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 11:25:46 AM

vernonFL: 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?

Um, they do that now. Its called a driver's license and car insurance. If you have a DUI, your license is restricted or suspended and your insurance is very expensive.


When was the last time someone's vehicles were all taken away when they were convicted of a DUI?  How about the last time a person was denied the purchase or rental of a car due to a DUI?
 
2013-03-13 11:26:16 AM

Thunderpipes: 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.


The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.


The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!
 
2013-03-13 11:26:17 AM
I'm ok with this as long as we enforce background checks on alcohol purchases to make sure you're not a violent drunk and have no DUIs.

/bonus: not even in the Bill of Rights
 
2013-03-13 11:26:47 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


"A totally different thing from the tihng I described is happening so I'm right."

Interesting tactic.
 
2013-03-13 11:26:47 AM
I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?
 
2013-03-13 11:27:01 AM

Mr_Fabulous: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?


Nope.  But cars do.
 
2013-03-13 11:27:32 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.


Because firearms are protected items under the 2nd amendment..
 
2013-03-13 11:27:34 AM
I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.
 
2013-03-13 11:27:40 AM

RedT: 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.


For every police shooting? Maybe for every police shooting that was found to be negligent and/or wrong.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:09 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.


Hardly.  NFA items are rigorously tracked and are absolutely linked to an individual, a trust, or a corporation.  Also, the hypothetical M-16 mentioned runs about $30,000.  Nobody is doing a parking lot deal that will land both buyer and seller in Federal prison.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:43 AM

Giltric: 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?


Ohh Fast and Furious reference, nice.

The point was that the resources are stretched thin so that reports of suspicious activity often goes unreported and those that do are often never followed up because there are bigger fish to fry justice speaking. Meaning that the punishment for crimes like straw purchases is more of a slap on the wrist than an actual punishment.

Prosecutors and law people go after the big wins, prosecutorial speaking.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:49 AM
The thing to remember is that the rich guys you voted in make laws that are reactive, not proactive
they have never been able to stop something before it has happened
so they create feel-good laws that are designed to make you believe they are doing their jobs.
do you feel safer yet?
Any power you give them, you don't get back
The registration seems like a good idea on a couple of different levels
but it's the idea behind it that is concerning
and what is to be done with the information they take.
We have seen how none of the recent situations could have been changed by any of the laws they have suggested
or laws that were already on the book
besides-don't farking shoot other people for no reason-
so be VERY careful before you sign on to another rule
 that people you already don't trust
tell you is going to make everything better
 
2013-03-13 11:29:21 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


I agree. The NRA and extreme right gun nuts are going to battle against it though as hard as they can. You'll hear a lot about registration = confiscation, even though it never has in this country. Then they'll say "Califnornia SKS!" without actually having read the history of that at all, just heard some other gun nut say it not realizing guns that were registered before the ban remained legal.

Good times... good times.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:26 AM

Thunderpipes: 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.


i know what feinstein wants to do, but it hasnt happened yet. As such, your martyr argument is invalid.

re: slippery slope, "whats next", we cant tell. but its also a bit of a logical fallacy, since the tragedies like Aurora and Connecticut are not possible with a k98. As such, theres not as much of an uproar and political will mobilized against it.

Americans are willing to live with a certain amount of violence in our society associated with the ownership of guns and the odd tragedy, what people are finding themselves less willing to put up with are mass murder tragedies. As such, people arent focusing on bolt action rifles, since they havent been used in mass killings the way AR15s and Ak47s have.

that all being said the new feinstein stuff is absurd and lame... say good bye to the SKS and the SVT40 and the FN49 in my safe.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:53 AM

lennavan: Thunderpipes: 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.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!


Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?
 
2013-03-13 11:30:54 AM
Hey guys lets compare cars to guns!


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.
 
2013-03-13 11:31:00 AM
I support background checks for all gun transfers. I also support background checks for voting, for private employment, and for when local authorities pull you over for speeding.
 
2013-03-13 11:31:44 AM

redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: 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.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?


Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?
 
2013-03-13 11:32:16 AM

RedT: 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.



latimesblogs.latimes.com

Yes we have seen it time and time again....most recently twice in the los angeles area where 2 different sets of cops opened fire without warning on 2 different vehicles that did not match the description of the vehicle they were looking for neither did either of the white occupants match the description of the black man they were looking for. The chief of police blamed it on stress......that should make everyone feel better...stressed police officers shooting people willy nilly.

In NY back in August, there was a situation where 9 innocent bystanders were shot by police and the police tried to blame it on the suspect they were chasing.
 
2013-03-13 11:32:18 AM

dittybopper: 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.


When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:04 AM

Mr_Fabulous: 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?


