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.

(NewsBusters)   First they came for our guns. Then they came for our submarines   (newsbusters.org) divider line 68
    More: Dumbass, First they came...  
•       •       •

2045 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2013 at 10:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-06 10:26:14 AM  
Are the gun control proponents picking up talking points from places like Fark and Reddit? That would be very very good for the pro RKBA crowd if they did.

/just sayin
 
2013-02-06 10:26:19 AM  
1951 TANG CLASS SUBMARINE, BODY ROUGH, RUNS GOOD, NEEDS PERISCOPE.  $500 OBO.  CALL AFTER 5 PM.
 
2013-02-06 10:27:41 AM  

Kibbler: 1951 TANG CLASS SUBMARINE, BODY ROUGH, RUNS GOOD, NEEDS PERISCOPE.  $500 OBO.  CALL AFTER 5 PM.


http://www.ships-for-sale.com/submarine_for_sale.htm
 
2013-02-06 10:28:02 AM  
I bet Russia has nuclear subs on sale
 
2013-02-06 10:28:04 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Unavailable for comment.
 
2013-02-06 10:28:35 AM  
i2.listal.com
The Feds have been rehearsing for Submarine Confiscation since the 80's...it's only a matter of time.
 
2013-02-06 10:28:49 AM  
Having torpedo tubes would encourage other vessels to give way, I'd imagine.
 
2013-02-06 10:29:56 AM  
The crazy is strong with this gun grabber...

/nuclear weapons are more strategic assets than arms. Regulated by international treaties,no less.
/submarines, like warships, tanks and fighters, are perfectly legal to own if you've got the money.
/The department of energy might take issue with you buying a nuclear powered boat, but that's a whole different issue.
/I suspect if you had the tens of millions to buy something, the paperwork isn't an issue.
 
2013-02-06 10:30:50 AM  
What I want to know is, why can't I sail my submarine onto a 747, that's all, that's really all I want to know.

*pounding finger*

Right.  There.  In the constitution.  Read it!  Learn it!  Live it!
 
2013-02-06 10:35:11 AM  
Bye-bye empire, empire bye-bye!
 
2013-02-06 10:35:59 AM  

Kibbler: What I want to know is, why can't I sail my submarine onto a 747, that's all, that's really all I want to know.

*pounding finger*

Right.  There.  In the constitution.  Read it!  Learn it!  Live it!


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-06 10:37:02 AM  
There is nothing illegal with owning a private submarine. In fact, many people do. Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.
 
2013-02-06 10:40:27 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: Kibbler: What I want to know is, why can't I sail my submarine onto a 747, that's all, that's really all I want to know.

*pounding finger*

Right.  There.  In the constitution.  Read it!  Learn it!  Live it!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 751x600]


You get a big tub of water in that thing, and put my mini-sub in it?  And maybe a TV and a mini-fridge?

*Now* I'm ready to take a bath.
 
2013-02-06 10:45:46 AM  
www.ilovewaterloo.com

Getting a real kick, etc.
 
2013-02-06 10:46:19 AM  
Wow, normally Newsbusters is a waste of time, bandwidth and overall resources on this planet, but not only do they have a great point here, but this was rather funny.
 
2013-02-06 10:48:35 AM  
way south: submarines, like warships, tanks and fighters, are perfectly legal to own if you've got the money.

You mean an individual can legally own trucks, boats, and planes? I had no idea! You've surely convinced us of your great wisdom. But one question... can they be armed? Can I buy a tank and drive around with the 120mm gun loaded? Because, despite your retard logic, the issue is not whether people can own vehicles. It's about whether people have a right to own whatever weapons they want. You think they should be able to. Sane people realize that this makes you an extremely dangerous moron.

By the way, tactical nukes do exist. Should be people able to own them? Even if we only had access to strategic nukes, what the fark difference does it make? The constitution doesn't specify that this is some relevant condition, and you are the shiats who insist on some bizarre ultraliteral interpretation of it.
 
2013-02-06 10:52:02 AM  

Mikey1969: Wow, normally Newsbusters is a waste of time, bandwidth and overall resources on this planet, but not only do they have a great point here, but this was rather funny.


