don't need some crack head also knowing it and I certainly don't want it accessible via a website like it already is in some cases in certain states. I will not allow the government to put me in a compromising situation because a bunch of people who've never even shot a gun think they know what's right and what will prevent gun related crimes. I will not register my gun and I will immediately tell the police that I have an unregistered gun if such a law were to pass. I would then spend a lot of money fighting the law until it reached the SCOTUS and a lot of people would back me or me back them in the process. Luckily I live in Georgia where people are smart when it comes to guns..
2013-01-26 05:21:38 PM  
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own guns.


...and that's why gun owners are so skeptical of gun control advocates and their motives, distilled into a single sentence
2013-01-26 05:21:00 PM  
2 votes:

xynix: The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.


It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.
2013-01-26 05:19:49 PM  
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Ban them, confiscate them, imprison anyone who doesn't comply.

Why are we messing around with these lunatics? Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own guns. Anyone who wants to own a gun and is not a hunter or in law enforcement is mentally unstable, and therefore shouldnt be allowed to own guns. QED.


So, I have dozens of guns, and collect them as engineering curios and historical artifacts, and use them to precisely punch holes in paper. In your mind, this isn't a valid reason to own a machine that will never harm anyone? Apparently, in your mind, I'm a lunatic? That's weird, because I've shot tens of thousands of rounds so far in my lifetime, and I haven't killed anyone. One of us doesn't understand how this whole guns thing works. I'm PRETTY sure, it's you.
2013-01-26 05:19:16 PM  
2 votes:

PedanticSimpleton: Yes, register those firearms you legally purchased prior to any law that mandated it. Don't worry about douchebag progressive media outlets taking that registration information and publicizing it.


Yep. Also, it's not like another administration can't come along and remove the privacy provisions, or fail to adequately defend a challenge in court.
2013-01-26 05:17:52 PM  
2 votes:

Amos Quito: vpb: I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not. An unregistered gun in an incriminating object. It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.


1. The law has not taken effect YET
2. He doesn't live in New York, so the law will not apply to him


Are there ANY laws that the government might possibly enact that you might have a problem with? That you might defy?

Have you ANY "rights" that you are not willing to lie down and surrender in the name of being a "law abiding citizen"?

For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

It's not the law - YET - but there are those who are pushing for it - and HARD. Are you willing register your speech?


The issue is that gun owners have been making a big deal about how responsible and law-abiding they are and how it's just "those criminals" and crazy people who are doing all the killing.  Yet as soon as anyone asks them to demonstrate how responsible and law-abiding they actually are, they're all Nope, not me! I don't have to obey your laws! You're just doing it so you can take my gunz at some unspecified future date! Ha-ha! I'm onto you!

Well---okay. So then you're just like those criminals and crazy people you've been decrying for the last two months. You can't be BOTH a responsible gun owner AND one who refuses to obey the law. And insofar as your argument about the comparison between the 1st and 2d amendments: Free speech is a fundamental right. Gun ownership is not. And even if gun ownership is ever determined to be a fundamental right, ownership of ANY PARTICULAR gun never will be, just like there are certain types of speech which are not protected.

So pick one: You can be a responsible law-abiding gun owner, which means obeying ALL the laws, even the ones you don't like or agree with; or you can be a crazy criminal. You all were the ones who polarized this mess and so you get to lie in it.
2013-01-26 05:13:07 PM  
2 votes:
The U.S. Department of Education estimates the chances of dying in a school shooting at around 1 in 1,000,000. Someone is more likely to be blown up by fireworks, stung to death by bees or eaten by dogs. In that light, turning schools into fortresses might seem like overkill
2013-01-26 05:11:38 PM  
2 votes:

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Actually, that weapon is NOT legal without a FFA Class III Tax Stamp, and each round of 40mm has to be registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF, and have an according 200 dollar tax stamp.

Grenade Launchers are SPECIFICALLY covered in the National Firearms Act as destructive devices.
2013-01-26 05:11:20 PM  
2 votes:

kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.


Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.
2013-01-26 05:10:17 PM  
2 votes:

the ha ha guy: djh0101010: Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?


That didn't stop them and their supporters from complaining about Obama's suggestion to do exactly that.


Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.

Can you post a link to the point you seem to be pretending is valid? I'd love to see what it is you think the NRA is objecting to, so I can show you how you're wrong. Hint: If your response includes the term "Gun show loophole", please be prepared to explain how private sales at a gun show are somehow different than private sales anywhere else, and, how you propose that criminals will suddenly obey your new law, while they violate all the other laws.
2013-01-26 05:09:36 PM  
2 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.

Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?

you already did that yourself.

if your knowledge of the holocaust suggests that a lack of guns or gun registry played any significant part of the Jews being exterminated, you are an idiot.

but live in that fantasy.

read some Elie Wiesel... start there.
read any scholarly material on the holocaust and Germany and you will soon understand that guns and the gun laws of Germany has ZERO to do with the liquidation of the ghettos, the round ups etc...



I think it was a Jews had to register" thing not a gun point he was making.
2013-01-26 05:07:06 PM  
2 votes:

lilplatinum: xynix:
This is what is frustrating to gun owners..

Having to compensate for a small dick?


DRINK!

Anti-gun types really need some psychological help. I don't see this much talk about dicks in foobies threads.
2013-01-26 05:04:52 PM  
2 votes:

Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!


What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?
gja
2013-01-26 05:04:16 PM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one.
2013-01-26 05:03:44 PM  
2 votes:

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Well according to the image data it's an M79 grenade launcher. Which is legal in the same way machine guns are legal, meaning very expensive and lots of paperwork plus for this all your rounds have to be registered as destructive devices. I'm ok with this and would be in favor of moving all semi-automatic weapons into a similar category.
2013-01-26 05:00:42 PM  
2 votes:

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

Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.


Check your facts, please.

You see, the background checks and registration are already happening. They have been for years. It's already the law. To buy one of these weapons, you have to go to a dealer with a FFL cert specifically so they can do a background check and register the SN on the weapon to your name.

The problem that they're having is with private trades, which would not be affected by any of this new legislation anyway.

All they're doing is trying to add redundant steps to the process as an excuse to tax the hell out of us some more.
2013-01-26 05:00:23 PM  
2 votes:
media.giantbomb.com
dontdrinkbeer.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-26 05:00:03 PM  
2 votes:

the ha ha guy: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.


Some do not support bans or confiscation, but others do. So when a real gun-grabber gets in power, will the registrations be sealed? Or will those in power be able to use the registrations, which people like you claim could never be used for confiscation, as probable cause to justify confiscations that would otherwise violate the fourth amendment?

I'm in favor of all-around gun reform that protects legal gun owners and causes an actual decrease in deaths. But mandatory registration, without some heavy restrictions on using the data, is just an open door for a knee-jerk ban/confiscation of whatever scary looking gun the next killer uses.


Thats the slippery slope my friend that we know could happen. It's not even a tinfoil conversation.. the bill of rights was set up for a specific purpose. When people who have no idea what they're talking about or people that are reacting to a particular event start dicking around with our bill of rights we're in trouble. Those guys that built that bill were very smart and they were brilliant visionarys and they created an excellent country that made other countries follow suit and also become republics or democratic/republic hybrids.
2013-01-26 04:59:25 PM  
2 votes:

Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!


'Paranoia'??

It's just learning from History so we're not doomed to repeat it.
2013-01-26 04:58:54 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

You make the common mistake of defining "works" as "eliminates all crime", which is nothing more than a straw man.
"Reducing crime" is a better definition.
Has crime - specifically gun violence crime - been reduced in those cities?
Be honest now.


Has it? Isn't Chicago one of the most violent cities in the nation? It's not about guns you anti gun coonts, it's about poverty and gangs, but that's to hard to solve so you guys want gun bans that don't work.
2013-01-26 04:58:12 PM  
2 votes:

BgJonson79: Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail

that's as good as the "Hitler Banned Guns Too" fallacy.

Are you making fun of me for being Jewish?


you already did that yourself.

if your knowledge of the holocaust suggests that a lack of guns or gun registry played any significant part of the Jews being exterminated, you are an idiot.

but live in that fantasy.

read some Elie Wiesel... start there.
read any scholarly material on the holocaust and Germany and you will soon understand that guns and the gun laws of Germany has ZERO to do with the liquidation of the ghettos, the round ups etc...
2013-01-26 04:58:02 PM  
2 votes:
Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.
2013-01-26 04:55:16 PM  
2 votes:

Schubert'sCell: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

You're damned skippy. But not necessarily the way that you imply.

If you lose your gun license (felon, crazy, or whatever other reason), that prevents you from buying more guns, and gets you in deep shiat if you get caught with guns you already have. If all guns are registered, then there is data that enables the government to effectively enforce the law.

And to the "government wants us to register so they can round up all the guns more easily" argument: DIAF. That would require the government to enact laws that more than half of politicians oppose, as well as the courts, not to mention the people.


... Because the politicians, courts, and people never change their minds.
Let me tell you about a little thing called Prohibition...
2013-01-26 04:52:25 PM  
2 votes:
Keep acting like crazy people, gun nuts. It only helps the case for gun control.
2013-01-26 04:48:22 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


You don't have to register a car if it never leaves your property...
2013-01-26 04:46:41 PM  
2 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: vpb: xynix: You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.

I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.  An unregistered gun in an incriminating object.  It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.

A criminal (like you for instance) who caries an unregistered firearm has a chance of bring arrested for a firearms violation, hopefully before they shoot up a school.

It also helps separate the sane from the insane.  The sort of paranoids who think that the 2nd amendment was intended help them become terrorists to overthrow the government if it tries to take their guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  Basically the sort of people who admit on the internet that they plan to commit felonies if they don't get their way (like you did).

So, yes, registering guns could reduce crime by a good bit, even without a ban on the more dangerous sorts of gun.

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x361]


You think *blank* will obey *blank* laws?
Murderers do not obey laws.
Speeders do not obey laws.
Thieves do not obey laws.
Embezzlers do not obey laws.
Conclusion: there should be no laws at all.
2013-01-26 04:40:14 PM  
2 votes:
Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

world.guns.ru
2013-01-26 04:38:48 PM  
2 votes:

xynix: vpb: This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.

Yet another idiotic comment.. congrats to making it to level 5. My M&P 15-22 uses a .22lr round. A person could be shot 5-10 times and still survive the encounter with that gun. My .45 is chambered and the barrel is rifled (i know because I rifled it) for hydroshock bullets which will put a hole the size of a grapefruit in a person. That person will be lucky if they survive one round and certainly not two in an intense situation. If I had time to aim they won't last a single round.. the M&P is much harder to aim and the target would have opportunity to shoot back regardless. So proposing the banning of the M&P assault rifle accomplishes absolutely nothing because the 10 rounds in the .45 would be much more devastating.

This is what happens when you have someone that knows nothing about guns talking about gun control. And M16 is perfectly legal to own if you want to go through the lengthy and expensive process of owning it. It will cost about $4000 and it will take about 6 months to make happen but it can be done. What person who is intent on doing a mass shooting will go through that process? You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

This is what is frustrating to gun owners.. People like you that are clueless when it comes to such things discussing them like you actually know what you're talking about.


Guns, gods, gays. . . .three things that are guaranteed to generate lots of posts unhampered by any sort of progress
2013-01-26 04:37:10 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-26 04:36:55 PM  
2 votes:
Mandatory registration? Come on, hasn't anyone seen the original x-men cartoon?
2013-01-26 04:14:57 PM  
2 votes:
oi45.tinypic.com
2013-01-26 04:02:56 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: I always wondered how things look through the eyes of someone who thinks that assault weapons are in the constitution and who is a criminal.

Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not. An unregistered gun in an incriminating object. It is very difficult ro prove that someone was going to commit a crime in the future, but possession of an unregistered firearm is easy to prove.



1. The law has not taken effect YET
2. He doesn't live in New York, so the law will not apply to him


Are there ANY laws that the government might possibly enact that you might have a problem with? That you might defy?

