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.

(Kotaku)   Anti-gun nuts rant against guy visiting the Bungie studios holding up a Halo prop   (kotaku.com) divider line 115
    More: Sad, Bungie, halos, Military rank, Neill Blomkamp, strip malls, eggs  
•       •       •

6565 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Feb 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-04 02:01:58 PM

SnarfVader: Dead for Tax Reasons: Apparently this article is blocked whilst using the county courthouse's wifi

The gist of the article is that some anti-gun Facebook page mistook the Halo prop gun in the picture below for a real rifle and posted the picture on their page as an example of gun owners' excess. Hilarity, unfortunately, did not ensue.

[i212.photobucket.com image 640x360]


Idiotic Conservatism combined with idiotic Liberalism...my God, they've crossed the streams!!!
 
2013-02-04 02:02:18 PM
Wait....

People on Facebook are idiots? You don't say.
 
2013-02-04 02:08:01 PM
I've been saying this for years! ALL Americans are dumbasses, not JUST Republicans!

/I kid because I care
 
2013-02-04 02:27:00 PM
Man, that guy is a total maniac.

The founding fathers had NO IDEA of first person shooters or console games, so this could NOT be covered by the Second Amendment.

Why is he not in jail?
 
2013-02-04 02:27:04 PM

dittybopper: The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing.


Quoting (but not citing) an NRO article in a Fark article relating to some fake science fictiony weapon.

Freepies!

Better watch out the gubbamint is watching....
 
2013-02-04 02:30:40 PM

Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Ain't too bright, are they?

Prohibitionists never are.

/But hey, it'll work with guns!
//we swear!
///really!


Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.
 
2013-02-04 02:36:35 PM

enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.


Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)
 
2013-02-04 02:39:10 PM

dittybopper: lewismarktwo: The real issue is that people are farking stupid.  The way he's holding that 'gun' he would have to have the proportionate strength of an ant.  That gun, if real, would weigh like 120lbs.

This is a Lahti L-39 anti-tank rifle:

[en.valka.cz image 600x398]

It weighs about 109 lbs.


Was that post meant to infer some sort of point or were you just sharing a picture?  Notice the guy in your pic is not a weak nerd.  He's also supporting the weight with his left arm unlike the weak nerd, which was my point. See the strain in his arm?

Did you think I didn't know big guns exist?  I think you might be a little gun thread punch drunk.

/Also, 109 is awfully close to 120, even though I was purposely exaggerating the probable imaginary weight.
 
2013-02-04 02:40:13 PM
www.hollywoodreporter.com


VS gun nut who rants again wharhggbbllnlglll

//you really are an idiot subby.
 
2013-02-04 02:50:39 PM

dittybopper: Kazan: dittybopper: Actually, even *BEFORE* the laws were "neutered" in 1986 (at which point they'd only been in effect for 18 years), the ATF didn't really show any interest in going after actual felon-in-possession cases: A congressional investigation found that they made up less than 10% of cases:

well that is a separate issue. maybe the ATF needed a smack upside the head and told to do their farking job instead of worrying about pot heads.

Yeah, like I want a competent ATF.

The point has been made within the gun community that if the ATF were to be abolished, and its duties handed over to a more respected and competent agency like the FBI, then we'd be much worse off.  We wouldn't have an incompetent whipping boy like the ATF (latest scandal:   They set up a sting operation in Milwaukee that didn't manage to actually arrest anyone of any importance, and they got one of their machine guns stolen)


well then maybe you should stop being a gun-obsessive first and start acting like an american first instead. this country isn't all rural farmlands where a nutjob with firearms he shouldn't have is only largely a danger to himself. more than half the population lives in cities.
 
2013-02-04 02:59:12 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: dittybopper: The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing.

Quoting (but not citing) an NRO article in a Fark article relating to some fake science fictiony weapon.

Freepies!

Better watch out the gubbamint is watching....


Actually, here is the entire subcommittee report:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

I wasn't quoting an NRO article.  I was quoting *CONGRESS*.
 
2013-02-04 02:59:46 PM

Kazan: nelsonal: Really? How have the 1933 act, 1968 amendment, or 1986 bill been neutered in any way, shape or form?

the ability to enforce much of the background check system, etc has been neutered through sticking rules in that make the ability to build a useful database essentially impossible.

tgambitg: I think he might mean having the Supreme Court (correctly) find that blanket gun bans are unconstitutional?

you, and the majority of supreme court justices prior to the current supreme court (along with reasonable people), have much different interpretations of the 2nd amendment.


