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.

(NBC News)   Senators say that the NRA is ready to cave on background checks. Anyone felt their hands recently?   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 499
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5097 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 08:19:02 AM
No they didn't:

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".  This statement is completely untrue.  The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.



Straight from the Horse's mouth:

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
 
2013-03-13 08:21:22 AM
My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)
 
2013-03-13 08:45:20 AM

dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.


Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?
 
2013-03-13 08:52:19 AM

dittybopper: No they didn't:


Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise where both sides drop their more radical stands and move to the center.
 
2013-03-13 08:58:04 AM
The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox

Isn't every position adopted by the NRA based on a hypothetical scenario where any regulation to limit firearms will lead to a brutal dictatorship being set up in America?
 
2013-03-13 09:16:35 AM

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks


Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.

They already collect that data.  So does the CDC.

3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

Very, very bad idea.

I have a gun safe in my closet.  Mostly, it doesn't get opened for months at a time, because I shoot a flintlock longrifle for the most part, and it hangs on my wall because it looks so damned good.

So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing?  I'm an instant felon with no way to prove otherwise.  And it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either:  I keep a spare key for it in a non-obvious place so the distaffbopper can get to it, but even if they don't discover that, the lock itself isn't all that hard to pick.

Then too, what if you go on vacation for a month, someone breaks in, steals your guns, and kills someone with it before you even know you were robbed?

How would you enforce it against guns that don't have serial numbers, like home-made guns?   Remember how I pointed out that those are only going to become more common?  How would you enforce it against guns made before 1968?  I have a rifle sitting in my safe that doesn't have a serial number, because it was made before the Gun Control Act of 1968 required it of all guns.

In the end, though, what good would it do?  How would this stop crime?  All it would do is criminalize the victims of crime.

It wouldn't stop trafficking of guns, it would just shift it to other methods.  After all, NYC and NYS have very strict handgun laws, and criminals still get guns in NY, and despite the propaganda you might hear, the #1 source for guns seized in NYC is NYC.
 
2013-03-13 09:20:01 AM

dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?


You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-03-13 09:22:36 AM
The NRA is going to lose on this one and they know it.  What they'll do is raise a big stink about background checks and hope to keep some other measures off the table.  I really hope they do go balls out against this.  I think it would further marginalize them.

Either way, the whole background checks issue will give them something to wharrgarrbl about for the next few years.


The statement about "hypotheticals" is hilarious.  They are actively involved in influencing, even creating, legislation.  They don't just issue an opinion on whatever laws are passed.

Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner
 
2013-03-13 09:27:55 AM

kbronsito: The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox

Isn't every position adopted by the NRA based on a hypothetical scenario where any regulation to limit firearms will lead to a brutal dictatorship being set up in America?


The text of the legislation was introduced into the committee yesterday, and it passed with a straight party-line 10-8 vote.

It was done in a slimy manner, too:  Senator Schumer introduced the bill 2 week ago, but it had no substance, it was merely a statement of general principles.

He introduced the actual text of the bill as an amendment yesterday, right before the vote.

That seems to be the standard tactic for anti-gun politicians these days.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 09:35:01 AM

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...


Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.
 
2013-03-13 09:40:24 AM

Mugato: dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

Do you know all the categories for people who aren't allowed to own guns right now?  It's more expansive than you might think:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.
Look at those last few:  You can lose your gun rights upon conviction of certain misdemeanors.

Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?

It just opens up the possibility of a slippery slope, which is a valid concern here, as slippery slopes related to gun ownership have happened in New York (both state and city), California, Chicago, Washington DC, and in other countries such as the United Kingdom.
 
2013-03-13 09:47:20 AM

vpb: Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.


Nice to see the Violence Policy Center weighing in.  So, is this Tom, Kristen, or Josh?  You never answered my question.

Voting isn't an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, btw, so it's not exactly analogous, but you knew that, didn't you?

You don't have to pass a background check every time you vote, either.  I know, because I vote.

Stop trying to equate the two things.  If you could guarantee me that a simple registration that would never be used to disenfranchise a person from their right to own a firearm could be possible, I *MIGHT* go for something like that, after a lobotomy that removes all of my historical knowledge about how registration has been used for confiscations elsewhere, and how it's been used for "soft" confiscations even here in the US.

/Soft confiscation is the outlawing of possession of something, without just compensation, on the theory that you could sell it to someone in an area where they aren't outlawed.
 
2013-03-13 09:49:39 AM

dittybopper: Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?


And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet turtles. There's no arguing against the slippery slope argument. But all the background check thing would do is be sure the laws already on the books are enforced. If they can't check out someone, then why even have the restrictions in the first place?
 