Have you ANY "rights" that you are not willing to lie down and surrender in the name of being a "law abiding citizen"?

For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

It's not the law - YET - but there are those who are pushing for it - and HARD. Are you willing register your speech?
2013-01-26 03:49:05 PM  
2 votes:

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?


"We have to do something!"
2013-01-26 12:46:37 PM  
2 votes:
The government doesn't know about my gun.  I didn't pluralize that, I only have one shotgun that was given to me years ago.  I'm not gun nut, in fact I am fully in favor of an aggressive ban on assault weapons, but the government doesn't need to know about ANYTHING that is within my private property.
2013-01-29 06:13:53 AM  
1 votes:

Xcott: First, it's not pedantry to point out that this statement is wrong, unless "pedantry" is a synonym for "pesky facts." It's not wrong on some minor technicality. It's just plain wrong wrong, and you don't have to count very far up the bill of rights to see that it's wrong.


It is equivocation based on pedantry. You're even letting it play out here:

Xcott: I'm afraid to ask how you derived this from any definition of privacy, much less the one I never gave you.


In all your ramblings and usage of the word, you have delivered a meaning. Do you not understand how language works at all?

Here's the dictionary version of the word, for reference.

pri·vate [prahy-vit] Show IPA
adjective
1.
belonging to some particular person: private property. We do have rights.
2.
pertaining to or affecting a particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal: for your private satisfaction.
3.
confined to or intended only for the persons immediately concerned; confidential: a private meeting.
4.
personal and not publicly expressed: one's private feelings.
5.
not holding public office or employment: private citizens. Certainly the rights are for the private citizens. Military and politicians sacrifice many rights.

1 and 5, could conceivably fit the "all rights are private". But you, in your usage, try to pretend that 3 is the only meaning possible. You jump straight to "wrong" instead of asking what is meant by that.

That is why you're a moron who's going to end up on many an ignore list when this thread closes up.
2013-01-29 12:10:44 AM  
1 votes:

Xcott: You both completely missed the point. The point is that there was a ban in 1994, along with decades of other gun control legislation at the state and federal level.

The poster was claiming that just a year ago, "there was only a `fringe' effort to do anything about firearms," akin to the fringe effort to ban violent video games. In fact, legislatures have been restricting firearms in various forms for decades.


Maybe he should have used the word 'more', as in 'more gun control was a fringe effort'. None of the people pushing it now ever stopped saying they support it, but they never made much of a go at it.

Given that everything they're pushing is old, either they failed to push back then the things they claim are need, OR they're using the Sandy Hook shooting as a platform to push an old agenda.
2013-01-28 10:24:08 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: Even the proposed assault weapons ban is just going to be a rehash of something that was already passed in the 1990s.



It was so ineffective that they allowed it to expire without complaint. And some data suggests that the ban may have contributed to an increase in gun crime while it was in effect.

Yet the plan that has been proven to work was specifically rejected by Democrats as an option in New York, who instead pushed solely for a ban that is ineffective at best.

But let's not let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a good flame war.
2013-01-28 09:43:23 PM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, I speak from two decades of experience training soldiers.


And women who have given birth are practically expert Doctors.

What soldiers are you training that they have a lifetime of bad habits? Octogenarian social clubs?

No, your anecdotal career does not qualify you as an expert on why they are "better" shooters, only that in your experience, they do better. Psychologists and similarly educated people can't explain why either sex is better at say, math or chemistry, hell, they can't even agree which one is better at all half the time.

Although as a career military fire-arms trainer, that explains a lot about your significant lack of intellect.
2013-01-28 04:11:47 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: The fact is that nobody is banning violent video games.


And a year ago, there was only a "fringe" effort to do anything about firearms.

You're operating on a fallacy here. There are always people trying to pass X. Sometimes it doesn't happen, and sometimes it get's fairly close to happening, and at even other times, it does succeed, despite the people's wishes, and that's why the people need to speak up to defend themselves.

Take a civics class, seriously. If you don't understand that need/duty of the people, you're not as bright as you'd like to think.

Xcott: That's what I get for hanging out on the Politics tab, I guess.

I think it should be obvious that not every right is a privacy right.


He was saying it in a casual figurative matter. Many rights are specifically about not having the government intrude or otherwise deprive. You may want to look up equivocation as a fallacy to see your error here. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it as a teacher would a middle school student, but I'll let you have this much:

Some words have several meanings and usages. You're taking an unintended definition of "private" and applying it in a way the speaker never meant, even after it's been explained. This marks you as one of two things(or possibly both):

1. Remarkably Stupid
2. Intellectually Dishonest.

So, which is it, if not both?
2013-01-28 04:02:27 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: Emphasis on "proposed." This is just one of countless dopey proposals that never make it, and will never make it, because it pits entire high-tech industries against some concerned parents on a fainting couch.



But do you see now that these are not just "some loons saying things that nobody takes seriously"?

And its nice to see that you sidestepped my other question entirely. Here it is again in case you missed it the first time.

If 38 deaths in a year from one type of is sufficient to impose a ban on that gun, why isn't there a ban on the type of gun that has killed 6000? What specifically makes the gun used in two incidents more dangerous than the gun used in thousands? What makes the rifle, which is impossible to conceal, more dangerous than the tiny handgun that can be carried anywhere and smuggled through almost any checkpoint?

Also, do you have any comment on the Democratic lawmakers rejecting measures that have been proven to lower gun violence? Or is that just an inconvenient fact that you'd rather ignore?
2013-01-28 01:36:09 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: omeganuepsilon: Xcott: where are people banning violent video games

Link

You realize that this list has only one entry for the USA, and it was a pornographic game banned for having an underage model. That's some nice oppression there, Lou.


You're awefully thick. The point is that without opposition, that single entry wouldn't be so lonely.

Xcott: This is just one of countless dopey proposals that never make it, and will never make it, because it pits entire high-tech industries against some concerned parents on a fainting couch.


Never? You sound like a borderline religious zealot. "Have faith and the government will never fail you!"

Get stuffed.

Xcott: Not all rights are a matter of privacy


Equivocation and pedantry will never gain you any real amount of respect when used to attempt to manipulate the argument into what you want to argue against, even though it's not the argument we're putting forth.

Keep farking that chicken, dimwit.
2013-01-28 12:33:03 AM  
1 votes:

Xcott: online anonymity


You think we have that now? If so you are naive to an extreme. It is but an illusion.

Xcott: where are people banning violent video games


Link

NRA and others have undoubetly tried.

Hillary Clinton promotes law to ban violent video games 2005

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced a bill this week that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
The Supreme Court struck down a similar California law in 2011, ruling that the restriction violated the constitutional right to free speech.
- This year(and previously 2011)

The point is, it's a continual effort that makes the news a lot. Nice of you to pretend that such things don't happen.

The "excuse" is that it empowers parents. The reality is that it removes responsibility from them for judging what their kids can and cannot handle, and carrying out that decision.

Xcott: Phinn: "Privacy" is the dumbest word in Constitutional law, for the simple reason that ALL Constitutional rights are a form of privacy.

The right to public assembly is a right to privacy?


Try not to cherry pick, if you'd read his whole post you'd see what he meant. Plenty enough people here playing dumb, no need to add to that pool.

Phinn: The right not to have your stuff searched and seized unless there is good reason to suspect a crime has been committed.


That's pretty much my problem with requiring registration. It bypasses that whole legal search thing. Ben has a gun, we know he has a gun, more than that, we know the makes and models. If we ever make X illegal, it will be easy as pie to know where the lion's share of them are.

No, imo. The only regulation we need is to ensure firearms are more or less safe to use, IE not likely to blow up in our faces and damage us and those around us. Same regulation that a plethora of consumer items get.

It makes things like saturday night specials and zip guns illegal, and well they should be unless they're mounted on a wall as part of a collection. It's a safety issue, not a rights issue.
2013-01-27 08:14:30 PM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: A real "all-or-nothing" person, aren't you? Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


Banning the gun used makes about as much sense as banning the car he drove there in.
2013-01-27 07:56:57 PM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


Aren't the gun control people having the overly emotional hissy fit? How dare people fight back against people trying to ban guns for no actual reason!
2013-01-27 07:17:11 PM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


That portion that thinks it know's what's up can get farked.

Everyone is all fine and well outlawing things that don't pertain to them or things they'd never use, sad fact of democracy.

LoneWolf343: Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period,"... a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer


No one is saying a 50 round clip is needed to bring down a deer.
/taste of your own moronic derp

What we all are saying is that restrictions on guns are pointless, criminals won't heed them just as they don't now, and therefore the only impact is on law abiding citizens being further restricted.

It's a shoddy token gesture that only serves as a hassle to legal and honest citizens, and leads to a paper trail that could be abused in the future.

Very parallel to copyright protection on movies and games in how they hassle honest people, yet are easily subverted by the people who choose to ignore them.

What would be helpful is some education and mental healthcare reform. But no, that requires actual work.
2013-01-27 04:28:56 PM  
1 votes:
xynix
You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

But but guns are scawwy! We have to ban everything that might ever be dangerous!
2013-01-27 03:09:47 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Phinn: These simple facts lead to an inescapable conclusion -- the Left doesn't actually care about gun crimes, preventing deaths, or solving any problems whatsoever, but that their real purpose is to control people who oppose them.

Really? And the prohibition of drugs is the point you use to support this? The Right of the United States are typically the ones that oppose the legalization of any drug for recreational use. It's typically Democrats or Independents who are the ones who propose laws to decriminalize or legalize.


Gee, it's almost as though the Left and the Right are working together, in a kind of dysfunctional but symbiont relationship, with the common denominator being ...

control.
2013-01-27 03:05:41 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: pyrotek85: Why do you think everyday citizens aren't capable of basic self defense? I'm just getting the impression that you think people are near useless without tactical training, which just isn't the case. It's good to have of course, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it sound.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that it's very much shades of gray. About fifty or so of them.


So what point were you making then when you said someone would have to make a lucky shot to take him out? I'm saying it wouldn't take that much luck, that it only requires basic instruction and practice to make good hits at the distances that shootings commonly occur at. You gave me the impression that you'd have to be an extensively trained 'tactical operator' to do that, and I disagree. I know the skill levels of CCW holders will vary, the same as it will cops and of course the criminals themselves. It isn't hard to become proficient though.
2013-01-27 02:23:14 PM  
1 votes:

djh0101010: Way to focus on a minor point while being wrong in every point you make.


At this point, I'm going to go ahead and double-post, and call you out as a fraud, and as someone who is so dedicated to trolling that you're willing to commit a crime to do so.

You do realize that falsely claiming to be an EMT for personal gain is a crime in every state, right?

1) You refer to the National Registry as "Licensure", and have made repeated comments about being a National Registry "Licensed" EMT for the last few days when you have been trolling and insulting me. This is a mistake that no EMT would ever make. Your state licenses EMTs and Paramedics, and more commonly certifies EMT-Bs and First Responders. It's a legal difference in terms that is addressed in the first chapter of an EMT-Basic book and every refresher I've ever sat through. You then accused me of working in NYC when my profile clearly states I work in the south. Your "knowledge" of my profession seems based on clicking the top results in google searches.

2) You have repeatedly avoided questions where I have asked you in what state you're licensed in. You constantly refer to yourself as having been a "volunteer EMT" for the past 12 years, and have insulted me as both being a member of a union, and being a "wage slave" because two of the four jobs I work at pay me. Yet you seem to have no knowledge of the fact that "EMT" is a general level descriptor for EMT-Basic, and that EMT-Basic is the most widely varied scope in the United States of ANY healthcare profession.

3) You have never referred to the profession as EMS. You have always used Emergency Medical Responders (in proper caps even) and National Registry as your point of licensure. No one does this. EMR is a level, more commonly known as first responders, which requires a 40 hour class. Paramedic in the State of Tennessee requires 1500 Hours of Class and Instructional Time at minimum, in addition to clinical time.