Well the current Supreme Court and the PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE agree... so... what were you saying?
 
2013-02-04 03:00:25 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.

Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)


Both of those were in place before the big push to cut DUI deaths in the 80s and 90s. In any event, there was sufficient progress without an outright ban.
 
2013-02-04 03:01:09 PM

Kazan: well then maybe you should stop being a gun-obsessive first and start acting like an american first instead. this country isn't all rural farmlands where a nutjob with firearms he shouldn't have is only largely a danger to himself. more than half the population lives in cities.


First, if you want to get us on board, don't insult us.

Secondly, I would ask what you think is reasonable?
 
2013-02-04 03:02:21 PM

enry: Because People in power are Stupid: enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.

Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)

Both of those were in place before the big push to cut DUI deaths in the 80s and 90s. In any event, there was sufficient progress without an outright ban.


Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.
 
2013-02-04 03:08:46 PM

dittybopper: enry: Because People in power are Stupid: enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.

Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)

Both of those were in place before the big push to cut DUI deaths in the 80s and 90s. In any event, there was sufficient progress without an outright ban.

Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.


So what method did they use to prevent these DUI deaths? My ex roomie for example- had his drivers license revoked. When he drove anyways (drove drunk even)... The cops pulled him over and threw him in jail. A profound violation of his rights to use his car and alcohol however he wanted...

Now how did they know to pull him over? You see there is this thing on the back of cars called a "License Plate". You see all cars that drive on public roads must be "Registered"...
 
2013-02-04 03:09:23 PM

tgambitg: the PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE agree... so... what were you saying?



mmhmm.. suuuuure. they totally didn't just crush the whiskey rebellion like an insect. they also totally intended for us to have a standing army too.

hint: know the intent before trying to cite the intenders, jackwagon.

dittybopper: First, if you want to get us on board, don't insult us.

Secondly, I would ask what you think is reasonable?


don't prance around with bad arguments like you just won and you won't get written off and thus insulted.

as for reasonable?

the background check database actually not being a joke. no sales of any type without a brandground check. quality control laws to ensure that firearms are of a basic amount of quality (no 'saturday night special' cheap shiat anymore .. which are garbage AND are used for most crimes). No high-volume magazines unless you have an 'enhanced permit' of some type (ie show that you are a responsible gun owner and can be trusted with such hardware). weapons which are designed primarily for offensive use against humans are reasonable to be subjected to restrictions like high-volume mags (ie AR15, etc). Basic firearm safety course required for all ownership. more harsh repercussions for committing firearms crimes - like that jackass the other day who pointed a weapon at another driver in a road rage incident. Jailed+lifetime loss of firearms ownership privileges: he's proven that he cannot be trusted.
 
2013-02-04 03:09:47 PM

dittybopper: enry: Because People in power are Stupid: enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.

Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)

Both of those were in place before the big push to cut DUI deaths in the 80s and 90s. In any event, there was sufficient progress without an outright ban.

Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.


And increased penalties on misuse, better detection of misuse, better treatment options, and preventing offenders from getting behind the wheel.  Oh, and putting restriction on when you can buy alcohol and holding vendors liable if they sell to someone who is obviously drunk.  Then again, I can't openly carry a bottle of scotch in public.

The NRA's response seems to be the equivalent of "have one for the road".
 
2013-02-04 03:50:37 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: So what method did they use to prevent these DUI deaths? My ex roomie for example- had his drivers license revoked. When he drove anyways (drove drunk even)... The cops pulled him over and threw him in jail. A profound violation of his rights to use his car and alcohol however he wanted...


So let me get this straight:  After he was caught misusing alcohol, and performing an action that is very unsafe, they took away his rights via the courts, with due process and everything?

Those farkin' *BASTARDS*!

Now how did they know to pull him over? You see there is this thing on the back of cars called a "License Plate". You see all cars that drive on public roads must be "Registered"...

Yeah, about that:  It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license.   You just can't *DRIVE* it.

Also, that's not generally how the police catch repeat offenders.  They catch them because they repeatedly offend, not because licensing and registration somehow magically allows them to be caught.

