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.

(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  
•       •       •

5109 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (2 years 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 11:08:46 AM  

Giltric: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife

How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?


Huh?  I am a policeman's wife, meaning my hubby is a cop.  And quite frankly we (neither my husband nor I) let our friends drive drunk regardless of whether they are a cop or not.

You assume my hubby is a POS and I am going to waste my time defending him to you, when you have no evidence he has ever done or witnessed anything like this?
 

You seem like a hater.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:46 AM  
I'm pretty clearly in the "bitterly clinging to my guns" camp.  To me, the most valid comparison should be to a car -- which is the only other legal tool that we have that kills people as much as or more than firearms.  We register cars, we have to have the state register a change of ownership, we have to buy new ones from state-licensed dealers, we have to get a license to use one.  Honestly, it is no more onerous for me to have to do that if I'm interested in buying a GLOCK 19 or a BMW 3-series; a Remington 500 or a Ford 550.

I get where the NRA is coming from but I'm having difficulty seeing why a firearm should really be less regulated than a car.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:19 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?


Maybe.

Can we demonstrate that our current system jeopardizes public safety or allows for measurable differences in voting outcomes?

Are proposed laws arbitrary and capricious? Would implementing the new regulations prevent anyone legally allowed to vote from doing so? Would it create a burden on specific classes of people and likely disenfranchise them?
 
2013-03-13 11:09:35 AM  
They should require background checks.
For people to breed.

They should also be required to purchase candy, and cigarettes.

And lottery tickets.

See how easy it is to slide?


go ahead and keep giving your rights away.

you'll need a license to ride a bus one of these days, citizen.

You're all just pushing to be controlled.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:45 AM  

Giltric: Next time someone gives you rope to get you out of the hole you dug, try not to tie it around your neck for them to pull you out.


Heads get turned all the time, just because someone is SUPPOSED to report suspicious sale transaction doesn't mean they do. Also the ATF has been headless for years and been crippled with lack of teeth and budget to effectively investigate these illegal purchases.

Next time you want to make a point, use some farking facts.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:57 AM  
What's next?  Trying to keep people with Down syndrome from owning guns?  When will it stop?
 
2013-03-13 11:10:13 AM  

way south: weave: Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise

An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :
[dl.dropbox.com image 850x463]

/I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.


HAMMERTOE: While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right? After all, it's the possibilities that count, right? Tyhen, we ought to also require background checks on the purchase of gasoline. Gasoline has but one purpose: to burn. Think of all the arson we can cut back on with this one simple step, not to mention the accidental fire deaths, which far outnumber the accidental gun deaths.


The thing about bad analogies, is that they don't sound bad to the people who are already agree with the argument the analogy is trying to make.

So in your mind, the people who don't "get" the analogy are idiots.  But if your goal is to actually persuade people, you would be better to realize that it isn't the audience that is flawed, but your own argument.

In this case, your analogies don't work because they are bad.  They will never persuade your target audience.  You should try something else.
 
2013-03-13 11:10:21 AM  
I don't remember the NRA being elected to the federal governing process.
 
2013-03-13 11:10:57 AM  

RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty)


Sorry, sweetheart, I'm spoken for.  Besides, I'm probably too mellow for you anyway, what with you being married to a professional bully and all.
 
2013-03-13 11:11:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: shot down right away.


Uhm. . .

Well they did.
And if you ever had to deal with a pack of coyotes up here in Vermont, you'll prefer semi-auto over a bolt action any night of the week.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:05 AM  

Silverstaff: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm?
Uh, hell no.

Where the hell did you buy a gun like that?

I can go to a gun store, lay down a few hundred dollars and walk out same-day with a rifle or shotgun.  Have to show ID to prove I'm of age, and an NICS check to verify I'm not a felon, but that's it (and Federal law prevents any kind of registry of gun owners being created from those instant background checks).  If I want a handgun, same thing but with the Brady wait tacked on to it.

Release mental health files and be fingerprinted for buying a gun?  WTF?  To get a concealed weapons permit and doesn't even have to have that.  That requires an 8 hour course on gun safety and laws, a marksmanship test where you have to show you could hit a man-sized target with a handgun of your choice at close range reliably, and a background check performed by the State Police.