4) You can't even use proper terminology in your posts. No one in the EMS Profession calls a Paramedic an EMT - it's a term used by every other healthcare provider as a blanket term. An EMT is an EMT, and a Paramedic is a Paramedic. No one, not even the most rookie first responder - let alone an EMT who's been working the streets for "12 years"

No. You sound like you're either an auxillary wacker who doesn't realize he's being laughed at for posting the way he does, the wife or family member of someone in the emergency medical profession, or someone who's trolling with googled information.

You're still going to be laughed at, but I won't post this in every other thread you ever post if you are willing to tell what your actual level of certification and your state of licensure is.

i23.photobucket.com
2013-01-27 02:20:37 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: You're shooting at a moving target who is firing large quantities of high velocity ammunition in your general direction.


BronyMedic: NOT the same as shooting a moving target that is shooting back at you.


It all depends on the situation. Most crazy shooters don't fire blindly, they pick their shots, adjust, take another shot, adjust. They're not always firing at "me". It's not happening quite the way you make it sound.

Maybe a self-defense shooter wouldn't get the time, or draw attention to himself and become a target, but it isn't a hard and fast rule that it would be impossible to shoot him while he's not looking or otherwise get the drop on him.

Also, as a shooter moves room to room, people not in the first room would have ample time to set up a defense to pop him as he stepped in.

In reality it doesn't always happen within the confines of your apparently limited imagination.
2013-01-27 12:18:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:56:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:04:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:31:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:23:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:09:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:21:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:14:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:15:45 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-27 03:40:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:03:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:02:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:01:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:44:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:21:23 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 01:20:06 AM  
1 votes:

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?


Than why didn't they affirm the right to only owning late 18th century arms? Are modern guns not arms because they're modern?
2013-01-27 01:19:13 AM  
1 votes:

the ha ha guy: Harry Knutz: 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?


Sure, just as soon as your right to free speech is limited to writing one sentence a day on a whiteboard at your local post office.

That's your point, isn't it? No matter how strict the limitation is, only an outright ban is unconstitutional? Or does that only count when it's "them" rather than "us" whose rights are being infringed?


Basically yeah, we're supposed to agree that single shot .22s are reasonable limitations or something. What does 'shall not be infringed' mean again?
2013-01-27 01:15:54 AM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: 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?



Sure, just as soon as your right to free speech is limited to writing one sentence a day on a whiteboard at your local post office.

That's your point, isn't it? No matter how strict the limitation is, only an outright ban is unconstitutional? Or does that only count when it's "them" rather than "us" whose rights are being infringed?
2013-01-27 01:14:58 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 01:13:48 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 01:09:12 AM  
1 votes:

justtray: muck4doo: justtray: muck4doo: illannoyin: There is a simple answer to all this

[i.imgur.com image 697x294]

I disagree. Let people keep having their rights in places like NY, CA, DC, and IL. They shouldn't have to move to TX or anywhere else to do so. By the way, how are those states doing on crime with their harsh gun laws?

Interestingly, much better than states like Mississippi, Louisana, South Carolina. By a factor of 2 or 3.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-stat e

NY, CA, DC, and IL. We might be safer than LA and MS. You guys run with that.

DC isn't really a state, but otherwise I'd say I defeated your point quite soundly.


Little jack booted authoritarians are good at defeating little points soundly as well as everyone elses rights.
2013-01-27 01:05:58 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 01:04:59 AM  
1 votes:

justtray: OgreMagi: justtray: OgreMagi: vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

So you don't have a problem living in a society where everyone is a criminal because the definition of "criminal" is changed to be all inclusive?

You mean like anyone who smokes pot? Any internet hacker, even if they steal "public" information?

Yeah it's called laws. They change based on democracy.

If democracy was involved with the laws our government is passing, I would agree. As it is, the will of the people is ignored. The politicians gain office through lies, assisted by the media who no longer performs their duty of providing neutral reporting of the facts. The people return these same assholes to office with re-election, thus rewarding them for their lies and deceit.

And you admit you accept the entire populous being turned into criminals by outlawing what was once legal. You are pathetic.

I don't see you railing against people in jail for pot. You simply care about your own selfish interests.

Yes illegal things make people criminals. They're called Laws.


You seem to think I am ONLY talking about firearms. I'm not. I'm railing against all of the laws that are turning ordinary and (otherwise) honest people into criminals. That includes our unjust laws for pot.
2013-01-27 12:59:17 AM  
1 votes:

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

This particular thought experiment was not framed to instigate discussion, but to confirm your own biases.

So you tell me, what is this "something" that you assume gun owners to hold about owning guns if it's not the second amendment?

It's not my job to tell you what it is. It's up to those who said they would violate the Constitution if the Constitution proved, in this case hypothetically, to run contrary to their desire to bear arms.

Why would you continue to assert the right to bear arms if, hypothetically, none were provided by the people who defined the very nature of this country?


The Constitution affirms rights, it doesn't grant them.
2013-01-27 12:53:27 AM  
1 votes:

justtray: OgreMagi: vpb: So much for "law abiding gun owners".

So you don't have a problem living in a society where everyone is a criminal because the definition of "criminal" is changed to be all inclusive?

You mean like anyone who smokes pot? Any internet hacker, even if they steal "public" information?

Yeah it's called laws. They change based on democracy.


If democracy was involved with the laws our government is passing, I would agree. As it is, the will of the people is ignored. The politicians gain office through lies, assisted by the media who no longer performs their duty of providing neutral reporting of the facts. The people return these same assholes to office with re-election, thus rewarding them for their lies and deceit.

And you admit you accept the entire populous being turned into criminals by outlawing what was once legal. You are pathetic.
2013-01-27 12:49:51 AM  
1 votes:
Really am off now, saw that last bit and knew it had been covered to death, but some people are very selective readers, and of course there are some new faces.

Bears repeating, as it were.

Almost all of it is still applicable today. If you really want to assert that it is not, you're going to have to show your work. The concepts of our goverment being run of, by, and for the populace at large is still principle(though arguably dwindling, all the more reason for the people to safeguard their rights and power).
2013-01-27 12:44:10 AM  
1 votes:

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


This particular thought experiment was not framed to instigate discussion, but to confirm your own biases.

So you tell me, what is this "something" that you assume gun owners to hold about owning guns if it's not the second amendment?
2013-01-27 12:38:54 AM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: the ha ha guy: Harry Knutz: Thank you for answering. What this thought experiment proves is that this is not now nor ever was really about the Second Amendment for the gun hoarders. It's about something else.


No, it means you asked a loaded question that is demonstrably false, as proven by the words and actions of the founding fathers themselves.


Time for my thought experiment:

If Frodo gave Gandalf a gun before he left for Orthanc, and Gandalf shot Saruman during their fight, would Gwaihir detect the gun during the Eagle Security Administration screening?

Hey, it's just as valid as your thought experiment...

You bet it is. That's what a thought experiment is.



But you didn't answer my question, so now I'm going to derail the thread with demands for answers and dismiss any answer you give that doesn't reinforce my point of view.
2013-01-27 12:37:24 AM  
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: justtray: I'm not sure which part of this you think supports an individual right to own arms. You guys really have to make some loose connections to get to that. 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, and I would further argue that even if it were, it is certainly not relevant to today's society.

You don't know what the militia is. That's fine, expect that you will not (for one reason or another) accept the definition when told.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. "A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other t ...


Here's Hamilton's view, if you want a bigger name:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
2013-01-27 12:34:20 AM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: If you're saying that the Constitution must be read in strictly constructionist terms (as most Second Amendment advocates do), then it follows that you'd also be obliged to follow the hypothetical First Amendment application you bring up as well, no?

Why? I'd either fight to gain our rights back or move to Canada.

But in this thought experiment, your "rights", as it were, don't exist. The Framers are saying that's not what they meant. So in the face of the Founders of this great country that you love so much telling you you have no right to private gun ownership, you're saying you'd fight them? Isn't that treason?


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
2013-01-27 12:25:00 AM  
1 votes:
The Second Amendment makes no limits on gun ownership. It specifically limits the ability of the Government to even make limits on gun ownership.
2013-01-27 12:23:00 AM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: I'm not the one invoking the Second Amendment every time someone attempts to put common sense regulations on private gun ownership.


define 'common sense'
2013-01-27 12:22:18 AM  
1 votes:

ko_kyi: Harry Knutz: This is a hypothetical. Answer.

I'd encourage them to kick your dumb ass out of the country for forming one of the most comical idiotic loaded questions in the history of Fark. And that is saying something.


lol
He almost smells like IDW. He's got that air about him, flatulence produced by eating paint chips with a draino chaser.
2013-01-27 12:17:45 AM  
1 votes:

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?


a)The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1)The Vice President.
(2)The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3)Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4)Customhouse clerks.
(5)Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6)Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7)Pilots on navigable waters.
(8)Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b)A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Im not any of those....so that means that I am in the militia.
2013-01-27 12:15:16 AM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: This is a hypothetical. Answer.


I'd encourage them to kick your dumb ass out of the country for forming one of the most comical idiotic loaded questions in the history of Fark. And that is saying something.
2013-01-27 12:09:21 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 12:09:00 AM  
1 votes:

vpb: Honest law abiding people will register their firearms, criminals will not.


So what you are saying is that registration will accomplish nothing because a gun used in a crime won't be registered to the person that committed the crime.

So what's the point of registration other than having a list for later confiscation?
2013-01-27 12:03:23 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 11:58:34 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 11:51:34 PM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Perhaps easier to getaway or overpower him if he's reloading fourteen times instead of five.

what about the VT shooter? He reloaded 15 times.

Ten round magazines?

And nobody got away, right?


yet, he managed to kill 32. Are you really going to claim that if he had 15 round magazines it would have been even worse? He reloaded FIFTEEN TIMES!
2013-01-26 11:47:32 PM  
1 votes:
Q: Why do anti-government people feel that owning a gun is a right on par with free speech, and not a privilege?

A: Because 300 years ago the government said so.
2013-01-26 11:41:45 PM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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.


Only because your capacity for rational logic is very very low.

Add to that that scared shiatless students and teachers really likely will not overpower him in the 2 seconds it would have taken to change 10 round mags, as they didn't when he was ejecting and reloading the half spent 30 round mags, and a mag capacity reduction is totally and utterly pointless.
2013-01-26 11:38:37 PM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Perhaps easier to getaway or overpower him if he's reloading fourteen times instead of five.


what about the VT shooter? He reloaded 15 times.
2013-01-26 11:27:39 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: take_flight: The NY SAFE act isn't even worth debating. Why it wouldn't have worked in a Newtown type incident...

[etc]

This was my reaction too. I couldn't find a single measure that would have prevented Newtown, unless their intention is to make the laws so onerous that gun-stashing becomes less popular as a hobby. But if you wanted a policy to reverse the recent gun fad, you could probably do it without any of these rules.

The odd thing about Sandy Hook is that it seems to represent the ultimate counterexample for the gun debate. It challenges every truism and every principle espoused on both sides: the shooter had no criminal record, and his mom acquired her guns legally after passing a strict background check. He was skilled enough that he didn't need a high-capacity magazine, he killed himself at the end, and of course he was nuts.

You wouldn't have stopped this guy with stricter background checks, or by closing "the gunshow loophole," or by barring the mentally ill from having guns (this guy was undiagnosed, and they were his mom's guns anyway.) He wouldn't have been stopped if he had smaller magazines, or handguns instead of an AR-15. Nothing in this law would have stopped him. Pretty much everything proposed by gun control advocates wouldn't have stopped him.

On the other hand, we wouldn't have stopped this guy by cracking down on criminals, or by having harsher punishment for convicted criminals. This guy had no criminal record. The threat of someone packing a handgun wouldn't deter him either---really the threat of anything wouldn't deter this guy. He was planning either to kill himself or to die in a shootout with cops, if he was of sound enough mind to be planning anything at all. Nothing proposed by gun rights advocates would have stopped him either.