Oh, and another thing, and this is actually US law:  Because requiring criminals to register their guns would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, you can't actually charge a felon with not registering guns.  You can charge them with "felon in possession", which is different, but the only reason for registration is to make it more difficult for people who aren't felons to own guns.
 
2013-02-04 04:00:22 PM

dittybopper: Yeah, about that: It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license. You just can't *DRIVE* it.


some states don't let you register cars in your name without a valid license.
 
2013-02-04 04:01:07 PM

dittybopper: Because People in power are Stupid: So what method did they use to prevent these DUI deaths? My ex roomie for example- had his drivers license revoked. When he drove anyways (drove drunk even)... The cops pulled him over and threw him in jail. A profound violation of his rights to use his car and alcohol however he wanted...

So let me get this straight:  After he was caught misusing alcohol, and performing an action that is very unsafe, they took away his rights via the courts, with due process and everything?

Those farkin' *BASTARDS*!

Now how did they know to pull him over? You see there is this thing on the back of cars called a "License Plate". You see all cars that drive on public roads must be "Registered"...

Yeah, about that:  It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license.   You just can't *DRIVE* it.

Also, that's not generally how the police catch repeat offenders.  They catch them because they repeatedly offend, not because licensing and registration somehow magically allows them to be caught.

Oh, and another thing, and this is actually US law:  Because requiring criminals to register their guns would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, you can't actually charge a felon with not registering guns.  You can charge them with "felon in possession", which is different, but the only reason for registration is to make it more difficult for people who aren't felons to own guns.


Right, but we can't prevent every DUI (and criminals are just going to drink and drive anyway), so let's just get rid of DUI laws.
 
2013-02-04 04:07:23 PM

dittybopper: Because People in power are Stupid: So what method did they use to prevent these DUI deaths? My ex roomie for example- had his drivers license revoked. When he drove anyways (drove drunk even)... The cops pulled him over and threw him in jail. A profound violation of his rights to use his car and alcohol however he wanted...

So let me get this straight:  After he was caught misusing alcohol, and performing an action that is very unsafe, they took away his rights via the courts, with due process and everything?

Those farkin' *BASTARDS*!

Now how did they know to pull him over? You see there is this thing on the back of cars called a "License Plate". You see all cars that drive on public roads must be "Registered"...

Yeah, about that:  It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license.   You just can't *DRIVE* it.

Also, that's not generally how the police catch repeat offenders.  They catch them because they repeatedly offend, not because licensing and registration somehow magically allows them to be caught.

Oh, and another thing, and this is actually US law:  Because requiring criminals to register their guns would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, you can't actually charge a felon with not registering guns.  You can charge them with "felon in possession", which is different, but the only reason for registration is to make it more difficult for people who aren't felons to own guns.


Actually, you can't drive it on public roads, etc. Might vary by state, but pretty sure you don't need a license to drive a vehicle on private property.
 
2013-02-04 04:10:49 PM

Kazan: dittybopper: First, if you want to get us on board, don't insult us.

Secondly, I would ask what you think is reasonable?

don't prance around with bad arguments like you just won and you won't get written off and thus insulted.

as for reasonable?

the background check database actually not being a joke. no sales of any type without a brandground check. quality control laws to ensure that firearms are of a basic amount of quality (no 'saturday night special' cheap shiat anymore .. which are garbage AND are used for most crimes). No high-volume magazines unless you have an 'enhanced permit' of some type (ie show that you are a responsible gun owner and can be trusted with such hardware). weapons which are designed primarily for offensive use against humans are reasonable to be subjected to restrictions like high-volume mags (ie AR15, etc). Basic firearm safety course required for all ownership. more harsh repercussions for committing firearms crimes - like that jackass the other day who pointed a weapon at another driver in a road rage incident. Jailed+lifetime loss of firearms ownership privileges: he's proven that he cannot be trusted.


OK.  So let's say we enact all that:

1. Universal background checks for all transfers.
2. No inexpensive handguns
3. Limited ban on standard capacity magazines.
4. Limited ban on guns designed to shoot people (both 3 and 4 subject to a permit of some kind for ownership)
5. Basic firearm safety course (I think this should be taught in school like drivers ed)
6. Stricter enforcement of current laws.

What happens then?   Are you going to come back in 10 or 15 years and ask for more?  Because that's been the pattern.  Where do we say "OK, we've done what we can, and we'll just have to live with some amount of firearms deaths".