No, but they probably transmit far more pornographic pictures of children.  Anyone can just walk into any store in the country and walk with a camera, computer, and network equipment.  Even a 3 time convicted sex offender can have high speed internet straight to their house.

Not to mention the millions of households with high speed internet, digital cameras, and computers that have children living in them.

We need sensible camera control and we need it now.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:11 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?


Yeah, I don't get that either.  I used to have to call in background checks, so I don't get it.  Are they just counting on people to ignore the new laws and sell weapons anyway?  Are they counting background checks as a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?
 
2013-03-13 11:33:26 AM

lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: 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.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?


There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:28 AM

Thunderpipes: 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.


I give up. It's like talking to a wall. Because I dare presume to disagree with you, you proclaim that I am a "liberal" (which I am not) and that I wish to "silence" you (which I do not). All because I point out to you that I cannot "discuss" a silly analogy with you that you insist on substituting for an actual argument of the subject currently under discussion.
At any rate - any time you want to discuss the actual issue, and not whether I am a "hypocrite" for advocating what you disagree with, I'll be happy to take the matter up with you.
 
2013-03-13 11:34:36 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?


You only need those to operate on public roads.  You don't need to do any of that to have a car on your property.

Also, vehicles, transportation methods, etc. are not explicitly protected in the constitution.
 
2013-03-13 11:34:48 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: I support background checks for all gun transfers. I also support background checks for voting-not done yet, but hey, given you need a license to drive, or a photo id to write a check in most places, I'm not exactly against this, provided all valid photo ids are acceptable, for private employment-already done, and for when local authorities pull you over for speeding- already done, via your license plates, id, and registration. It's often how they find stolen vehicles.

 
2013-03-13 11:35:39 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?


Because they're different.

Cars:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for cars is accidental, indicating that drivers need a basic level of training to reduce accidents. A license serves this purpose.
- Insurance covers liability for accidental death, injury, or property damage caused by one's vehicle.
- Registration serves to identify the owner for tax purposes, but does not otherwise contribute to public safety.

Guns:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for guns is intentional and criminal. Licensing wouldn't really have much of an effect, as criminals wouldn't get a license. Accidents involving guns are at or near record lows and are already quite rare, statistically speaking. It's unlikely that a license would have any meaningful effect in that regard.
- Insurance does not cover intentional acts. Existing homeowners/renters insurance already covers liability due to accidental death, injury, or property damage relating to guns.
- What purpose would registering guns serve? Criminals cannot be compelled to register their guns and even if it was required, they wouldn't. Several states have licensing requirements and there's no evidence that such measures have any effect on crime. Canada abandoned their national registry of rifles and shotguns because it was expensive to operate and ineffective at reducing crime. It also only had a ~30% compliance rate -- I doubt that compliance rates in the US would be any higher.
 
2013-03-13 11:37:34 AM
dittybopper

I don't agree with you, but you've made some damn fine arguments.
 
2013-03-13 11:37:45 AM

wickedragon: When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-commits-suicide-posting-loves- ha terz/story?id=15887174

You were saying?
 
2013-03-13 11:38:22 AM

justtray: I agree. The NRA and extreme right gun nuts are going to battle against it though as hard as they can. You'll hear a lot about registration = confiscation, even though it never has in this country. Then they'll say "Califnornia SKS!" without actually having read the history of that at all, just heard some other gun nut say it not realizing guns that were registered before the ban remained legal.

Good times... good times.


Good times indeed.

Hey, look at it this way. It makes great fodder to save for the derp folder when you want to go troll the politics tab.
 
2013-03-13 11:38:53 AM

pedrop357: 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.


It's a bit worse than that.

Private firearms owners up until nearly the 20th century were actually better armed than their regular army counterparts, with more and higher quality weapons.  It was not just assumed that the militia had small arms in their homes, the armories scattered across the U.S. by the 1850s didn't contain anything remotely like enough weapons to equip large scale military formations.  What they did contain of extreme value was artillery and while private ownership of cannons wasn't by any means banned (indeed merchant ships were armed as a matter of course), artillery pieces were expensive to equipment and maintain, so they were relatively rare in civilian hands outside the maritime community.

It's pretty clear that a militia system was written into our Constitution and that Congress isn't maintaining it.  But that in no way repeals or nullifies the Second Amendment or its implied right for firearms owners to provide for their own home defense and the defense of their neighbors from everything from home invasions to Indian attacks (the "original" home invasion).
 
2013-03-13 11:39:07 AM

Mr_Fabulous: 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?


Probably, at least as a contributory factor.

All substantive rights have a significant cost in human lives.  That's why they are protected.  If there was no cost associate with, say, a person's right to a jury trial, or to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, or against self-incrimination, or to have an abortion, and yes even to speak out for what they believe (including Nazis and the KKK), we wouldn't need to protect those rights, because there would be no pressure to reduce or remove those rights.