I've clicked Newsbusters at least a 500 times during my internet tenure, and have always been let down. A few months ago I just gave up. Can you tell me why I should believe this one is different?
 
2013-02-06 10:53:42 AM  
Would be kind of fun to pull into your local marina in your submarine.
 
2013-02-06 10:54:08 AM  

dickfreckle: Mikey1969: Wow, normally Newsbusters is a waste of time, bandwidth and overall resources on this planet, but not only do they have a great point here, but this was rather funny.

I've clicked Newsbusters at least a 500 times during my internet tenure, and have always been let down. A few months ago I just gave up. Can you tell me why I should believe this one is different?


They are just doing what Fark does (or at least used to do), and pointing and laughing at a politician who chose their words poorly.
 
2013-02-06 10:56:41 AM  

falkone32: Can I buy a tank and drive around with the 120mm gun loaded?


Actually, *YES*, if you pay the applicable NFA taxes.

You'd have a $200 destructive device tax on the 120mm gun, and a $200 DD tax on each round of ammo, but if you were rich enough, and your state laws didn't prohibit it, yes you could.

Alternatively, you could remove the breech-loaded cannon and replace it with a similar looking muzzleloading cannon.  Then, you wouldn't have to worry about either federal or state laws, because muzzleloading artillery, like muzzleloading guns in general, aren't covered by things like the NFA and other laws relating to guns*.  The downside to that is that you only get one shot before you have to climb out of the tank and reload the gun, but you *COULD* do it.


*There may be a handful of states where that's an exception, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
 
2013-02-06 10:57:36 AM  

Lost Thought 00: There is nothing illegal with owning a private submarine. In fact, many people do. Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.


But why are such armaments restricted? WHAT ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?!

I'm dead serious. Please discuss where the line is between a weapon that is protected by the 2nd Amendment and one that is not. Because all I'm hearing from the gun lobby is that no restrictions are reasonable.
 
2013-02-06 11:01:42 AM  

Kibbler: What I want to know is, why can't I sail my submarine onto a 747, that's all, that's really all I want to know.

*pounding finger*

Right.  There.  In the constitution.  Read it!  Learn it!  Live it!


I think they took the one out of the Hudson.
 
2013-02-06 11:02:43 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.


Or if it is US registered.
 
2013-02-06 11:13:32 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-06 11:13:37 AM  

falkone32: way south: submarines, like warships, tanks and fighters, are perfectly legal to own if you've got the money.

You mean an individual can legally own trucks, boats, and planes? I had no idea! You've surely convinced us of your great wisdom. But one question... can they be armed? Can I buy a tank and drive around with the 120mm gun loaded? Because, despite your retard logic, the issue is not whether people can own vehicles. It's about whether people have a right to own whatever weapons they want. You think they should be able to. Sane people realize that this makes you an extremely dangerous moron.

By the way, tactical nukes do exist. Should be people able to own them? Even if we only had access to strategic nukes, what the fark difference does it make? The constitution doesn't specify that this is some relevant condition, and you are the shiats who insist on some bizarre ultraliteral interpretation of it.




The answer is yes.
The cannons on a tank can be registered through the ATF same as rocket launchers, mortars, or missiles. The FAA doesn't permit armed civilian aircraft or drones in general airspace, but there are exceptions.

/tac nukes are still nukes and regulated under treaty.
/being small enough to carry isn't the issue...
 
2013-02-06 11:20:00 AM  
At least up to the Civil War, it was perfectly legal to own the same kind of weapons the military was using. In fact, some weapons were initially developed, owned and used by civilians prior to becoming 'official' military use only.

I would think, however, that driving an M1 Abrams down your local city streets is going to cause a lot of concern from the authorities, even if you had the money and permits to own it in the first place. I saw an M60 tear a concrete island to pieces when I was in college, for example. The NG tank came down the road and turned just a bit early, and one tread ran up on the island, pulverizing it. Now imagine what it would do to a bridge, or some guardrail, or someone's car parked along the road.