In other words, if I'm being asked to give something up, what guarantees can you give me that I won't be asked to give up more in the future?   That's been the history of gun regulation just about everywhere, so much so that it's become a cliche.

I suspect you won't be able to answer this, at least not to my satisfaction, because there isn't a way you can give me a satisfactory answer:  There are *STILL* people in power who throw out the word "confiscation", for example, despite the two recent Supreme Court decisions that pretty much have placed that completely off-limits.
 
2013-02-04 04:12:01 PM
"Liberal" is equivalent to "moron", after all...
 
2013-02-04 04:14:14 PM

Kazan: dittybopper: Yeah, about that: It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license. You just can't *DRIVE* it.

some states don't let you register cars in your name without a valid license.


And some (most?) states do.  Your point?

So, if they take away your license, do those states also confiscate your automobile?

And please keep the difference between owning, registering, and operating a vehicle in mind. They are not the same thing, and laws threat each one different.
 
2013-02-04 05:25:27 PM

enry: dittybopper: Because People in power are Stupid: So what method did they use to prevent these DUI deaths? My ex roomie for example- had his drivers license revoked. When he drove anyways (drove drunk even)... The cops pulled him over and threw him in jail. A profound violation of his rights to use his car and alcohol however he wanted...

So let me get this straight:  After he was caught misusing alcohol, and performing an action that is very unsafe, they took away his rights via the courts, with due process and everything?

Those farkin' *BASTARDS*!

Now how did they know to pull him over? You see there is this thing on the back of cars called a "License Plate". You see all cars that drive on public roads must be "Registered"...

Yeah, about that:  It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license.   You just can't *DRIVE* it.

Also, that's not generally how the police catch repeat offenders.  They catch them because they repeatedly offend, not because licensing and registration somehow magically allows them to be caught.

Oh, and another thing, and this is actually US law:  Because requiring criminals to register their guns would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, you can't actually charge a felon with not registering guns.  You can charge them with "felon in possession", which is different, but the only reason for registration is to make it more difficult for people who aren't felons to own guns.

Right, but we can't prevent every DUI (and criminals are just going to drink and drive anyway), so let's just get rid of DUI laws.


Owning a firearm is not inherently dangerous.  Operating a vehicle while under the influence of a substance that affects your decision-making abilities as well as reaction speed is inherently dangerous.

This is why we have DUI laws, as well as laws proscribing the use of firearms in population centers.  This is also why your anti-gun argument falls flat.  There is nothing inherently dangerous about firearms.  It's the whack-job that uses them in illegal ways who is dangerous.  Legal use of firearms (sporting, tomfoolery outside of populated areas, target shooting in contained ranges, etc.) is, again, only as dangerous as the person operating the firearm - same as with a car.
 
2013-02-04 05:26:17 PM
Translation, once again, uninformed liberals yap the loudest when they have no g.d. clue about what they're talking about.
 
2013-02-04 05:32:21 PM

dittybopper: They catch them because they repeatedly offend, not because licensing and registration somehow magically allows them to be caught.


That is willfully ignorant, probably to make some point -which you failed to make because you are being willfully ignorant.

Just in today's news
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUT_enU S4 91US491&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=serp&tok=u3P76StG_7r-dDugcv oDYg&ds=n&pq=license%20arrest&cp=1&gs_id=1x&xhr=t&q=%22license+plate%2 2+arrest&es_nrs=true&pf=p&safe=active&tbo=d&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS491US491&t bm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22license+plate%22+arrest&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on .2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=3630fd610b6ce455&ion=1&biw=1920&bih=936

Arrests, Stolen  License Plate
license plate leads to  arrest of wanted felon...
In 2012, LSU police had 31arrests involving alicense plate reader th

License Plate Check Results in Two  Arrests on Multiple Felonies


Yeah, arrests are "magic".
 
2013-02-04 05:36:17 PM

OnlyM3: Translation, once again, uninformed liberals yap the loudest when they have no g.d. clue about what they're talking about.


Why does it seem this way to idiotic people?

You are the person that everyone had to wait for in class because of everything you thought you knew but everyone was just being nice to you.
 
2013-02-04 05:39:14 PM

Kuroshin: Owning a firearm is not inherently dangerous.