2013-03-13 09:52:50 AM
I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"
 
2013-03-13 09:54:04 AM

mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.
 
2013-03-13 09:57:28 AM

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:


3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


Very, very bad idea.

I have a gun safe in my closet.  Mostly, it doesn't get opened for months at a time, because I shoot a flintlock longrifle for the most part, and it hangs on my wall because it looks so damned good.



I can agree that this is a bad idea.  However, I think that if you own guns and do not secure them around someone with questionable mental stability and they use those guns in a crime, you should suffer a consequence for that.  I think I've said it before, but I don't have a problem with someone who wants to defend their home with a 30mm chain cannon.  But if stray rounds find their way into their neighbor's homes, they suffer a heavy penalty and loose their right.  The same goes for anyone who draws down on someone for no good reason (flashing your gun in traffic, at a bar...things like that).  Arm up with what you want - you use it irresponsibly, you suffer the heavy consequence...heavier than now).

On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?
 
2013-03-13 09:57:42 AM

Mugato: dittybopper: Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet turtles. There's no arguing against the slippery slope argument. But all the background check thing would do is be sure the laws already on the books are enforced. If they can't check out someone, then why even have the restrictions in the first place?


Because you can charge people with violations of the law when you find them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay marriage.  I don't want the government in my bedroom or in my gun safe.  I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Slippery slopes are a real concern, btw.

Pretty much *NONE* of the current federal laws were in place when I was born, and here we are arguing for even *MORE* laws.  Is this going to be the end?  Can you seriously argue that in the affirmative?

Whether you want to admit it or not, we are currently *IN* a slippery slope situation.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:28 AM

vernonFL: I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"


Try looking at it as though you're completely. illogical and paranoid, or part of the TINY minority who opposes background checks.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 10:08:47 AM
dittybopper:
Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?



Nothing, which is good.  Those court orders are due process and they are handed down for a reason.  There were too many people getting killed in nasty divorces and domestic violence incidents.
 
2013-03-13 10:12:33 AM

UberDave: On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?


The ready supply is in the powder horn attached to the possibles bag, the 1 lb cans of it are downstairs in my old-fashioned chest that contains the various stuff that isn't in the shooting bag.

Possibles bag with powder horn is in the closet, away from the gun.

I have to use black powder because neither Triple 7 nor Pyrodex will reliably ignite in a flintlock.

I don't worry too much about leaving that stuff about because there is a specific sequence to load the gun, and unless you are knowledgeable about that sequence, pretty much nothing is going to happen.  Plus, you have to have some strength and a minimum size to be able to load it properly.

That, and unless you have built up the muscle memory to do it quickly, it's going to take you a while.  I can reload in something like 20 seconds, but I've practiced a lot, and reload time is important to me because I compete in timed events (primitive biathlons).

As far as the powder goes, so long as it's not contained, it's fairly safe to ignite.  It doesn't *KABOOM*, it just burns really, really fast.  I don't think you can get a *KABOOM* from any unrestricted black powder unless it's at least several tens of pounds, and you ignite it at the bottom of the pile.  Then you might get a bang, but it still wouldn't detonate, technically.
 
2013-03-13 10:12:40 AM
Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:11 AM

dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".


Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?
 
2013-03-13 10:13:19 AM
Jesus h. Christ. These incessant gun control threads make me want to commit a mass shooting and then blow my own head off.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:23 AM
Setting aside politics for a moment - there's an opportunity to do some cool tech things. Like, if I have a gun, and I want to sell it to someone, I could get a private key tied to both my name and the serial number of the gun from any, lets say fire department because we have them everywhere and they're pretty neutral. The buyer could get another unique number valid for a few days showing that they have the legal right to buy a gun.

Then, I meet someone over the internet who wants to buy the gun, drive over to see them, type their unique key into my phone, see their driver's license pic pop up on my phone, and know they aren't a felon without needing to know anything else about them, even their name. They type my number in and see my picture with the serial number of the gun, so they know it's not stolen, I legally have it, etc. You could do it from anywhere (and at a library, fire station, etc).

I mean, yeah, it has lots of holes - it relies on two people wanting to engage in a legal transaction, but pretty much any regulation would require that anyway. And I'm sure people would think of better things. Like if you got a key, and then your key was signed with the other person's key on transfer, you could have proof you sold a gun to someone without any registration. If the cops came knocking on your door, you could just show them a digital certificate.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:29 AM

vpb: dittybopper:
Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?


Nothing, which is good.  Those court orders are due process and they are handed down for a reason.  There were too many people getting killed in nasty divorces and domestic violence incidents.


So you admit that this is just a first step, then?  I'm right to be worried about a slippery slope?
 
2013-03-13 10:13:34 AM
I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:54 AM
Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...
 