Sandy Hook also challenges the slogans that "guns don't kill people," "a gun is just an inanimate object," "we don't have a gun problem, we have a crime problem." Okay, sure, but in thi ...


Point Blank: we have a 'BAD PARENTING' problem in this nation. At ANY point, Nancy Lanza should NEVER have let her socially disconnected kid come in contact with firearms, and she should have notified the police (likewise the police should have ACTED on her reports) of his increasingly erratic behavior. Ditto with Klebold/Harris, James Holmes' and Seung-Hui Cho's parents - I mean how goddamn disconnected can you be with your children's lives that you dont know who their friends are and what they're up to?
2013-01-26 11:24:48 PM  
1 votes:

doglover: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: doglover: Even Sandyhook saw the lunatic discarding 30 round mags more than half full.

Cite?

I swore it was on wikipedia, but the the police report says there was only one 30 round mag there. Now I'm not sure where I read that.

Anyway, the point is magazines don't shoot people, people do. We had no magazine restrictions back in the day, and fully automatic machine guns for sale, and somehow the world didn't come to an end. I'm against prohibitions on things just because they're dangerous. We have to control people or it's pointless.


I've read it too around the interwebs too.


Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

More than a week after the shooting, investigators were still finding bullets under doors and in carpets and walls in the school as they tried to match the casings to the magazines.

Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently.

If true, it is the most legitimate link to video games yet. Perhaps the first legitimate connection.
2013-01-26 11:02:33 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: It looked to me like the buyback was only for weapons purchased between 1992-1999, after the ban went into place. I didn't read everything though.



The buyback was on everything. But my main point is that they took people's registration information under the guise that they would remain legal if they do so, then used that registration information to demand forfeiture of the guns, and prosecute those who refused to do so. The buyback and immunity were a stop-gap measure put in place after the fact so that people would have a chance to become legal without the police showing up to arrest those who had no idea that their registered gun was now illegal due to some court technicality.
2013-01-26 10:47:29 PM  
1 votes:

the_foo: Our non-gun crime rate exceeds many developed nations total crime rate. While the UK's gun-crime rate is much lower than ours, it went up nearly 600% in some areas after their latest gun grab. Also, their knife-crime rate is about twice our gun-crime rate.


THIS
2013-01-26 10:38:55 PM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: fredklein: Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.

If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey the law, and will just use illegal, unregistered guns.

Because, freddyboy, if it became apparent you were, say, amassing an arsenal capable of shooting up a school, I'd think the rest of us would want to know that, hmmm? You know, as we're all part of a society, yes?


Who makes that judgement? How many guns becomes too many? It only takes one gun to shoot up a school.

Many gun collectors own many guns, because, well, they're gun collectors.
2013-01-26 10:36:54 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: It doesn't? And how is it relevant, exactly? The J00s are victims just like gun nuts? Please, do be specific.


Because, like you, Hitler was an authoritarian.
2013-01-26 10:31:15 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: Guns are harder to manufacture than street drugs.


True, but not that much more difficult.

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.


Sorry, but this is factually incorrect. With common garage tools and a few easily-available raw materials, fully-automatic firearms are relatively simple to manufacture. Furthermore, practically any decent mechanic could do so with little difficulty, and step-by-step plans and videos are freely available online. The resulting weapons would often be butt-ugly, bulky, and heavy, but they would function just fine.
2013-01-26 10:16:33 PM  
1 votes:

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


Our non-gun crime rate exceeds many developed nations total crime rate. While the UK's gun-crime rate is much lower than ours, it went up nearly 600% in some areas after their latest gun grab. Also, their knife-crime rate is about twice our gun-crime rate.
2013-01-26 10:13:39 PM  
1 votes:

rattchett: The bottom line is that the vast majority of anti gun people hate gun ownership and won't be satisfied until the populace is unarmed and the only people with guns are the police, military, and of course, the criminals.


This right here sums it up.

It isn't about preventing crime. It's that some people just plain hate/fear guns (when not in police/military hands) and want them gone.

There are places with lots of guns and low crime. There are places without a lot of guns, and high crime. It's far more about the local culture than the local armaments.

Anti-gun people just plain don't like guns. They see them as evil, or murderous, or unnecessary, and should be banned to get rid of bad things in the world. It's the Liberal mirror-version of Republican anti-abortion rhetoric: ban the murderous-bad-evil thing that has no legitimate purpose other than to kill and is only done by those with no regard for morality the sanctity of life and. Same derp-filled argument, both sides, pointed at different things.

Pro-gun people see guns as just another fact of life. Be it for self-defense, or hunting, or to collect, or as a hobby.

The vast majority of pro-gun people have no criminal intent, but that doesn't matter to anti-gun people. Look at a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric that is thrown around on Fark.

Yes, handguns kill. What's your point? It's perfectly legal to kill somebody in self-defense, like shooting a burglar in your home. Having something that kills is quite useful there. If somebody breaks into my house in the dead of night, I am going to use my handgun to kill him, and it would be perfectly legal to do so.

An AR-15 is not some evil black-magic death machine. It's a rifle, a very versatile and popular one. Yeah, it is a very close cousin to a military rifle, that doesn't make it a mass-murder machine only fit for soldiers on duty. For many it's just their hunting rifle, or their target shooting rifle.
2013-01-26 10:08:28 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: Amos Quito: justtray: Maximer: justtray:
Here's where I stand on guns: You should be able to have them. Certain kinds of firearms should be a little harder to get than others, and you should be lic ...

I actually agree a lot with what you say. However, I disagree with the licensing. I do not think it's within the government's right to track a constitutionally protected item.

It doesn't seem right that the government would take an active part in controlling a right that exists to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds. Kinda defeats the purpose.

That is your opinion and I respect it, but I would argue that they are not constitutionaly protected. At the very least, not all guns are. From Heller 2008.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.


You wanna know how "limited" any given "right" is?

As limited as you will allow it to be.

And?



Rights can't be "given", they can only be taken away.

The Constitution didn't pretend to "give" anyone rights, rather to preserve inherent rights against authoritarian intrusion.

Authoritarians will all and always limit as many rights as they can. 'Tis the nature.

The question is, how much are you willing to give?


/The hunger
2013-01-26 10:04:50 PM  
1 votes:

GUTSU: Civil disobedience towards a law they think is unconstitutional? The horror, don't they know every good citizen follows the law, herr doktor?


Breaking the law is not civil disobedience. Is shoplifting "civil disobedience"? How about drunk driving? How heroic our nation's rapists are, to engage in so much "civil disobedience!"

But no: civil disobedience means breaking the law AND submitting yourself to authority, in an act of protest. When war protestors poured blood on a recruiting station and sat down on the steps awaiting arrest, that was civil disobedience. If some punks vandalized that same recruiting station in the middle of the night and ran away, that wouldn't be civil disobedience, that would be cowardly dirtbag hooliganism.

So if these people plan to refuse to register AND inform the police that they have guns, then they can call it an act of "civil disobedience" instead of "crime."
2013-01-26 09:55:36 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: Maximer: justtray:
Here's where I stand on guns: You should be able to have them. Certain kinds of firearms should be a little harder to get than others, and you should be lic ...

I actually agree a lot with what you say. However, I disagree with the licensing. I do not think it's within the government's right to track a constitutionally protected item.

It doesn't seem right that the government would take an active part in controlling a right that exists to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds. Kinda defeats the purpose.

That is your opinion and I respect it, but I would argue that they are not constitutionaly protected. At the very least, not all guns are. From Heller 2008.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.



You wanna know how "limited" any given "right" is?

As limited as you will allow it to be.
2013-01-26 09:32:33 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: This is a silly argument. The fact that power can be abused is not limited to this.

The power to own cars can be abused by people who want to run people over. What do we do about this?


I'm not worried about individual citizens abusing power. Individuals are going to do what they are going to do. You can't fix stupid.

However, the people I mentioned have the ability to abuse power in a way that affects many more people.

Would you be in favor of a DNA database? It has the potential to reduce crime but I think you can also see how it could easily be abused.
2013-01-26 09:31:41 PM  
1 votes:

the ha ha guy: LavenderWolf: Saying "Gun registration leads to confiscation!" doesn't work when you factor in that only a specific kind of gun was banned.


You are speaking of a general repeal of the second amendment, which isn't going to happen, regardless of what the gun-grabbers and gun-nuts might think.

What we are saying is "mandatory registration of model X firearm can, and historically has, lead to confiscation of model X firearm", nothing more.


By the way, I'm a pro gun-reform liberal, so you didn't exactly pick the best target for your anti-gun-nut rant.


This is what's going on in NY...This, and my daughter's school was locked down last week because a student walked down the hall with a drill...a drill. That's just 2 examples, there are many other recent stories just like it.

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Officials-Handle-Afton-School-Threat-1 8 8298081.html
2013-01-26 09:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

RINO: Hasn't it already been reported the schoold was strewn with partially loaded mags? He was already reloading after every ten or so shots. That plus Cho I think rebutts the argument against standard capicity magazines.


Yep. He left partially loaded mags, some with 15 rounds left, everywhere. Cho brought 19 magazines and I think they reported that he went through at least 15 of them.
2013-01-26 09:30:07 PM  
1 votes:

justtray:
Here's where I stand on guns: You should be able to have them. Certain kinds of firearms should be a little harder to get than others, and you should be lic ...


I actually agree a lot with what you say. However, I disagree with the licensing. I do not think it's within the government's right to track a constitutionally protected item.

It doesn't seem right that the government would take an active part in controlling a right that exists to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds. Kinda defeats the purpose.
2013-01-26 09:24:44 PM  
1 votes:
Weird. When BronyMedic is confronted with facts, suddenly he stops talking. I wonder why, oh why, that could be.

Brony, grow up and get some facts before you come back. Or maybe even take a basic course in logic.
2013-01-26 09:12:38 PM  
1 votes:

illannoyin: There is a simple answer to all this

[i.imgur.com image 697x294]


I disagree. Let people keep having their rights in places like NY, CA, DC, and IL. They shouldn't have to move to TX or anywhere else to do so. By the way, how are those states doing on crime with their harsh gun laws?
2013-01-26 09:11:36 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: The problem with that argument is that the power of an individual to do harm, and the power of the possible adversaries to deal with that harm, has changed since the founding fathers put ink to paper.


Escalated from black powder weapons, yes. The principles of self defense, no.

This has always been a grasping at straws sort of argument, no matter the various forms it's delivered in. The law was written, as were many at this nation's birth, with the expectation that things would change, and could very well change for the worse(even the worst).[hence the argument about protection from tyranny]

We still have the right to defend ourselves, yes?

Now, if JohnnyPscyhoX has a heat seaking shark with a laser gun strapped to it, should we still be limited to a 10 round lead projectile under a certain caliber? Or worse, as some people put forth, a black-powder weapon as our founders supposedly "intended"?

I move that no, limiting individuals in their arms is tatamount to not letting them bear in the first place.

LavenderWolf: But, again, we're not talking about taking guns away from people.


But you are. Every single time you reply to X, you are talking about X. If you do not wish to discuss it, or similarly do not want to appear as if you are specifically for disarming the american populace, stop arguing against people who want to protect that right.

______

I'm all for keeping guns out of the wrong hands as well. But not by hampering legal users, or setting up a structure which could be abused. If there's one thing we've all seen over time, it's the willingness for the government to push it's limits, and when that's set, just make up new ones.([IE the Rachel Maddow story recently linked on fark, mentioning fark and its Florida tag.. Republicans want to manipulate how the states votes are counted so that they can win more elections, even the presidency]) -Just an example, not a thread jack-

A better way, that infringes no one's rights and likewise retains that safeguard of defending ourselves legally, is to focus on identifying high risk individuals, hopefully before the crime is committed.