To prove that -you'd have to undergo some firearm license pre-screening. Otherwise it's an assumption that you are making and wish everyone else to make as well.

Can we agree that certain people should not have firearms?

media.salon.com

Or is everyone innocent until proven mass-murderer in Freeperville?
 
2013-02-04 05:50:06 PM
Im a gun nut but currant laws need to be fixed. On a state level. I had 2 guns stolen by a "gun smith". Pawned them 2 days after dropping them off to him for repair. Ended up he was a felon and had a warrant for no show in court on drug charges. He got nothing for the gun theft. he even ran on those charges.  Warrant issued for again being a no show in court. served (like 3 days) for the drug driving without a license charge. Nothing for the gun theft. Thats where there is a problem. Oh ya and here in Utah we have a Database for stolen goods that pawn shops are so-pose to check. The police did everything but submit to the data base. Lucky for me he told an officer where they when. That was after 4 months of wasting there time. Fix that first. In my case, In my opinion he should received 1 year per gun. Non concurrent.
 
2013-02-04 06:28:08 PM

Silly_Sot: "Liberal" is equivalent to "moron", after all...


Wow. With weak trolling like that I can see why you'd wait until the thread clears out to stick your face in the fray.
 
2013-02-04 06:45:10 PM

Kazan: dittybopper: Yeah, about that: It's not illegal to own or register a car if you don't have a drivers license. You just can't *DRIVE* it.

some states don't let you register cars in your name without a valid license.


How do those states comply with the ADA?

If a person is disabled but wants to own a vehicle and hire a driver to drive him around?
 
2013-02-04 06:47:57 PM

Benjimin_Dover: How do those states comply with the ADA?

If a person is disabled but wants to own a vehicle and hire a driver to drive him around?


i don't know.
 
2013-02-04 07:06:22 PM

Cythraul: If the size of your gun has a positive correlation to the size of your penis, I'd like to invite this guy to my place for a romantic evening sometime soon.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If you really want take the correlation all the way though. Your romantic evening will be ruined 'cause his "gun" doesn't actually work

.

The rifle's form is fine, it is just unable to fire.  So depending on what you're in to, that may actually be the best out-come...


kombi: Im a gun nut but currant laws need to be fixed. On a state level. I had 2 guns stolen by a "gun smith". Pawned them 2 days after dropping them off to him for repair. Ended up he was a felon and had a warrant for no show in court on drug charges. He got nothing for the gun theft. he even ran on those charges.  Warrant issued for again being a no show in court. served (like 3 days) for the drug driving without a license charge. Nothing for the gun theft. Thats where there is a problem. Oh ya and here in Utah we have a Database for stolen goods that pawn shops are so-pose to check. The police did everything but submit to the data base. Lucky for me he told an officer where they when. That was after 4 months of wasting there time. Fix that first. In my case, In my opinion he should received 1 year per gun. Non concurrent.


I didn't know there were laws against currant, but I imagine they fall under the USDA/FDA jurisdication.
Anyway, In most states, theft of a firearm is a felony.  Being a felon in possession of a gun is a federal felony as well as a felony.
BTW, according to Utah Title 76, Chapter 6, section 412, 76-6-412, 1ii - theft of a firearm is a felony. So it looks like your gun laws are just fine, it's an issue with the prosecutor being asleep on the jorb.

/My state has about 260 pages of gun laws... so I'm in no hurry for people to pass more around here.
 
2013-02-04 07:32:15 PM

Because People in power are Stupid:

Can we agree that certain people should not have firearms?

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

Or is everyone innocent until proven mass-murderer in Freeperville?


Innocent until proven guilt is sort of the American way. If you wanted it the other way around, you should have gotten on the ship with the rest of the British loyalists.

Fact is there are bad people out there and no question that some of us like to treat them like second rate citizens or arrest them for pre-crimes.

...but the question is how do you want to be treated?

Do you want to be presumed a criminal, having done nothing wrong?
Do you want to have to bargain for your rights from some bureaucrat?
Do you want to be looked at like a potential madman every time you buy any tool or chemical, or even a piece of media?

Because we can easily create this kind of world... But I don't think anyone would enjoy living in it.

/If the overwhelming fear of attack has us locking ourselves up preemptively then we probably won't get freedom or safety as a result.
 