Yeah, my fingerprints are on file, from my security clearance I got in the military, and for the background check when I became a police officer, but you don't have to give prints to just buy a gun.  Not in the USA, unless your local jurisdiction is ridiculously oppressive (NYC, Chicago?)


For a handgun purchase in NJ....I can walk into any fire-arms dealer and walk out with a rifle or shot gun as long as I have my ID card..
 
2013-03-13 11:12:34 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: That is correct, but I would then point you to District Columbia vs Heller which affirms a law making body's ability to regulate even weapons under Miller vs US category but cannot outright ban


Thats the part where the gun control crowd rallies around Scalia assuming he means that they can regulate handguns and AR 15s?

The jist I get is that those waters are largely untested and in an interview he even claimed that we shall see what that means, but the gun control crowd has a temporary hero in Antonin Scalia.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:35 AM  

mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


Double fark the NRA.

/another gun owner
 
2013-03-13 11:12:56 AM  

dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...



THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.
 
2013-03-13 11:13:35 AM  

RevMark: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Double fark the NRA.

/another gun owner


Ben them over and run a farking train on them.

/Another gun owner.
 
2013-03-13 11:14:10 AM  

Thunderpipes: According to Democrats, I am an evil gun nut, since the M1A is a semi auto battle rifle with a 20 round magazine, and the K98 has a bayonet lug. Ar-15 is a pussy rifle compared to the M1A, but I have never seen a single complaint about it, I wonder why? Oh, it does not look as scary?


thunderpipes, as usual, youre completely ill informed, borderline retarded.

anyone still have that "Deep Thoughts... .With Thunderpipes" image? man i loled when i first saw that.

The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

So youre not an evil gunnut thunderpipes, youre just... illinformed and overly hyperbolic, like always.

//C&R holder here...
 
2013-03-13 11:14:20 AM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?

Maybe.

Can we demonstrate that our current system jeopardizes public safety or allows for measurable differences in voting outcomes?

Are proposed laws arbitrary and capricious? Would implementing the new regulations prevent anyone legally allowed to vote from doing so? Would it create a burden on specific classes of people and likely disenfranchise them?


Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?

Or is that the real objective:   Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point
 
2013-03-13 11:14:38 AM  

Father_Jack: you dont perchance work at ebay do you?


Nope. I'm at the university.

and im returning to the bay area at the end of the month. as much as i freakin adore living in CH on some metrics i need to leave and get out of the Hochnebel and back to family. Hope to return some day and live from April to October here and then back in the E. Bay between november and march. i had no idea i had seasonal mood disorder or whatever the hell they call it till i got out here.

Fun times. Yeah, the weather can get somewhat gloomy during the winter.

Before you head out we should get a drink. EIP.

yeah i know some safes are like that... huh. guess i never put that much thought into it but i assumed they were mostly pretty solid. my first one was more like gym locker now that you mention it, but the later ones were robust, bolted to the floor, and no monkeyfarking kid with a screwdriver is going to get into it and steal my ww2 stash goddamn it. :)

Yeah, I had a cheap metal-only gun locker when I first started out. I later owned one of these. While the Cannon one had fire-resistant material and was bigger, they both had essentially identical security ratings. Compare that to one of these, which is rated against 30 minutes of attack with power tools and starts at 1.5 tons (rather than ~500lbs of the Cannon).
 
2013-03-13 11:14:43 AM  

vudukungfu: Thunderpipes: shot down right away.

Uhm. . .

Well they did.
And if you ever had to deal with a pack of coyotes up here in Vermont, you'll prefer semi-auto over a bolt action any night of the week.


Hear them all the time behind my house (Georgia). Freaks the kids out.

Point is, an incredibly left wing state, but with extreme gun freedoms, is probably the safest state in the country in terms of firearm crime. Most of the new crime I see on TV is from out of staters here for the drug trade which we promote.

Gun laws won't change a damn thing. All it will do is create more division, which is exactly what Obama wants. Masterful politician.
 
2013-03-13 11:14:57 AM  
Another thread where bun nuts prove that they are, in fact, nuts.
 
2013-03-13 11:15:40 AM  

lennavan: I don't remember the NRA being elected to the federal governing process.

 
2013-03-13 11:16:18 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 I would oppose that legislation.

