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

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

17885 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

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.netView Full Size

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size

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.comView Full Size



"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.comView Full Size


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.netView Full Size
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.comView Full Size
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.netView Full Size
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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size

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.comView Full Size

dontdrinkbeer.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
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.ruView Full Size
2013-01-26 04:37:10 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
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.comView Full Size
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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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 vote:

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