I wouldn't mind owning one of those cool German WWII armored cars though. The ones with 8 wheels that can be driven backwards as easily as it would drive forward.

/it had a 20mm cannon too
//probably have to get permits for that though
 
2013-02-06 11:27:43 AM  

Bendal: At least up to the Civil War, it was perfectly legal to own the same kind of weapons the military was using.




Someone might correct me on this, but it wasn't until the 1930's and the NFA act that the big change happened.

There is some debate as to whether this law was for the benefit of gangs (that were tired of getting shot at) or union busting thugs (who were also tired of being shot at).

/Long story short, I suspect coal workers striking presented more of a national threat with war on the horizon.
 
2013-02-06 11:32:51 AM  
THEY'LL HAVE TO PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-06 11:37:02 AM  
Gaffe-prone Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D(umb biatch)-Wis.) is at it again.

I mean... it's not like there is a site in the US selling submarines... oh wait.

http://www.ussubmarines.com/submarines/phoenix_1000.php3
 
2013-02-06 11:38:07 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: But why are such armaments restricted? WHAT ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?!


They were restricted before the govt recognized that the 2nd as they do now.  I personally think that these restrictions violate the 2nd but it is too large of a hill to climb when there are other fires to put out now.  There is also a good posibility of alienation of public opinion if it is fought to think about.
 
2013-02-06 11:42:48 AM  
A Democrat said something silly.  So Romney is president and Palin is super president.
 
2013-02-06 11:49:31 AM  
fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-02-06 11:51:06 AM  

GoodyearPimp: A Democrat said something silly.  So Romney is president and Palin is super president.


that was the dumbest post i have read on this site in a while.  why is Palin even relevant?  didn't she loose over 4 years ago?  Guess she is as relevant as Geraldine Ferraro.
 
2013-02-06 11:57:21 AM  
Heh, in November I chatted with my neighbor about buying one of his submarines and restoring it. Learned a lot of interesting things about submarine ownership, certifications, and issues when chatting with him.

Pic of said sub:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
It's been sitting outside for 10 years, scavenged for some parts (air tanks, prop), but the inside equipment is pristine. Used to be rated to 600 feet, owner said that without reinforcement, 300' should be safe.

/guy is a professional treasure hunter (ya really)
//remote robotic equipment is far cheaper to operate
 
2013-02-06 11:59:37 AM  
I am also known to dress up like this on a regular basis, so a personal, yellow submarine would work well for me.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-06 12:15:50 PM  

neversubmit: [fc06.deviantart.net image 701x965]


Perhaps they will listen to Reason.

/Don't ask me why, but I always pictured Raven fat as hell.  This seems strange.
 
2013-02-06 12:35:19 PM  

trey101: GoodyearPimp: A Democrat said something silly.  So Romney is president and Palin is super president.

that was the dumbest post i have read on this site in a while.  why is Palin even relevant?  didn't she loose over 4 years ago?  Guess she is as relevant as Geraldine Ferraro.


Couple things.

First, it's not a dumb post it's a re-iteration of a time honored and much beloved Fark meme

Second, Palin has been loose as a goose since even before she started playing clown car with her vagina.

/See: Wombshifter.
 
2013-02-06 12:37:23 PM  
The Libfarts don't want to take your submarine, they just want your seamen.

/I heard they could't get enough.
 
2013-02-06 12:41:24 PM  
You can have my submarine when you pry it from the cold, Dead Sea.
 
2013-02-06 12:44:03 PM  

Danger Mouse: The Libfarts don't want to take your submarine, they just want your seamen.

/I heard they could't get enough.


a57.foxnews.com
Is the the Libfart you were thinking of?
 
2013-02-06 12:48:21 PM  

monoski: Danger Mouse: The Libfarts don't want to take your submarine, they just want your seamen.

/I heard they could't get enough.

[a57.foxnews.com image 350x450]
Is the the Libfart you were thinking of?


Is Is.
 
2013-02-06 01:11:50 PM  

way south: The crazy is strong with this gun grabber...