In trying to reduce the number of straw purchases, you are going to make felons of people who aren't.  Let's say you keep an old shotgun hidden in the back of in your closet.  Let's also say that you keep the ammo for it locked away out in the garage and have a trigger lock on it.  Feeling like it's pretty secure, you maybe pull the shotgun out once or twice a year just to make sure it hasn't rusted.  Now let's say that unknown to you, your nephew steals the shotgun, sells it for whatever reason (booze, drugs, pay gambling debts) figuring by the time you miss it, he'll be long gone.  Sure enough, he is.  Meanwhile the shotgun gets used in a murder.  If they trace that shotgun back to you, you're going to jail--unless you can somehow prove you didn't know the shotgun had been stolen a couple of months ago by your nephew.  Since you didn't file a police report, good luck with the attorney's fees, and staying out of jail.

1. I have no problem with people owning semiauto rifles, pistols, in whatever quantity their heart desires. Selective fires weapons as well, subject to a much more stringent system of background checks, etc. I'll not detail here.  Want 30 round clips?  No problem, I hate constantly reloading at the range too.  Want 100+ round barrel clips...maybe that should be restricted at the level of selective fire weapons.
2. While I wouldn't make a law, I would, highly, highly, highly (get the idea) encourage people that have firearms they aren't using actively for home defense to lock them in a gun safe.
3. Universal background checks?  Sort of silly if I'm buying a .22 rifle from a buddy that just wants to get it out of his house, but if it will get the whiners to STFU, fine let's compromise on something along those lines.  But whatever we settle on MUST be simple, fast, not be an excuse for Sheriff Roscoe P. Gunban to hold up my purchase for weeks or even forever.  Also, if I go see a therapist every other week because I'm feel a bit depressed about life at the moment, there will be no stamping people's records NO GUN FOR YOU.  The standard for doing that must be significantly higher (like say institutionalization, on meds for serious mental issues, etc.).
4. I honestly don't care what stats the FBI collects so long as I don't have some government geek a few years from now running through Congress scream we must ban all guns because he's found .5% increase in the number of people who commit suicide with a handgun in cases where the victim was left handed, had a hotdog the night before, and was wearing painter's pants.  Be prepared for the fact that non-government organization will collect their own stats, that some will use the FBI's stats to spindle, fold, and multilate the truth to some political purpose and while the FBI collecting stats on the things you mention sounds wonderful, it won't be the cure all nor the last word on any debate, ever.
 
2013-03-13 11:16:32 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: 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.


No, just the federal government and just the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.  I see no power to disarm the people.  In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-03-13 11:16:41 AM  

RedT: Giltric: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife

How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?

Huh?  I am a policeman's wife, meaning my hubby is a cop.  And quite frankly we (neither my husband nor I) let our friends drive drunk regardless of whether they are a cop or not.

You assume my hubby is a POS and I am going to waste my time defending him to you, when you have no evidence he has ever done or witnessed anything like this?
 

You seem like a hater.


AHh my apologies I read that wrong.

I still think he would clam up or look the other way about his brother officers doing wrong though. It is part of the job.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:04 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:07 AM  

Father_Jack: Thunderpipes: According to Democrats, I am an evil gun nut, since the M1A is a semi auto battle rifle with a 20 round magazine, and the K98 has a bayonet lug. Ar-15 is a pussy rifle compared to the M1A, but I have never seen a single complaint about it, I wonder why? Oh, it does not look as scary?

thunderpipes, as usual, youre completely ill informed, borderline retarded.

anyone still have that "Deep Thoughts... .With Thunderpipes" image? man i loled when i first saw that.

The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

So youre not an evil gunnut thunderpipes, youre just... illinformed and overly hyperbolic, like always.

//C&R holder here...


And you are of course, wrong.

Feinstien wants that list down to 1 feature. And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

you have no argument, so you insult. I am used to it here. No problems. I like the deep thought picture too, that guy seems classy and fun to be around. Bet he is strong too.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:24 AM  

dittybopper: 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.


Your comparison is so much a false equivalency; a better one would be: "If you have tourette's or some other mental illness that would make yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater seem like a good idea, we usually register that fact in your medical records and try to help get you on meds to control those impulses. Just like having a background check for all transactions of gun purchases is a good idea."

Or even better: "Unless you are a licensed pharmacist, you aren't allowed to sell prescription drugs to people. And you need a doctor's prescription in order to get those drugs, because some drugs can really mess you up. This is a good thing to help prevent unnecessary deaths, as more regulation helps keep track of every transaction, including investigations for when things go wrong, and these drugs get into the hands of people who weren't supposed to have them."