This registry bit will not stop crime. We already have laws they don't care about. We already know these people will kill for their weapons if it takes their fancy. What measure of safely storing can people realistically use without giving up their right to bear arms(at will)? If it takes 2.76 days to open a safe, that kind of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place does it not? And even at that, will it stop some disturbed individual? Say you locate a gun owner, and hold a knife to his/her or their kids throats until the safe is open. What can you do? Exactly what the criminal wants, that's it.

No, it's a token effort(if completely honest), to placate the masses, but it has possible ramifications down the road that most of us would never want to experience. Have doubts on that, go read a few history books on the subject of oppression/slavery.

In addition to all of that, it's got another effect. A paper trail so that "fault" can be found and possibly irrationally prosecuted, something that's pretty relevant in modern times as well as history. Salem witch burnings to the conviction and imprisonment of innocent men, or merely ruining their lives with fines or civil suit awards.

No thanks.
2013-01-26 09:09:56 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: You did exactly what i said you would. Shifted the goalposts and were unable to come up with any facts supporting your claim that democracic countries that had registration which led to confiscation.

Sorry, but no, it's not good enough, as I'm sure you expected. I mean, look at what your sources are.


Wait? You're actually making it easier for me here. You really need me to find historical documentation of the registration then ban of firearms in places like the UK and Australia? You know... the same gun bans and confiscation that took place within the last 20 years?
2013-01-26 09:01:35 PM  
1 votes:
Here's some sources justtray.

I know it's from wikipedia but i'm not going on a big hunt for you. Prior to the rise of fascism in all these countries they did have elected officials to represent the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#Fascism_in_Japan (this one goes into a little detail of the Taisho Democracy... but you can click on the link to find more information)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

And, I'm sure you know the story about the rise of Nazism in Germany so I don't need to go into detail about that.

You can't really be in that much denial about historical facts, can you?
2013-01-26 08:57:08 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: You're going to have to source those for me, because I find them to be total BS.


California: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989

Legislators imposed mandatory registration for firearms that were grandfathered into a ban, then passed a retroactive ban and confiscated those that were registered under the grandfather clause.
2013-01-26 08:55:57 PM  
1 votes:
LavenderWolf SmartestFunniest 2013-01-26 08:45:14 PM


muck4doo: LavenderWolf: TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM AMERICANS LIKE THE RIGHT WING IS CONSTANTLY AFRAID OF IS PATENTLY ABSURD. IT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, OR IF YOU'RE A PESSIMIST, MILLIONS.

All bolds, caps, and big letters? That must mean serious derp. He's only interested in registration, which makes confiscation a lot easier.

/Seriously, he thinks it will save a child in Coxsackie or something

Hey, if someone is going to misread my intent and deride me for it multiple times, I'm pretty justified in making it as perfectly clear as possible what the intent was.


No, I understood exactly what you were trying to say. You were saying that because gun registration that led to gun confiscation didnt work on a small scale, we shouldnt worry about it on a large scale. Are you suggesting everyone just STFU and not worry about the new attempts at gun registration on a large scale? We have to be pro-active in stoping attempts to confiscate gun, not reactive.
2013-01-26 08:55:12 PM  
1 votes:

illbeinmybunk: The talk has been "how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and these folks are voluntarily choosing to becomes criminals in the eyes of the law. and they have guns.

This will end well.

THEY GUNNA CUM TAKE MAH GUNS!

Ever hear of a self fulfilling prophecy?


Civil disobedience towards a law they think is unconstitutional? The horror, don't they know every good citizen follows the law, herr doktor?
2013-01-26 08:54:31 PM  
1 votes:

djh0101010: Wow, patronize much? BronyMedic, the ONLY thing we have in common is a decade or two of NREMT licensure. To be honest, it offends me when you pretend to speak for me as another licensed emergency medical responder. You don't actually get any sort of authority to speak for every EMT ever, just because you have a license.


Please quote where I've claimed to. It's almost as if you're trying to put words in my mouth. You've been a condescending asshole to me ever since I cracked a joke based on a Charlie Brown gag video dub several months ago in every thread we've posted together in. You need to drop the expectation I'm going to be the least bit civil with you until you grant me the same luxury, ass.

Admit it. You just dislike me and you're going to post any little bit of crap you can to attempt to justify it.

I've never claimed to speak for ANYONE other than myself, or my opinions.

On the other hand, you went on a spiel about how you were Jesus Carrying his Cross last night because you volunteered as an EMT-Basic for so many years of your life, and I was evil because I went into a paid segment of the profession and obviously never volunteered in my life to do what I do. You poor, poor ignorant martyr you.

djh0101010: That said - not once, have you ever stated any kind of post where you show that you understand that criminals are bad people, and the 99.999% of gun owners in this country, are not bad people.


Mein Gott en Himmel! You're right! It's almost like I don't treat situations as black and white, and I treat human beings as human beings, with their own motivations and reasons/rationale for doing things! This is astounding.

djh0101010: I understand that you work in NYC or some other shiathole.


I work in Memphis and Rural Tennessee/Mississippi/Arkansas. I'm a blue dot in a red sea. This isn't even a secret.

djh0101010: I'm fine with that. I just ask that you would pull your head out of your geocentric ass, and understand that 99.999% of people neither live in your district, nor do we share your criminals' proclivity towards crime.


Oh, shut up You don't even know where I live, and you're already making statements about things you know NOTHING about.

djh0101010: I'm sure it's strange and implausible for you to imagine and understand, but, in civilized parts of the country/world, where you don't live, gun owners outnumber criminals 1,000 to one or more. As your only point of view is limited to a huge urban environment, you have a distorted view.


I'm sure they do. I'm also sure that gun owners are subject to the same kind of motivations and vice as every human being is, and that the fact they own a gun does NOT mean they are immune from it.

djh0101010: Great, thanks. Now, please think about why those of us who are not criminals, feel threatened and offended, by people like you who want to take away our rights to bear arms. We haven't committed any crime, and we need our guns to protect ourselves from the actual criminals, yet, your type would take the guns away from the law abiding people, making us helpless against the criminals who ignore the laws.


YOU HAVE NEVER ONCE ASKED ME TO EXPLAIN HOW I FEEL ABOUT ANY OF THIS. You've just assumed, wrongly, that because I disagree with you, I hold polarizing beliefs that you seem to have imagined that anyone who would does. You are not psychic, and you should go talk to James Randi if you think so.

Why don't you ask me to explain how I feel about gun crime and gun laws in the United States?

Of course you won't. That would mean that I could point out in the future how completely full of shiat you are when you say stupid things like that.
2013-01-26 08:52:35 PM  
1 votes:
I'll never move back to California.Didn't know about the SKS ban until tonight. My SKS is one of my favorite weapons. Yes, pistol grip, folding adjustable stock, 20 round mags, etc...I't's actually an awesome deer rifle. But as far as carrying it easily...NOPE...Don't know why they banned it since it's so heavy.
2013-01-26 08:52:25 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Certainly agree with you on this issue.

A bolt-fired rifle took out a sitting president, in a moving vehicle. Magazine capacity isn't really an issue. You can change a magazine in a matter of a few seconds. If you don't care to retrieve your spent/partially spent magazines, even faster.
2013-01-26 08:45:57 PM  
1 votes:
Checking in from Canadia - we used to register our guns but it didn't do a god damn thing to prevent crime, at all, anywhere in Canada. good work NY - shootings will soon be a thing of the past.
2013-01-26 08:45:17 PM  
1 votes:

vpb: Amos Quito:

End the Drug War and most gun-related crimes will disappear.

Yes, all of those school shootings are committed by drug dealers.


Well drug dealers no...drug users yes...they have all been on SSRIs or other depression or pyschiatric meds.
2013-01-26 08:43:43 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM AMERICANS LIKE THE RIGHT WING IS CONSTANTLY AFRAID OF IS PATENTLY ABSURD. IT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, OR IF YOU'RE A PESSIMIST, MILLIONS.


All bolds, caps, and big letters? That must mean serious derp. He's only interested in registration, which makes confiscation a lot easier.

/Seriously, he thinks it will save a child in Coxsackie or something
2013-01-26 08:43:33 PM  
1 votes:

truthseeker2083: Thank you. Much better than I could have put it.


NP. Used to people trying to abuse that argument about the chances of tyranny being equated with paranoia, and also calling out people who fallaciously employ claims of fallacy.
2013-01-26 08:42:41 PM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Have the people pushing for car registration ever pushed for outright bans and confiscations on cars?

have governments ever used registration lists to demand that legally owned be turned over because they're no longer legal due to a change in the law and/or an attorney general issued an opinion invalidating a prior one?

No? Then Shut The fark Up.


What if a new law passed that required modification to your car and making expensive parts useless?

Ohhh.. you do not know much about guns, if anything at all. Thanks for playing, though.
2013-01-26 08:42:36 PM  
1 votes:

The Southern Dandy: Every gun in Switzerland is registered. Armed citizenry and gun registration are good things.


Every person in Switzerland is required to serve a term in the Swiss Army at 18 as well, and there is a major cultural, mental/healthcare support, and socioeconomic difference as well.

Please don't try to distill the lack of gun violence in Switzerland down to global gun registration.
2013-01-26 08:42:22 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.

And nothing of value was lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wow, patronize much? BronyMedic, the ONLY thing we have in common is a decade or two of NREMT licensure. To be honest, it offends me when you pretend to speak for me as another licensed emergency medical responder. You don't actually get any sort of authority to speak for every EMT ever, just because you have a license.

That said - not once, have you ever stated any kind of post where you show that you understand that criminals are bad people, and the 99.999% of gun owners in this country, are not bad people.

I understand that you work in NYC or some other shiathole. I'm fine with that. I just ask that you would pull your head out of your geocentric ass, and understand that 99.999% of people neither live in your district, nor do we share your criminals' proclivity towards crime.

I'm sure it's strange and implausible for you to imagine and understand, but, in civilized parts of the country/world, where you don't live, gun owners outnumber criminals 1,000 to one or more. As your only point of view is limited to a huge urban environment, you have a distorted view.

Here in the real world, 9999 out of 10,0000 gun owners, are law abiding citizens who only threaten the bad guys.

Read that again, BronyMedic.

And again please.

Great, thanks. Now, please think about why those of us who are not criminals, feel threatened and offended, by people like you who want to take away our rights to bear arms. We haven't committed any crime, and we need our guns to protect ourselves from the actual criminals, yet, your type would take the guns away from the law abiding people, making us helpless against the criminals who ignore the laws.
2013-01-26 08:40:15 PM  
1 votes:

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

Wrong.

It can be =/= IS

In this case, it is not a fallacy.

Our very founders noted that, historically, the first step in tyranny is limiting power of the people. That much is true, and is applicable today in 3rd world countries still. But even in the discussions of the times of the US in it's infancy, it's mentioned directly, that to be unable to defend one's self is practically inviting ne'er do wells to accost you.

Scale is irrelevant, be it a bandit, a foreign nation, or a domestic threat(to include a government gone bad).

His argument is not that it's inevitable, only that it is one less safeguard the people have against such things, and there is real historical(even modern) precedence for such worry.


Thank you. Much better than I could have put it.
2013-01-26 08:39:07 PM  
1 votes:

Maximer: truthseeker2083: I didn't say anything worse would happen, merely that I'm uncomfortable about opening that door. I know what the government did once it had the Patriot act, I only shudder to think of what will happen if we give them power over more of our rights.

Will I need to register every one of my rights in order to use them? Where's the form to register my 1st, 4th, & 5th Amendments? I'll get to those other ones later...


According to some in this thread, that would be acceptable. I'll keep my rights free of registration... as long as I can.
2013-01-26 08:39:00 PM  
1 votes:

Gdalescrboz: LavenderWolf SmartestFunniest 2013-01-26 07:58:39 PM


Gdalescrboz: LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.

So it only counts if they go big? Smaller actual events, and larger proposals don't count?

So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?