How many people have died because of the other rights besides the Second Amendment?  We don't really know, but it's got to be up there:  After all, the police generally know who the likely suspects for gang-related crimes are, but they can't really arrest them without *SOME* evidence, and until they do, those suspects are free to commit more crimes.  Plus, if the police don't follow the rules, the people they do manage to arrest will be set free, again to commit more crimes.
 
2013-03-13 11:40:58 AM

redmid17: lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: 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.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?

There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.



Couldn't agree more.  I also hate it when people try to pretend the 1st amendment isn't regulated and use that as a reason why we shouldn't regulate the 2nd.  I'm not coming to steal your guns, so you can relax.  Stupid is stupid, no matter what side of the argument it's on.
 
2013-03-13 11:41:21 AM

pedrop357: Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?

You only need those to operate on public roads.  You don't need to do any of that to have a car on your property.

Also, vehicles, transportation methods, etc. are not explicitly protected in the constitution.


What is this? What? WAT? Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

Do you have guns you never intend to use? (Uh huh. Sure you do.)

What happens when you use your car, that you had previously no intention to use? Why can't we do that with a gun?
 
2013-03-13 11:42:27 AM
Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?
 
2013-03-13 11:43:43 AM

Thunderpipes: Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


Well duh, We need to perform background checks on everyone in the nation. Think of the jobs created.
 
2013-03-13 11:44:25 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.


He's a cop.  Of course he does that stuff or helps protect those that do.

You brought it up, if you don't want the scrutiny, don't post about it.

Only the fact that EVERY SINGLE COP I HAVE EVER MET has a power trip going on, and is a "guns are for us, not for the people" attitude... that simple fact makes one believe the rest are too.

/wife-like typing detected
 
2013-03-13 11:46:26 AM

Thunderpipes: How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


dgt1.net
 
2013-03-13 11:47:18 AM

lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: 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.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: 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 know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?

There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.

Couldn't agree more.  I also hate it when people try to pretend the 1st amendment isn't regulated and use that as a reason why we shouldn't regulate the 2nd.  I'm not coming to steal your guns, so you can relax.  Stupid is stupid, no matter what side of the argument it's on.


2nd amendment is already regulated. For instance, pointing a gun at somebody may not hurt them, but it is generally against the law. Yelling fire in a theater is causing a very real safety issue even though it would appear as an absolute right. There is a real balance, and it has been defined by court decisions over time. Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights. It has already started. Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime. How is that for freedom of speech?
 
2013-03-13 11:47:21 AM

dittybopper: 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?


Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.
 
2013-03-13 11:47:29 AM

vpb: 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.


Not the same thing. What other rights do you dislike to the point where you would give them away?
 
2013-03-13 11:49:10 AM

Father_Jack: since the tragedies like Aurora and Connecticut are not possible with a k98.


Ummm, Yes, they are.  Are you seriously saying that First graders are a serious threat to a person with a bolt action rifle?  Once that person shots the adult in the room, there is literally nothing stopping him from killing the kids.  Don't forget the shooter had at least 11, and probably more like 15 minutes, to shoot.

If you can't fire 50 to 100 rounds from a bolt action rifle in that time, you're plainly incompetent.

What about reloading?  Reloading a Kar98k is fast with stripper clips.

Plus, we know such tragedies can still happen with very limited capacity guns:   The Cumbria Shootings in the UK happened with a bolt action rifle in .22 LR and a double barrel shotgun.
 
2013-03-13 11:49:12 AM

Nahbien: Mr_Fabulous: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?

Nope.  But cars do.


So we should regulate the ownership and operation of guns, too?

I agree.
 
2013-03-13 11:49:15 AM

StoPPeRmobile: I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.


Forgot politicians.
 
2013-03-13 11:50:16 AM

tlars699: Do you have guns you never intend to use? (Uh huh. Sure you do.)


I do.  It's a shotgun that has historical significance for the railroad line in my town.  There is no reason to believe that it isn't fully functional, it is in excellent condition.  But it is strictly a decorative piece on the wall.
 
2013-03-13 11:51:36 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


Really? I saw it coming.

A law that says "you can't publish this within six months of an election"? Never had a chance. That's way too easy to test, way too clearly an abridgement of political speech, and way too contrary to everything the 1st Amendment was written to protect.
 
2013-03-13 11:51:41 AM

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


You don't actually think a criminal is going to buy their guns from someone who obeys the mandatory background check law, do you?  It won't stop a single criminal from illegally buying a gun just like they do today.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:15 AM

way south: 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.


Interestingly, you don't count yourself as being a part of that group.

Could you be persuaded for increased background checks?
 
2013-03-13 11:52:33 AM

dr_blasto: dittybopper: 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?

Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.


I agree wholeheartedly.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:37 AM

dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably


And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.
 
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