/cue "b-b-but the FBI/CIA gives guns without registration to Mexican cartels all of the time!!!1!"
 
2013-03-13 11:17:57 AM  

Giltric: The jist I get is that those waters are largely untested and in an interview he even claimed that we shall see what that means, but the gun control crowd has a temporary hero in Antonin Scalia.


True, the waters haven't fully been tested but I think based on other affirmation decisions for other enumerated rights (1st, 4th, 7th, etc...) we will see it affirmed clearly that the time, place, and manner will be upheld for regulation of the 2nd.

But then again, no one could have seen something like Bush vs Gore or Citizens United cases, so who knows?
 
2013-03-13 11:18:18 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


interstate sales/transfers to nondealers are already illegal, as are straw purchases.
 
2013-03-13 11:18:31 AM  

RedT: dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...


THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.


OK, so what more should I give up?  Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

Can you guarantee me that what you consider to be reasonable today be the end of it?
 
2013-03-13 11:19:07 AM  

Thunderpipes: More of the exact same words.


You are repeating yourself. Why? Everybody but a handful of extremists on your"side" reject your tired, strained analogy as the nonsense that it is. Why bother repeating it, like some sort of weird mantra? Are you simply preaching to the choir? Be aware, that to any intelligent person, the continual use of analogies, even good ones, tends to indicate an inability to reason or argue in the abstract. I'm not going to waste my time "conversing" with someone whose idea of conversation is the mere repetition of mantras that only have meaning to himself. We already have frequent threads regarding the so-called "voter fraud" issue. Why not discuss the issue there, instead of in threads that are about unrelated matters?
And if it is really your belief that anyone and everyone who advocates any form of gun control is a fool and/or hypocrite, why bother talking to them at all?
If you are just looking to vent your existential rage, why not get a punching bag? Works a lot better than posting in an internet forum.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:27 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.


How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:51 AM  

meanmutton: I'm pretty clearly in the "bitterly clinging to my guns" camp.  To me, the most valid comparison should be to a car -- which is the only other legal tool that we have that kills people as much as or more than firearms.  We register cars, we have to have the state register a change of ownership, we have to buy new ones from state-licensed dealers, we have to get a license to use one.  Honestly, it is no more onerous for me to have to do that if I'm interested in buying a GLOCK 19 or a BMW 3-series; a Remington 500 or a Ford 550.

I get where the NRA is coming from but I'm having difficulty seeing why a firearm should really be less regulated than a car.


with you in spirit. but ... the supreme court hasnt been making decisions on how car rights are to be handled as laid out in the constitution. the gun advocates have a strong legal position: its IN the constitution, whether we wish it there or not, and as such, its going to be harder to infrin- err, regulate, than things which arent.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:56 AM  

Benjamin Orr: If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale


No, but they do to purchase several hand guns, a few rifles, maybe some shotguns, and the occasional AR or other military style of weapon. That way your capital isn't tied up in the more expensive stuff that doesn't move quite as quick.

If you don't think this style of straw purchases and gun running doesn't happen, then I got a bridge you might like.
 
2013-03-13 11:20:44 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: More of the exact same words.

You are repeating yourself. Why? Everybody but a handful of extremists on your"side" reject your tired, strained analogy as the nonsense that it is. Why bother repeating it, like some sort of weird mantra? Are you simply preaching to the choir? Be aware, that to any intelligent person, the continual use of analogies, even good ones, tends to indicate an inability to reason or argue in the abstract. I'm not going to waste my time "conversing" with someone whose idea of conversation is the mere repetition of mantras that only have meaning to himself. We already have frequent threads regarding the so-called "voter fraud" issue. Why not discuss the issue there, instead of in threads that are about unrelated matters?
And if it is really your belief that anyone and everyone who advocates any form of gun control is a fool and/or hypocrite, why bother talking to them at all?
If you are just looking to vent your existential rage, why not get a punching bag? Works a lot better than posting in an internet forum.


Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.
 
2013-03-13 11:20:57 AM  

mysticcat: 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


THIS.

The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:08 AM  

Father_Jack: The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.