/nuclear weapons are more strategic assets than arms. Regulated by international treaties,no less.
/submarines, like warships, tanks and fighters, are perfectly legal to own if you've got the money.
/The department of energy might take issue with you buying a nuclear powered boat, but that's a whole different issue.
/I suspect if you had the tens of millions to buy something, the paperwork isn't an issue.


So if we rename rifles to Strategic Assets, you'll be fine with us taking them?  What the fark kind of patriot are you!?  We need to stand firm against government tyranny and you're willing to give that kind of ground up in the good fight.  Fine.  We don't need you anyway.  Those of us with principles will make sure your right to keep and bear ARMS remains un-infringed.  That's arms, as in:
Weapons
Ammunition

In the case of a nuke, I'd like to hear your argument for a bomber or missile being anything other than a "weapon" and the bombs or warheads anything other than "ammunition".  Because I don't see how you can give up that ground and not open the door to nazi-ism.

Look, you might be willing to give your nukes to the feds, but they can take my ICBM stockpile out of my cold, dead fingers!

WOLVERINES!
 
2013-02-06 01:16:03 PM  

Kibbler: What I want to know is, why can't I sail my submarine onto a 747, that's all, that's really all I want to know.

*pounding finger*

Right.  There.  In the constitution.  Read it!  Learn it!  Live it!


upload.wikimedia.org

The russians underbid.  Here's an Antonov you can sail it into though
 
2013-02-06 02:13:49 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Lost Thought 00: There is nothing illegal with owning a private submarine. In fact, many people do. Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.

But why are such armaments restricted? WHAT ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?!

I'm dead serious. Please discuss where the line is between a weapon that is protected by the 2nd Amendment and one that is not. Because all I'm hearing from the gun lobby is that no restrictions are reasonable.


us v. miller 1939 limited arms ownership to small arms used by the us military.
dc v heller 2008 reaffirmed miller but also noted they are not against government regulation of firearms.
 
2013-02-06 02:17:17 PM  
And Jon Stewart thinks that hallow points are only for military use. Gun control people generally don't know what the fark their talking about.
 
2013-02-06 02:17:55 PM  

Frank N Stein: don't know what the fark their talking about.


And then there is me.
 
2013-02-06 02:18:07 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Lost Thought 00: There is nothing illegal with owning a private submarine. In fact, many people do. Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.

But why are such armaments restricted? WHAT ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?!

I'm dead serious. Please discuss where the line is between a weapon that is protected by the 2nd Amendment and one that is not. Because all I'm hearing from the gun lobby is that no restrictions are reasonable.



This is the question gun nuts cannot answer, because it points either their hypocrisy or flawed logical reasoning.Gonna save this for every gun thread.
 
2013-02-06 02:20:27 PM  

Frank N Stein: And Jon Stewart thinks that hallow points are only for military use. Gun control people generally don't know what the fark their talking about.



Gun control people arent fully aware of all the technical specifications of all guns and bullets therefore no regulations on guns and ammo for.... Reasons.
 
2013-02-06 02:21:15 PM  

justtray: The Dog Ate My Homework: Lost Thought 00: There is nothing illegal with owning a private submarine. In fact, many people do. Armaments on said submarine are restricted, but only if it is in US waters.

But why are such armaments restricted? WHAT ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT?!

I'm dead serious. Please discuss where the line is between a weapon that is protected by the 2nd Amendment and one that is not. Because all I'm hearing from the gun lobby is that no restrictions are reasonable.


This is the question gun nuts cannot answer, because it points either their hypocrisy or flawed logical reasoning.Gonna save this for every gun thread.


People can't own nukes, therefore people shouldn't be able to own bayonet lugs. Okay.
 
2013-02-06 02:22:18 PM  

justtray: Frank N Stein: And Jon Stewart thinks that hallow points are only for military use. Gun control people generally don't know what the fark their talking about.


Gun control people arent fully aware of all the technical specifications of all guns and bullets therefore no regulations on guns and ammo for.... Reasons.


He asked his guest why people own hallow points, a technology only for military applications.

He's an idiot, at least on this subject.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report