Slavery wasn't a big deal either because only a very small number of people owned slaves. That's your logic at work, you farking schmuck

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

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

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

Hey no problem, i can argue that retarded claim as well. Slavery is extremely small in proportion. The estimate is between 12 and 27 million people are enslaved in the world, CURRENTLY. Taking the high estimate, only .0038% of the people on Earth, .0017% on the low end. Guess we can move along, thanks for putting our minds at ease with your "scale" argument Lavender, you dumbass


Man, what is wrong with your brain? Are you just choosing not to comprehend?

Let me spell it out for you.

TRYING TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM AMERICANS LIKE THE RIGHT WING IS CONSTANTLY AFRAID OF IS PATENTLY ABSURD. IT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, OR IF YOU'RE A PESSIMIST, MILLIONS.

Do you understand yet?
2013-01-26 08:35:04 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: In which democracy did that happen, historically?

I mean that is your argument right?


Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan... to name the big ones. And, it may be argued that Russia's democratic government is in the process of be usurped. Of course, there are many more examples of firearm registration followed by confiscation in other countries that were not democratic to begin with.

I don't think the fact that we have a representative republic somehow evolves our leaders to a level that they will not fall into the same acts of tyrannies that have been perpetuated by governments throughout human existence. If you truly believe that our species has evolved that greatly within the last 100 years then I think you should reread the history books again.
2013-01-26 08:31:51 PM  
1 votes:

Wayne 985: fredklein: ... Law abiding gun owners don't commit crimes...

Until they do. The guy who makes a straw purchase bought his gun legally. Most people who break the law are not career criminals.

I know people like yourself seem to have a fantasy of white knights versus scoundrels, but reality is a little more nuanced.


Future possible criminals! This is what authoritarian asshats look like. I'm glad you douches are all making yourselves obvious.
2013-01-26 08:30:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


It's a school full now ?
2013-01-26 08:29:22 PM  
1 votes:

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



So why not write in a provision that protects against this registry against being used for confiscation? After all, if nobody is going to do it, it won't make a difference, right?

Unprotected, all a registry does is leave a huge loophole for the real gun-grabbers to enforce a retroactive ban immediately after signing it into law, and make criminals out of formerly law abiding citizens. Sure, the current round of politicians might not use it for that purpose, but what about the next? And the next? And so on in perpetuity until the law is either struck down or amended to protect grandfathered guns that might be banned in the future.
2013-01-26 08:27:28 PM  
1 votes:

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.


How exactly does registering legal guns 1 - 100 help you track the illegal guns 101 - 200??
2013-01-26 08:26:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

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

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

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


I didn't say anything worse would happen, merely that I'm uncomfortable about opening that door. I know what the government did once it had the Patriot act, I only shudder to think of what will happen if we give them power over more of our rights.
2013-01-26 08:25:07 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: muck4doo: justtray: fredklein: justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: TheJoe03: justtray: ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

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

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

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

Why would someone intent on doing illegal acts register?

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

Illegally, of course.

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

Registration stops none of these.

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

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

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

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


It's history. You act the part, don't be offended when people point out who you are acting like.
2013-01-26 08:24:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

The "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy.

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

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

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


...has NOT led to the confiscation of guns...yet...
2013-01-26 08:23:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

Oh lookie who just started their "inferior" list

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


I'm glad you found me worthy enough to be an amusement item, King George.
2013-01-26 08:19:06 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: Anyway, welcome to ignore.


And nothing of value was lost.

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

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


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

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


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

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

It's almost as if Crime is a complex, multifactorial phenomenon in our society, and you're just tying to grossly oversimply the root causes and motivations because you perceive someone is coming to get your guns.
2013-01-26 08:16:29 PM  
1 votes:
Seriously though. I commend these NYers in not registering there guns.

Here in Chicago, where the Democratic voter base can't stop shooting and killing each other, there's mandatory training and registration of all firearms. All of this costs hundreds of dollars, simply to keep a gun in your house as protection. All because, as mentioned, the Democratic voter base wants to blame the guns for their shiat community. And I give a hearty f*ck you to the city for this law. I ain't registering shiat.
2013-01-26 08:16:11 PM  
1 votes:
LavenderWolf SmartestFunniest 2013-01-26 07:58:39 PM


Gdalescrboz: LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.

So it only counts if they go big? Smaller actual events, and larger proposals don't count?

So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?

Slavery wasn't a big deal either because only a very small number of people owned slaves. That's your logic at work, you farking schmuck

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

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

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


Hey no problem, i can argue that retarded claim as well. Slavery is extremely small in proportion. The estimate is between 12 and 27 million people are enslaved in the world, CURRENTLY. Taking the high estimate, only .0038% of the people on Earth, .0017% on the low end. Guess we can move along, thanks for putting our minds at ease with your "scale" argument Lavender, you dumbass
2013-01-26 08:12:23 PM  
1 votes:

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

What was the goal again?

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

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

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

Why would someone intent on doing illegal acts register?

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

Illegally, of course.

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

Registration stops none of these.

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

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


Sounds like you think just like the racists did that tried this crap before. They wanted to make it hard for black people to get arms, and used the same thinking that you do now to keep those "inferiors" from being armed.
2013-01-26 08:08:23 PM  
1 votes:
So if you treat everyone like criminals, they start to behave like criminals.
...and this outcome was totally unexpected by their idiot lawmakers?

/new plan: every time a politician comes up with an idea, do the exact opposite.
2013-01-26 08:04:52 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 08:03:08 PM  
1 votes:

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


And as someone who makes it a habit to call people out over fallacious arguments, I'm going to point out you're now resorting to the Fallacist's Fallacy to declare victory.
2013-01-26 08:02:50 PM  
1 votes:

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

There we go. Someone possesses common sense.


Your comments need to be registered with the government before appearing in public. Many idiots like yourself and Charles Manson have shown that speech by idiots leads to deaths. Please register first before posting again. After your thoughts have been approved you can then proceed to practice your first amendment rights.
2013-01-26 08:02:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

This.

And thank you :)


No prob. I'm sick of being told that because I don't like my rights being eroded means I'm a traitor, or have a small penis. I don't have a gun but I also don't support giving my right to own one up to the government. Why call for registration to 'save the children' unless you believe that's a way to get rid of guns?

/i hate that all of our rights are under attack by the force whose duty it is to protect them
2013-01-26 08:00:05 PM  
1 votes:

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


He did reload multiple times. He left partially loaded magazines in various classrooms. Magazine capacity was not an issue for him, nor would limiting magazines have done anything for him.
2013-01-26 07:52:47 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: And how does the black market get their weapons?

Are you starting to get it yet? I know basic economics is hard for many farkers.


From smugglers and overseas suppliers of cheap and effective arms once domestic supplies dry up. For someone who claims to be an expert at economics, you really fail at seeing the natural progression. The Cartels aren't using Chinese knock-offs in Mexico because there is an abundant supply of domestic weapons.
2013-01-26 07:49:27 PM  
1 votes:

RINO: Harry Knutz: xynix: Almost universally the guns used in those crimes were obtained illegally.

But the weapons in Newtown were obtained legally. Had the mother in that instance (the mother being the untrained, uneducated person I described above) not been able to purchase extended magazines, the damage might have been less extensive. To be fair, I'm not saying that it would have prevented the rampage from happening in the first place -- that likely would have happened regardless, because the gunman was mentally ill and motivated -- but it might have been mitigated by the need to change magazines.

The weapons were obtained legally? So Amdam Lanza legally killed his mother and legally took possession of firearms belonging to somebody other than himself?


That was always my thought. People get overly hyper about it. It was stated by a friend that his mother always kept the guns locked up, and considering he shot her I consider the guns stolen. I find it hard to believe that she handed him guns and told him to shoot her and then go cause carnage.
2013-01-26 07:49:26 PM  
1 votes:

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


She wasn't the apocalypse-prepping, Paul Revere-fantasizing gun hoarder that people here like to hold up as the "average gun owner". She had a few guns, and one of them looked "scarier" than the others.
2013-01-26 07:38:45 PM  
1 votes:

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

You know who else wasn't soft on crime?


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

So instead I'll just say, it gives me personal satisfaction that you might one day be a criminal for going against democracy, and I hope you stick to your convictions instead of being a coward. Though I suspect you really are one, nothing but a keyboard commando, rambo wanna-be. And you have to live with that.
2013-01-26 07:38:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

The distinction of varying types of firearms as to which are "more dangerous" is trivial, at best, and the same goes for which can "kill more people, faster".
2013-01-26 07:37:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Several states have enacted laws on the past few years that will eventually find their way to the SCOTUS that are designed to challenge many aspects of those two older laws. If your argument is "well, it's required now for some things therefore it should be allowed to be required for all" then perhaps we wait a few years and see how you feel about that. The federal laws significantly overstep the 10th Amendment and the interstate commerce clause...they just haven't ever been challenged on that basis.
2013-01-26 07:36:16 PM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: xynix: Almost universally the guns used in those crimes were obtained illegally.

But the weapons in Newtown were obtained legally. Had the mother in that instance (the mother being the untrained, uneducated person I described above) not been able to purchase extended magazines, the damage might have been less extensive. To be fair, I'm not saying that it would have prevented the rampage from happening in the first place -- that likely would have happened regardless, because the gunman was mentally ill and motivated -- but it might have been mitigated by the need to change magazines.


The weapons were obtained legally? So Amdam Lanza legally killed his mother and legally took possession of firearms belonging to somebody other than himself?
2013-01-26 07:32:37 PM  
1 votes:

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


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


You mean like that?
2013-01-26 07:31:31 PM  
1 votes:

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


Guess you're OK with your home address being highlighted in the local newspaper.
2013-01-26 07:27:19 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

It doesn't say gun, it says "arms", so my AR-15, an M16, a 40w phased plasma rifle, Romulan Disruptor, etc. will all be protected.
2013-01-26 07:25:29 PM  
1 votes:

the ha ha guy: muck4doo: I don't remember the right to vote in the Constitution.

It's covered under your state constitution, and further protected by the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments to the US constitution.


Thanks for an informative answer. I will never use that argument again. That was wrong, and i feel bad for using it.
2013-01-26 07:23:44 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.

It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?


In almost two years on FARK I have laughed,cried,rolled my eyes,and facepalmed.
But never have I become angry.That you should call me a traitor is loathsome.But forget that,your post is full of nonsense.Your misconceptions and lack of imagination render you a danger to a free society.
2013-01-26 07:16:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


And what happens when this doesn't reduce gun violence? Find more ways to make otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals?

Funny, you statists sure did shriek and wring your hands when the Patriot Act was enacted....
2013-01-26 07:16:14 PM  
1 votes:

gimmegimme: TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: 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.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.

Care to point out to me where I said that?

So what measures would you take to alleviate the problems I pointed out?

War on poverty, end the war on drugs, improve our mental health systems, and improve background checks. You know, things that will actually work, improve our nation, and not attack our rights.

Strange, aside from "improving background checks," you don't seem to address guns at all. That's like trying to decrease unwanted pregnancies without addressing sex.


It's almost like social conditions and environment lead to crime and violence.
2013-01-26 07:16:13 PM  
1 votes:

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


Much of the problems with gun crime currently stem from problems completely unrelated to the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Banning guns entirely would not solve a damn thing, and would be a logistic impossibility.
2013-01-26 07:12:31 PM  
1 votes:

Silverstaff: My Fellow Liberals,

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

Put the Derp down.

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

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

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

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

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

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


God bless you fellow liberal who actually cares about civil rights.
2013-01-26 07:11:21 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: How does that prevent the next Sandy Hook or VT shooting? The killer was a messed-up kid who took his own life, and probably didn't give a crap what his hypothetical prison sentence would be.



It won't, but it would put a significant dent in the ~8000 other firearm-related homicides each year.