2013-03-13 10:15:11 AM
If the NRA leadership caved on that issue they would find themselves voted out of office by their constituents in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-13 10:16:57 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:04 AM

Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.


This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

www.familysecuritymatters.org

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends
 
2013-03-13 10:17:18 AM

Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...


this is for universal background checks, as in sales are checked in all 50 states. Right now the laws are disparate between each state which can lead to gun trafficking from straw purchases in one state to then have the weapons transferred to illegal owners in another.

For instance, there are places in the country where over half of the weapons confiscated can be traced to only a handful of shops out of that state.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:19 AM
FTA: "We do not take positions on hypotheticals."

Moments later

"To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.

We don't take positions on hypotheticals. Now here's our response to some imaginary legislation.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:28 AM
NRA already denied this. That's what you get for relying on blogs for news.

I'll happily trade gun background checks in all 50 states today with Voter ID in all 50 states today. I have nothing to hide. And, I want my purchase when I pay for it, not after a waiting period. You checked me, gimme my stuff now.
 
2013-03-13 10:18:11 AM

Mugato: TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.


WOLVERINES!
 
2013-03-13 10:18:55 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?


Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.
 
2013-03-13 10:19:30 AM

Rapmaster2000: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

[www.familysecuritymatters.org image 576x304]

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends


Was there a point in your ramblings? Liberals are hypocrites, big time. That was my point, and it is fact. You want the 2nd amendment gone, and don't pretend, you and your leaders want it gone. This is your first step.

But even suggest something as logical as showing ID to vote, and you explode in anger. You are a breed apart and make no sense.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:03 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.


You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:10 AM
Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:56 AM

Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...


If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.
 
2013-03-13 10:22:18 AM

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)
 
2013-03-13 10:22:32 AM

Mugato: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


Were you required to wear a ball gag prior to entering the theater, to prevent you from *FALSELY* yelling fire?  No?

Then it's not the same thing.
 
2013-03-13 10:22:59 AM
Thunderpipes:

Was there a point in your ramblings? Liberals are hypocrites, big time. That was my point, and it is fact. You want the 2nd amendment gone, and don't pretend, you and your leaders want it gone. This is your first step.

But even suggest something as logical as showing ID to vote, and you explode in anger. You are a breed apart and make no sense.


The point is quite clear.

Libbo libby libtards say that we need ID to buy guns because guns are dangerous.

But they don't want ID to vote which IS JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE DANGEROUS because votes can be used to destroy freedom.

THEY ARE SUCH HIPPOCRATES!

/you should be thanking me
//i'm doing the heavy lifting for you
 
2013-03-13 10:23:53 AM

dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.


Easy answer: Only states can write in that proviso, since the federal government only has the authority to regulate interstate transactions, not internal transactions.
 
2013-03-13 10:23:54 AM

Mugato: TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.


Yeah sure but in the new one, yes I saw it and yes it was terrible, they use Tec 9s that they got from gang members then use small arms captured from the Koreans. So it's not like they used legal guns in the first place.

/actually the Marine making fun of the Tec 9s was the only decent part of the movie
 
2013-03-13 10:24:29 AM

RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)


Wow.  You *REALLY* hate gun owners, don't you?

And no, pool owners aren't subject to strict liability.  If you take reasonable measures (fence, etc.) you aren't liable if some drunk kid jumps the fence and downs in your pool.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 10:24:47 AM

Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?


By that reasoning how do you know you don't have colorectal cancer with jamming a camera up your arse?

/dr ben dover at your service.
 
2013-03-13 10:25:12 AM
This is part of the asinine "enforce the existing laws" mantra.

Step 1: Pass a "gun law".
Step 1a: Remove all accountability and record keeping from the law.
Step 2: Refuse to fund whatever enforcement mechanisms the law does have.
Step 3: Claim the "new laws" aren't being enforced (Profit!)

This has happened multiple times in this realm.  It's hollow rhetoric that many of you conservative farkers fall for and vomit forth again and again.

I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, it's what happens whenever lobbyists are allowed to write their own bills.
 
2013-03-13 10:25:23 AM

dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.


And Feinstien wants to make that illegal altogether. No more passing on weapons to your heirs, even very expensive collectables, if they so much as have a bayonet lug. She wants you to turn those over to the government when your grandpa dies.

It is all just a bunch of crap to slowly erode the rights of gun owners until it is too expensive and difficult to do so. Then you have a much more docile and subjugated population. Of course, all evidence shows none of that reduces gun crime, but who cares about that little bit?
 
2013-03-13 10:26:13 AM
Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.
 
2013-03-13 10:26:29 AM

EyeballKid: Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.


Like the NEA, AFL-CIO? NRA is tiny compared to those giants.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report