2013-02-04 07:48:42 PM
lol that blk women said he has a tiny penis and smaller balls...i bet she voted for obama purely based on race and if you told her that you voted for mitt purely based on race YOU'RE the racist...

'merika!
 
2013-02-04 07:51:09 PM

Kuroshin: There is nothing inherently dangerous about firearms


There's nothing inherently dangerous about most any inanimate object. I could set a 100 megaton fusion bomb in my living room and the odds are pretty damn good it would be "inherently" safe for as long as any of my neighbors need to care about being alive.

It's the intent and the capacity for harm of the person holding the object that matters. Which is why we think there should be some checks to make sure deranged people don't get hold of certain dangerous objects and why we think small minor convenience on your part is worth it. You know. Like we check to make sure dangerous people don't get hold of automobiles and drive them around with the rest of us.

But you keep pretending you have a point. Because as far as I can tell, pretending is all the gun nuts can really do at this point. When, as a collective, you choose to take the most insanely extreme position you can right off the bat with the basic argument of "because I say so" you really don't have much to do but pretend.
 
2013-02-04 07:59:06 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Which is why we think there should be some checks to make sure deranged people don't get hold of certain dangerous objects and why we think small minor convenience on your part is worth it. You know. Like we check to make sure dangerous people don't get hold of automobiles and drive them around with the rest of us.


Yeah, we make sure dangerous people don't get a hold of our cars by leaving them outside all night secured by nothing more than a pane of glass.  Sure, they kill more people than guns, but they weren't designed for that, so the nonexistent security the average car has isn't in question.
 
2013-02-04 08:19:45 PM
There has to be either a willfull suspension of common sense to actually buy into the slippery-slope argument regarding firearms regulation. The last time I checked there are something like 250 million legal firearms owned by American citizens, the per capita rate was like in the high 80's per 100 people owning a firearm?  So I'm supposed to buy into the theory espoused by the same group of people who claim the government isn't competent enough to run anything,that our Federal gov't can organize a massive effort to come take all your guns?

Both sides seem to forget that the majority of the population falls somewhere in the middle of this argument and most of us are just tired of it.  I do own more than one gun, not worried anyone is going to take them.


/Ship has sailed
//Toothpaste is out of the tube
///Can't un-ring that bell
////Guns are here, the gub'ment isn't coming to take them STFU and relax
 
2013-02-04 09:13:25 PM

dittybopper: Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.


Alcoholics abuse the BAC "loophole". They drink less so they don't get an illegal BAC and they drive more carefully. It's totally unfair.

dusty15893: There has to be either a willfull suspension of common sense to actually buy into the slippery-slope argument regarding firearms regulation


OR? Or what?
 
x23
2013-02-04 10:41:45 PM

Krieghund: People that don't own weapons are ignorant about weapons. Thank you, Mr. Romero.



what about the quoted "Marine"... surely he must be knowledgeable! he said he has even used one before!

"Nice.... Military grade High Caliber Sniper rifle... ( I used one similar to this one in the Marine Corps. )"

i'm sort of concerned a Marine can't tell the difference between a legit M82 and what is clearly a toy / prop.
 
2013-02-04 10:44:58 PM
we're not stopping dumbassery by keepng pot illegal.
 
2013-02-05 07:11:42 AM

dittybopper: enry: Because People in power are Stupid: enry: Just like we reduced DUI deaths by banning alcohol and cars.

Just like we reduced DUI deaths by registering cars and licensing people to drive them.

(Three strikes rule if you are paying attention)

Both of those were in place before the big push to cut DUI deaths in the 80s and 90s. In any event, there was sufficient progress without an outright ban.

Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.


For one I don't think you can equivocate the need for gun control and DUI regulation. Secondly DUI deaths were cut down by many factors, better lit roads with wider lanes, cars that were lighter handled better and with more safety features, and creating more public awareness; all have a strong correlation to a reduction in accidents and fatalities.

Increasing the severity of punishment tends to be a poor solution for eliciting a desired outcome. While I'm for gun more gun regulation, I'm decidedly against throwing more people in jail. Something yet to be suggested is significantly increasing the price of gun ownership. Throw a huge tax on guns and ammunition, or substantial license fees to own a high capacity weapon and their prevalence will decrease.
 
2013-02-05 07:18:08 AM

Kazan: Benjimin_Dover: How do those states comply with the ADA?