Do you want gun reform that actually works on a national scale, or do you just want a knee-jerk reaction to whatever gun looks scary this week?
2013-01-26 06:59:54 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I was told the gun rights people were the crazy ones but these threads are full of really angry, emotional, and unreasonable people on the gun control side. It's really funny.
2013-01-26 06:58:42 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: xynix: It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.

Uh, no. It would not. Nuclear weapons fall under the auspices of the DOD and DOE in the United States, and high level nuclear material is HEAVILY restricted and tracked thanks to domestic laws and international treaty requirements. A nuclear weapon's physics package is a little more complex than you seem to think. You'd kill yourself from radiation poisoning before you'd build a functional weapon.

Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.


Just for fun you did see the "proper permit" part right? Lockheed Martin.. General Dynamics.. You don't think the DOD actually manufactured it's own weapons did you? ;)

LavenderWolf: I have more than adequate training in how to operate, clean, and service a variety of firearms.


Then you should appreciate that all firearms are equally as deadly. 101.
2013-01-26 06:56:56 PM  
1 votes:

craig328: Cheviot: craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.

In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?


Perhaps you were out of class the day they discussed the word "infringed"...as in "shall not be infringed upon". That said, in what way was being required to pay a poll tax infringing upon the means for certain folks to vote? How about all the "separate but equal" accommodations when it came to public transit? Those were all odious restrictions on people's rights and they were wrong. But this will be okay because you personally don't feel like that right impacts you?

How about an even better question: what exactly does a registry allow the government (since they're the ones pushing for such a thing) to do? It does absolutely zero to deter any crime in any way. It's a list of those who own a gun and where they live. Why not also have Google keep a registry of all the terms you search on and submit that to the government? How about your ISP submits the list of sites you've visited? You know...per some kind of anti-terrorist thingy?


I noticed you didn't bother answering my question, so I'll repeat it.

In what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it? Before you answer, note that there is no charge under the NY law to register a weapon.
2013-01-26 06:53:45 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.


It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.
2013-01-26 06:50:59 PM  
1 votes:

craig328: dahmers love zombie: I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


We already have that language. It reads "shall not be infringed upon". Srsly, it's there. Look it up.


This. If they're disregarding what's written right there in the Bill of Rights, what good will some exceptions to a new law do?
2013-01-26 06:50:17 PM  
1 votes:

AssAsInAssassin: 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.


You sound mad. Tell us again what a registry would accomplish.
2013-01-26 06:49:15 PM  
1 votes:

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.


What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.
2013-01-26 06:49:00 PM  
1 votes:

shArkh: djh0101010:

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


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

:| really?


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

/ keep going...you're almost there...just connect that last dot
2013-01-26 06:42:52 PM  
1 votes:
But what if I'm attacked by an angry mob that's been enraged by a "disgusting," offensive YouTube video?

We all know that YouTube has LOTS of offensive videos on it. I know all about it, since I put some of them there.

Obama went before the UN and Joy Behar and all kinds of Very Important People to tell us how easily this can happen -- angry, offended mobs of well-armed men can spontaneously form, and attack you and burn your shiat down and murder you. That's what he said.

And now we know the government is incapable of providing security for these situations.

We need our guns to protect ourselves from the threat of spontaneous "protests" in reaction to offensive videos.

I'm only going by what our Benevolent Leaders tell us.
2013-01-26 06:41:21 PM  
1 votes:

djh0101010: How about instead of blaming the millions of us who have never, and will never, do anything wrong, we institute a "Project Exile", like Virginia did in the 1990s?


Too sensible. Doesn't fit the real agenda of general disarmament, but would probably reduce gun violence in the US by a significant percentage.
2013-01-26 06:34:58 PM  
1 votes:

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'
2013-01-26 06:34:08 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-26 06:32:07 PM  
1 votes:

dahmers love zombie: Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


That's an interesting idea,one I've not seen.The problem is that if the government became intent on tyranny those listed gun owners would be first on the list. A "hit list",if you will.
2013-01-26 06:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

here to help: Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.



As soon as you put one in all of your books and your car(s).
2013-01-26 06:29:08 PM  
1 votes:

vpb: not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


You do not have to register your car or motorcycle if you are only going to drive it on private property. You only have to register it when you want to drive it on state roads.
2013-01-26 06:26:46 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.
2013-01-26 06:25:35 PM  
1 votes:

xynix: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Yeah making legal owners register their guns will really prevent mass shootings. Because everyone who has done a mass shooting or blown up a building registers their ordinance. They're the most lawful people out there don't you know? Not a single person has stolen a gun used in a mass shooting .. especially not that guy that killed 24 people in CT who absolutely did not steal his guns from a legal owner.

You don't look silly at all you just look like a moron. Cars and motorcycles are not in the constitution FYI.


First of all registration would not prevent a single shooting. In fact it seems after all these mass shooting the police know exactly who owned what even without registration, amazingly. Secondly as for the argument that cars are registered, they only have to be registered and insured for the purpose of operating them on public roads. A vehicle operated on private propert doesnt need either. So by your argument any firearm i shoot on private propert wouldnt need to be registered. Also cut back on the screaming about children to try to further your agenda. Try usings actual numbers and facts from reliable sources. Maybe people would take you more seriously.
2013-01-26 06:22:24 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


You may have a right to Freedom of Speech. You don't have a right to any particular kind of speech. The government cannot necessarily impose a total free speech ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of speech.

So, if you agree with Big Brother, that's protected speech. But if you disagree with BB, that speech is banned. Sound good to you?

What's the problem? You still have 'free speech'....
2013-01-26 06:18:57 PM  
1 votes:

truthseeker2083: How about registration with the government for every forum you want to join on the internet? How would that be different?



With all the proposed "you must use your real name online" laws, that's probably their next step once they get rid of any real threat to their power.
2013-01-26 06:17:38 PM  
1 votes:
Guns really bring out the retarded in the far left. The right makes a more convincing argument for anti-gay laws than the left makes for their gun grabber laws
2013-01-26 06:15:04 PM  
1 votes:

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


How about registration with the government for every forum you want to join on the internet? How would that be different?
2013-01-26 06:13:54 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: You're both fools.

He has been using guns since a kid, good for him. Ask anyone with any sort of military experience, or just some common sense, and they'll be able to give you a real reason why certain weapons are more dangerous than others. An M249 in the hands of a psychopath is far more dangerous than a Derringer. Saying all guns are equally dangerous is utmost foolishness.


Ah, but a derringer in a psychopath's hands is far more dangerous than any sort of weapon(barring experimental fusion cannons or some such) in a law abiding citizen's hands.

But yeah, those people are the fools, not you, neeeeeever.

HotIgneous Intruder: Everyone has Constitutionally granted rights.
Now everyone is capable of exercising them and can have them taken away instantly.

The courts have upheld this fact time and time again.

/Threaten people, commit crimes, go clinically crazy and end up diagnosed and see what happens to you.


Problem is, people can be crazy and we can do nothing about it until AFTER they do something heinous.

In the case of LW that I quoted above and many other gun grabbers, they want a situation where the inmates are running the asylum for moral reasons, but want the guns gone, again, for moral reasons. So not only are the crazy people running free, but they're more and more able to victimize the physically weak but mentally stable.

The woe's of democracy. That many people CAN be that stupid. Sometimes I wonder if they're not anarchists masquerading in liberal clothing.
2013-01-26 06:11:01 PM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: fredklein: Harry Knutz: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

I think the only person here who's making that connection is you, fredward.

Um, did you even read the post I originally replied to? Particularly the part where gun owners were "paranoid" and "so goddamn unstable" that they "should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun"?

I believe the identifier in question was paranoid braying. There are many gun owners here and elsewhere who are not doing any kind of paranoid braying. If a gun owner is doing paranoid braying, chances are that gun owner is "so goddamn unstable" that he/she might not be fit to own a gun. QED.


You might be retarded. NY tried to pass a confiscation bill. Its not paranoia when they tell you it was their original goal. Farking Moron. Get your facts straight.
2013-01-26 06:09:07 PM  
1 votes:
The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.
Why is that anti-gun people believe our government will never,ever become this way?
2013-01-26 06:05:37 PM  
1 votes:

Rattlehead: Sure. Go ahead and don't register your firearms. Then when someone makes an anonymous call to the police to report you and no registered firearms turn up in the database for that address, they'll have probable cause to toss your house.


Or confiscate your house...like police agencies currently do with property used in certain crimes to fund themselves.
2013-01-26 06:04:24 PM  
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.


Uh huh. Now tell us all about the background check you had to undergo before entering the theater, and about the mandated gag you were forced to wear to keep you from yelling fire in a theater.
2013-01-26 06:04:14 PM  
1 votes:

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?



Pretty much. The cat is out of the bag, there is something like 300 million guns in this country. You could outlaw all guns and attempt to confiscate all of them and there would still be more than enough guns for the criminals and criminally insane to commit their crimes with guns for generations to come.

So why attack legal gun owners or deny people access to what everyone before them had access to?
2013-01-26 06:01:25 PM  
1 votes:
Everyone has Constitutionally granted rights.
Now everyone is capable of exercising them and can have them taken away instantly.

The courts have upheld this fact time and time again.

/Threaten people, commit crimes, go clinically crazy and end up diagnosed and see what happens to you.
2013-01-26 05:56:36 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


That's up to SCOTUS to decide. This is what makes the US the US is that we can have this debate and smart people can decide that the 2nd amendment covers all guns .. as they have in the past by blasting down DCs anti-gun law. At the state level the registration of guns has not been shot down by SCOTUS because of state rights but if they cross a certain line it will be blasted down.

The ridiculesness of an "assault rifle" ban conversation is that everything else will remain legal. In fact when the ban was in place people still traded the weapons and I still had my assault rifles with extended clips. They still sold the rifles in stores under a different guise and a different name.

A license may be required but I can legally own a rocket launcher but not a so-called "assault rifle?" Ridicules. I can buy a tank but not a 30 round clip? Ridicules. I can buy a Mig 21 and fly it into PDK or ATL but I can't buy a box of ammo that contains more than 100 rounds? Ridicules.
2013-01-26 05:54:55 PM  
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No. Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail



LOL! This coming from the "OMG SCARY ASSAULT WEAPONS" bleachers, where emotion is the ONLY currency in play.
2013-01-26 05:54:31 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear.


EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.
2013-01-26 05:54:17 PM  
1 votes:

spr: [d3u67r7pp2lrq5.cloudfront.net image 720x569]


Come and take it?
David Koresh took that attitude.
See how it played out for him.
2013-01-26 05:53:27 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun


I look forward to your support for a bill banning dumbasses like you from fark.
2013-01-26 05:53:09 PM  
1 votes:
Requiring the registration of firearms is always followed by confiscation. This has been proven by the history of every country since guns were invented. Provide ONE, just ONE example, of where a country implemented a 'register your firearms' policy and did not follow it within 10 years by confiscating those same firearms that had to be registered.
2013-01-26 05:52:43 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-26 05:51:52 PM  
1 votes:

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].


The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?
2013-01-26 05:51:05 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.


"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look
2013-01-26 05:46:54 PM  
1 votes:

xynix: GAT_00: So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.

I'm not really afraid they're going to come after me.. I'm not militia and I don't wear camo. When you go through the background check to own a gun you are doing enough to notify the government what you have. When I purchased my M&P assault rifle it took around 2 weeks before I could go pick it up. I'm cool with that.. They got my info, my DL#, they did a full look at my record to see if I was allowed to own a gun. The did the same thing with that guy in CT that killed 24 people.. He was rejected so he just stole the guns he wanted. I'm cool with background checks and I'm even cooler with that happening in a private sale (it would actually protect ME the seller) and I'm really cool with it happening in gun shows. But that's it. If I want to carry it in public as Fark It indicated I will require a license which I have and it took about 6 weeks to get. It's a carry and conceal permit. I paid a fee and that fee went to process my GBI background check.. Tangible.