Actually, the K98 isn't "evil" under the CA law because it's a bolt-action, not semi-auto.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

Senator Feinstein is pushing a federal bill that would lower the requirements to one evil feature, so a lot of guns that are fine under the current CA law (and/or the 1994-2004 ban, not to mention millions of guns in common use in the rest of the country) would suddenly not be ok.

The CA ban (and the former and proposed federal bans) don't regard a "detachable mag greater than 10 rounds" as an evil feature. Rather, the fact that a semi-auto gun accepts a detachable magazine at all is what counts, regardless of if the magazine holds one round or one hundred. The law separately addresses magazines over a certain arbitrary limit.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:10 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: But then again, no one could have seen something like Bush vs Gore or Citizens United cases, so who knows?


CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:26 AM  

tlars699: Your comparison is so much a false equivalency; a better one would be: "If you have tourette's or some other mental illness that would make yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater seem like a good idea, we usually register that fact in your medical records and try to help get you on meds to control those impulses. Just like having a background check for all transactions of gun purchases is a good idea."


So you think firearms ownership is a sign of mental illness?  How telling.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:27 AM  

This text is now purple: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.


Two things:
1) Strict liability is a civil matter, not criminal,so it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but liability.
and,
2) Serously?? You DON"T think this is the case NOW? Do you think cops just shoot people, then head to the next call while clapping the dust off their hands?
There hasn't been a police shooting death in my town in over 15 years that did not involve a FEDERAL investigation after all of the local and state investigations.  After a shooting cops are immediately pulled off the street.  This city's average payout is 1 million dollars for every police shooting because that is generally cheaper than the cost of litigation, so yeah, that is STRICT liability on police shootings.

Wow, just, wow.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:43 AM  

pedrop357: interstate sales/transfers to nondealers are already illegal, as are straw purchases.


They are also investigated less and pursued even less because the ATF lacks budgeting for it, A Director, and little teeth to enforce what little law is there.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:50 AM  

dittybopper: 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 depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 
2013-03-13 11:22:54 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Giltric: Next time someone gives you rope to get you out of the hole you dug, try not to tie it around your neck for them to pull you out.

Heads get turned all the time, just because someone is SUPPOSED to report suspicious sale transaction doesn't mean they do. Also the ATF has been headless for years and been crippled with lack of teeth and budget to effectively investigate these illegal purchases.

Next time you want to make a point, use some farking facts.


Facts? All you have is a talking point.

Can you detail this "lack of teeth" you are talking about? Can you give me examples of what not having a director has done to ATF investigations, stings, compliance checks etc?

Their budget is around 300k per member of the ATF. somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion a year. How much money does it take to let known straw purchasers aquire weapons and transfer them to the cartels without attempting to track those weapons anyway?
 
2013-03-13 11:23:14 AM  

dittybopper: RedT: dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...


THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.

OK, so what more should I give up?  Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

Can you guarantee me that what you consider to be reasonable today be the end of it?


No. No one could ever "guarantee" that regarding anything - including you, regarding anything YOU advocate. If that is to be the test, then, essentially, we can never do anything at all, even if it is a good thing, because later we might do it more, to the point that it is not a good thing.
 
2013-03-13 11:23:48 AM  

ferretman: For a handgun purchase in NJ....I can walk into any fire-arms dealer and walk out with a rifle or shot gun as long as I have my ID card..


Ah yes, the state that is so nanny-state they won't even let you pump your own gas.  Should have known they'd be anti-freedom in other ways too, like overly restrictive gun laws.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:26 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: iltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


Still illegal.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:27 AM  
I'd like to point out once again that TFA is wrong.

The NRA is *NOT* caving on their opposition to the private sale ban.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:49 AM  

Rapmaster2000: They will never persuade your target audience.


The intended audience (you lot) isn't willing to be convinced of anything.
Its mind is made up to the point where evidence and analogy wont have any effect.

We can only hope the bystanders listening to us bicker can realize your obstinance for what it is.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I live in a society like that. It's pretty nice.


I live in a territory where we passed strict gun control laws.
The tightest laws in the nation, next to Puerto Rico.

/Both areas also have the highest murder rates in the US.
/You've got an odd definition of "nice".
 
2013-03-13 11:24:56 AM  

SurfaceTension: 3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen


you mean legitmately stolen?
 
2013-03-13 11:25:31 AM  

This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything


Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.


And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.
 
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 »
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