If a person is disabled but wants to own a vehicle and hire a driver to drive him around?

i don't know.


www.kazak.com 

I like that. 'I Don't Know.' That's nice. 'dittybopper, will I win this debate?' Gee, Kazan, I don't know! You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to leave your words right up here for all of Fark to enjoy, giving you full credit of course, Kazan.
 
2013-02-05 07:34:11 AM
MayoSlather: Something yet to be suggested is significantly increasing the price of gun ownership.

Why do you hate black people?

Gun Control and Economic Discrimination:  The Melting Point Case-In-Point

Besides which, that would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional:  Any tax designed specifically to reduce the number of people who can exercise an enumerated, core Constitutional right would be unconstitutional on its face.
 
2013-02-05 07:50:25 AM

Mrbogey: dittybopper: Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.

Alcoholics abuse the BAC "loophole". They drink less so they don't get an illegal BAC and they drive more carefully. It's totally unfair.


Don't laugh:  That's exactly what MADD has argued, once they got a standard 0.10 BAC enacted across the states.  They didn't disband because their stated goal was accomplished, they went for 0.08 BAC, which is now the standard in the US.  And since they've gotten that, did they just disband?

Of course not.  Now they push for other restrictions.  Some are sensible, like mandatory ignition interlocks for people convicted of drunk driving, others are just punitive, like additional taxes on the beer and wine industry, up to the "per drink" standard that distilleries must pay to close the "fermented only" loophole.
 
2013-02-05 08:14:32 AM

dittybopper: Mrbogey: dittybopper: Actually, the way DUI deaths were cut down was by the stricter punishment of the *MISUSE* of alcohol and motor vehicles, not by their mere possession.

Alcoholics abuse the BAC "loophole". They drink less so they don't get an illegal BAC and they drive more carefully. It's totally unfair.

Don't laugh:  That's exactly what MADD has argued, once they got a standard 0.10 BAC enacted across the states.  They didn't disband because their stated goal was accomplished, they went for 0.08 BAC, which is now the standard in the US.  And since they've gotten that, did they just disband?

Of course not.  Now they push for other restrictions.  Some are sensible, like mandatory ignition interlocks for people convicted of drunk driving, others are just punitive, like additional taxes on the beer and wine industry, up to the "per drink" standard that distilleries must pay to close the "fermented only" loophole.


Therefore there should be no laws against driving drunk, right? There are already laws against crashing into property or running someone over, so if a drunk runs someone over, they should just get vehicular manslaughter.

The DUI laws, after all, didn't stop the DUI and the alcohol didn't kill anybody, the driver did, therefore, DUI laws serve only to criminalize responsible drinking and, therefore, none should exist.

Right?
 
2013-02-05 08:35:47 AM

way south: Innocent until proven guilt is sort of the American way. If you wanted it the other way around, you should have gotten on the ship with the rest of the British loyalists.

Fact is there are bad people out there and no question that some of us like to treat them like second rate citizens or arrest them for pre-crimes.

...but the question is how do you want to be treated?

Do you want to be presumed a criminal, having done nothing wrong?
Do you want to have to bargain for your rights from some bureaucrat?
Do you want to be looked at like a potential madman every time you buy any tool or chemical, or even a piece of media?

Because we can easily create this kind of world... But I don't think anyone would enjoy living in it.

/If the overwhelming fear of attack has us locking ourselves up preemptively then we probably won't get freedom or safety as a result.


I've long held the conviction that I should be allowed to own firearms, grenades or nuclear weapons and that the problem isn't with me but with YOU. I know that I will never misuse my arsenal but the potential that YOU will goes up every time somebody else gets possession.


As far as British Loyalty goes -I think it's a little late for that.

Because we can easily create this kind of world... But I don't think anyone would enjoy living in it.

What is this world that you speak of? It seems a lot like the world that freepers are already living in.
 
2013-02-05 08:45:01 AM

dittybopper: lewismarktwo: The real issue is that people are farking stupid.  The way he's holding that 'gun' he would have to have the proportionate strength of an ant.  That gun, if real, would weigh like 120lbs.

This is a Lahti L-39 anti-tank rifle:

[en.valka.cz image 600x398]

It weighs about 109 lbs.


Good lord, dude. Pretty sure it's not quite THAT bad, but I can't help but imagine a fark tonne of shattered clavicles from that thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report