What I won't do is register my guns. I'm not going to play more TSA type farking games with the government to help create an illusion that someone is being "protected." It's creating a process that isn't necessary, will do absolutely no good, will change absolutely nothing, would have prevented zero of the mass murders we've seen in the past 20 years.

So I'll toss the question back to you.. What legitimate reason is there TO register?


I realize I'm coming in late to this thread, but if we close all of the loopholes that would allow someone to legally obtain a gun without any trace other than someone else's word (cash sale, no receipt), I'm cool with not requiring gun owners to register their guns. Or maybe we require guns to be registered at the point of sale from now on, but not retroactively.

I am also onboard with people having to state a reason for registering guns before requiring it. Maybe this rationale is explained later in this thread, but on the face of it, forcing gun owners to retroactively register their guns without a clear goal seems like just poking a hornet's nest for no good reason.
2013-01-26 05:45:34 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No.  Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?


Because politicians and governments should never be trusted. You don't even need to be a tinfoil-wearing lunatic to agree that this is true.
2013-01-26 05:45:23 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?


Smaller rights violations are still violations, pretending they don't count because they didn't go all out is disingenuous.
2013-01-26 05:42:40 PM  
1 votes:

LavenderWolf: violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.

Oh, I see.

You're all just crazy and paranoid.

/No, really, that's an honest interpretation of this nonsense.


Try reading some history some time, you moron.
2013-01-26 05:40:20 PM  
1 votes:

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?


No, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if you *own* guns, it matters if you *know* anything about them. People who don't know magazines from clips, describe hollow point ammunition as "armor piercing", or consider a thumbhole stock the mark of a extraordinarily dangerous weapon have no business designing gun control measures.
2013-01-26 05:39:06 PM  
1 votes:
I see our usual gang of fark authoritarians are all for registration.
2013-01-26 05:36:55 PM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: fredklein: kxs401: Seriously, the paranoid braying about the government coming to take your guns only makes it obvious that you're so goddamn unstable that you should never be permitted to even hold a loaded gun.

I love the logic.

"We're not gonna take your guns. The fact you think we are makes you crazy... So we're gonna take your guns!"

I'm not sure you understand how logic works, actually. Anyway, wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is not the same as a total gun ban. I understand that it would be the same thing to you -- because you're a paranoid nutbar -- but it's not actually the same thing.

Defining 'crazy people' as 'anyone who owns guns' IS the same as a gun ban.

No, I'm defining "crazy people" in this context as people like you, foaming at the mouth and ranting about something that's never going to happen. You're as nutty as the people stocking up food for the inevitable and imminent collapse of the world economy.

Keep shining, you crazy diamonds. The more people see you refusing to comply with reasonable legal requirements, the less resistance there will be among the general public to more reasonable legal requirements. Thank you for your assistance.

I'm not sure we're the ones foaming at the mouth crazy, paranoid about something that isn't going to happen, when we've provided examples that it has happened. In the USA. Registration has led to confiscation.


Yes, those big gun grabs in the US. Now no Americans have guns.
2013-01-26 05:36:29 PM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: ElBarto79: It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.

How is that not a violation of rights?


2 reasons;

1 - This would only be for semi-autos. You could still by bolt action guns and revolvers through normal channels.

2 - You could still acquire these weapons, it would just take a little longer and cost a little more.
2013-01-26 05:36:27 PM  
1 votes:

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?


mathematically you are indeed correct.
2013-01-26 05:36:05 PM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: Why would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.


Oh, I see.

You're all just crazy and paranoid.

/No, really, that's an honest interpretation of this nonsense.
2013-01-26 05:32:09 PM  
1 votes:
Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.


History has proven that statement to be a lie.
2013-01-26 05:31:07 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.


How is that not a violation of rights?
2013-01-26 05:30:58 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.

Your debit card connects directly to your bank account, it's pretty simple. Your criminal record however crosses numerous state and federal agencies. The last time I got an fbi background check it took almost 3 months. I would certainly be in favor of something instant but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not have universal background checks.



Wow, the leap of logic it takes to get from what I posted, to what you posted, makes my head spin.

There is no legitimate reason, technical or otherwise, why an instant background check can't work. The NRA was pushing for this, 20 years ago. The leftists have dragged their feet on this for decades, while blaming the NRA for it not being possible. I am offended that the leftists blame us for the failure that they are continuing to cause.

How about we do this: Instant background checks for legal gun purchases. Of course, the criminals don't buy their guns legally, but, it will give me happiness next time I sell a gun to a coworker. I'm sure the whole privacy thing about being able to do a background check on anyone at all isn't a problem.

So how about we do that, and then, do a Project Exile type thing, where criminals who use guns have mandatory prison time added to whatever other penalty they deserve? Google Project Exile, double-percent drops in violent crime per year. What a concept. Put the bad guys in jail.

Stop blaming the 99.9999% of law abiding gun owners, and put the bad guys in jail. What a concept.
2013-01-26 05:30:57 PM  
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: tighten yer tinfoil Larry...


it's not like registration followed by confiscation was used in NYC in the 70's or anything like that...... oh wait it was.
2013-01-26 05:30:07 PM  
1 votes:

xynix: Purchased a Glock this summer and got it instantly. The M&P assault rifle I purchased took 2 weeks to get as they did a federal background check on me. The cost of such a thing is built into the price of the gun I purchased. I'm not in favor of moving semi-autos into that category as it's a knee-jerk reaction and redundant to a program that is already in place to ensure people who are purchasing them are allowed to purchase them. The bolt-action 30-06 I have can take down a target a mile away in the right hands.. in average hands 1000-2000 feet.

Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


It's not just about making sure you're allowed to have them. Requiring expensive registrations for semi-autos would make them more of a hassle to acquire which means less people would buy them.

Your bolt action rifle is certainly powerful but it would not be so great for storming an elementary school and blasting 20 kids.

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?
2013-01-26 05:28:11 PM  
1 votes:
Tired of listening to all the mouth-breathers who like to imagine that the rest of the world is some kind of magical utopia because of gun control laws.

There's a great page on Wikipedia listing gun massacres. Most of them are...... not in the United States. And the worst ones are in China where pretty much even thinking about owning a gun will get you jail time.

And for all the Eurotrash who think gun control works so well, tell that to the 69 people gunned down in Norway in a massacre in 2011. How quickly we forget when it's politically convenient.
I don't own a gun. I probably never will. But there's a reason Americans founded a new country -- because we didn't want to be like the old ones.
2013-01-26 05:28:09 PM  
1 votes:

robrr2003: the_foo: GAT_00: What legitimate reason is there to not register?

That's entirely the wrong question if we're still planning to be a free country. It's the same BS argument as "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So you won't mind the government illegally tapping your phone or searching your house"

GAT (like most of the anti-gun club here) has always been an ardent supporter of the patriot act and every thats come about because of it. So you're not going to get anywhere with that.


Is it just blatantly make shiat up day?
2013-01-26 05:26:06 PM  
1 votes:

truthseeker2083: So how many people believed that when the DHS was created it wouldn't interfere with law abiding citizen's lives? How many people have flown on a plane lately without having to step in a machine that shows you naked, streams radiation through you, or been felt up by an overzealous TSA screener, etc.? When you give the government a power, they will use every last drop.


I find it amusing how many of the people who are pro gun control seem to hate the PATRIOT Act in other threads. Emotional knee jerk reactions that do nothing are okay as long as it's a right they don't like, or something...
2013-01-26 05:25:41 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: It's kind of hard to paint the floors of an elementary school classroom with the brain matter of 27 students with a Remington 700, dude.


You're a piece of shiat.
2013-01-26 05:25:34 PM  
1 votes:

xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..


Pedestrians have an interest in traffic laws.
2013-01-26 05:25:26 PM  
1 votes:
Only reason Newtown resonates is WHITE children were killed. YOU RACIST farkS.
2013-01-26 05:23:40 PM  
1 votes:

occamswrist: Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.

People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.


No, dip shiat. You're confusing an action with an item.

People who don't know what murder IS, should not be allowed to be involved in murder laws. People who don't understand the topic at hand should not be allowed to legislate on it.
2013-01-26 05:21:36 PM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: xynix: Again.. people who know nothing about guns should not be involved in gun laws or even having the discussion around them. Respectfully said of course..

People who don't have vaginas should not be involved in abortion laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.


People who haven't murdered someone should not be involved in murder laws or even having the discussion around them. Oh wait.
2013-01-26 05:21:35 PM  
1 votes:

djh0101010: the ha ha guy: djh0101010: Do you know that the NRA has been pushing for instant background checks for decades?


That didn't stop them and their supporters from complaining about Obama's suggestion to do exactly that.

Obama is 20 years behind the NRA in this regard. Key is _INSTANT_ background checks. If my debit card can be checked for a balance in 5 seconds before I buy gas, then, hell yes, my ID can be checked in the same time to make sure I'm not a criminal. There is no technical difference in these two checks.


Your debit card connects directly to your bank account, it's pretty simple. Your criminal record however crosses numerous state and federal agencies. The last time I got an fbi background check it took almost 3 months. I would certainly be in favor of something instant but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not have universal background checks.
2013-01-26 05:21:13 PM  
1 votes:

pion: So all it takes to get a hero tag on fark these days is be a small-dicked, paranoid, delusional sociopath? Good to know.


DRINK!
/Seriously, you penis obsessed gun control people really need help.
2013-01-26 05:20:15 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.

If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey the law, and will just use illegal, unregistered guns.


Because, freddyboy, if it became apparent you were, say, amassing an arsenal capable of shooting up a school, I'd think the rest of us would want to know that, hmmm? You know, as we're all part of a society, yes?
2013-01-26 05:20:09 PM  
1 votes:

gja:

Stop that. Those who are opposed to the gun controls, and have used the "car vs gun" analogy, drew fire from those of you who desire the gun controls legislation.
If the pro-gunners can't use the car/gun analogy then neither can the anti-gun folks.

Fair is fair. Nobody gets to use it. Now come up with a coherent and rational retort, or admit you haven't one.


Dog license. Pitt bull owners register their dogs. Exotic fish licences. Same thing. No one is running around taking either. And guess what, there are no vast armies of dog nuts and fish nuts refusing to get their yearly licenses.

But in the end what this comes down to is that there's a law requiring certain types of guns to be registered in NY. Registering the weapon in no way stops the owner from keeping or bearing the weapon, so the constitutional argument is out.

I have no problem with law abiding, mentally stable individuals without violent criminal records, owning guns. But lookie here. This thread is full of those supposedly law abiding gun owners who state they will break weapons laws. If all it takes is telling gun owners to follow this law you don't agree with that in no way harms you, to get these gun owners to break the law, then they aren't very law abiding.

Now, under this law, as soon as they use one of their unregistered weapons for self defense they'll be found out. Out hunting? Take a gun to a gunsmith? Caught. Disgruntled gun club employees will report members for owning unregistered guns. Disgruntled gun and ammo selling store employees will report customers who buy accessories for weapons that should be registered.

So, unregistered gun owners, when the police come knocking at your door in these circumstances with their search warrant, what exactly is it, besides surrendering and turning over the unregistered weapons, are you planning on doing? Breaking even more laws?
2013-01-26 05:18:36 PM  
1 votes:
So all it takes to get a hero tag on fark these days is be a small-dicked, paranoid, delusional sociopath? Good to know.
2013-01-26 05:18:24 PM  
1 votes:

Harry Knutz: Kraftwerk Orange: Harry Knutz: Dear Gun Tribe:

No one is coming to take your guns. Chill the fark out. All your "This is the first step toward confiscationmageddon!1!!11!" paranoia only makes the rest of us think we should be taking your guns.

Thanks!

What's your thoughts on Step 2 after gun owners register? What happens then?

Nothing happens then. If you're not doing anything illegal, not a good goddamn thing will happen.


If nothing is going to be done with the gun registration lists, then why bother having anyone register their guns? Why collect that data, just to do absolutely nothing with it?

And before you say 'we'll, we can use it to catch criminals', let me remind you that criminals don't obey