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  
•       •       •

5102 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 11:52:41 AM  

dittybopper: 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.


I always find it funny that the ACLU is never called for comment every time the exclusionary rule(s?) are invoked and evidence tossed out, or after the police find something with a warrant that might have made a difference if they could have searched earlier.


"Today the police revealed that the house of suspect John Doe Sr. was searched and various murder weapons were found.  The police spokesman claimed they knew the weapons were in the house days earlier and prevented several deaths, but couldn't search the house without a warrant.  They were unable to obtain a warrant initially because the judge believed there was insufficient evidence to justify issuing on.  Police officials blame the privacy lobby and their unwillingness to compromise on issues of public safety.  The ACLU could not be reached for comment.

"In other news, police believe a man who was l set free after exploiting the evidence loophole has killed again.  Police say Doe John III was released last month after evidence in his trial was tossed out due to being illegally obtained.  Prosecutors say John killed again last week.  DA Hole Ass issued a statement blaming the exclusion lobby for putting the rights of criminals over those of average citizens.  Attempts to reach the ACLU for comment were unsuccessful.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:57 AM  

Deep Contact: 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.


A long as the politician is rich, he may posses a gun.
 
2013-03-13 11:54:14 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?


1) Presumably by making access to guns (which make murdering people quite a bit easier) harder.  Whatever the method, gun laws have been proven to work by a variety of scientific studies.

2)  They do.  You think if murder was legal, we'd still have the same number?  Man you're dumb!

That was easy.
 
2013-03-13 11:54:31 AM  

Father_Jack: 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,


It's arguably a logical fallacy, but only when continuing down the slope isn't the stated intention of the policy in question. When the goal of a compromise is to tip the slope further, it's a door-in-the-face proposition.

Because door-in-the-face is not a logical fallacy and has been shown to be an effective debate tactic.
 
2013-03-13 11:56:19 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: 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.


Considering the drop in physical activity because of computers, I bet a very real case could be made that yes, they are. Being dead from fatness takes longer, but you are just as dead.
 
2013-03-13 11:56:51 AM  
I once felt maybe some of the gun laws could change then I saw that if you give anti-gun nuts an inch, they want to end up taking a mile. So now ....I will accept no tightening of any gun laws!
 
2013-03-13 11:56:53 AM  

dittybopper: 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.


This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time
 
2013-03-13 11:57:06 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: 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.


I linked to scholarly articles that show there is an association between obesity and computer use.  Hell, I'm an example of that myself.

I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.
 
2013-03-13 11:57:44 AM  
Why not just outright ban anything that could hurt you, or is bad for you?

I remember a movie about that. Sex can kill you. Candy. Swearing. Guns. Ban em all!!
 
2013-03-13 11:58:08 AM  

tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?


You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.
 
2013-03-13 11:58:53 AM  

Thunderpipes: Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime.


No, it cannot.

Thunderpipes: How is that for freedom of speech?


How can your totally imagined completely not true scenario be for freedom of speech?  I'd say it's about as stupid as you are.  Hey look, I called you stupid.  Do you think I committed a crime?

Thunderpipes: 2nd amendment is already regulated.

.. Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights.

Let's take one very specific proposed regulation.  A cap magazine size.  How does that make your right to bear arms no longer a right?  You have to reload more often and you're equating that with we may as well get rid of the 2nd entirely?  Yeah, you're stupid.
 
2013-03-13 11:59:08 AM  
dittybopper:
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.

Not trying to threadjack here, but what kind of gun?

Curious, as I have...a lot...of guns made before 1946 (some of the oldest go back to the end of the Civil War) and every single one of them has a serial number.  But all of them were also military issue at some point of time, so they would - obviously.

Like I said, just curious.
 
2013-03-13 11:59:49 AM  

This text is now purple: 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.


Well to the wit that it would fail that test yes, but I don't think anyone saw the breadth of how wide the decision would be. Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.
 
2013-03-13 12:00:14 PM  

dittybopper: I linked to scholarly articles that show there is an association between obesity and computer use. Hell, I'm an example of that myself.

I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.


However, I think you're slightly more likely to kill someone else with the guns you own than with your inactivity posting on Fark.  Perhaps that's the more relevant metric?

Farkin A people.  Defend your guns.  Defend your rights.  But stop being so goddamn stupid.
 
2013-03-13 12:00:47 PM  
I trust anti-gun people with "sensible restrictions" on gun use as much as I trust pro-lifers with "sensible restrictions" on abortion.

Can't you fuquers see that you're the exact same type of person?
 
2013-03-13 12:01:26 PM  

Benjamin Orr: 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.


Anyone offering to sell an m16 in a parking lot is most likely an undercover ATF agent trying to make a bust.
 
2013-03-13 12:01:43 PM  
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?


Hello, Thunderpipes. We meet again....

1. Most likely, it will reduce gun related crimes by an overall percentage, because there are avenues to legally purchase guns now that would either be restricted, or (better yet, and hopefully) there would be better ways to determine who shouldn't have a gun in the first place, and making it extremely difficult for them to find one, without getting caught for having a firearm illegally before anything more drastic occurs.

2. It doesn't stop murder entirely. But it does reduce murder, because people who are caught attempting to murder, having just murdered, or having been found guilty of participating in these acts are then segregated from society. Heck, we put people in jail for killing people through sheer stupidity on accident, and segregate those people from society for a while, so there will be fewer people who has their right to live infringed upon.

3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.
 
2013-03-13 12:02:41 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: 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.

This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time


Is a spree shooter shooting unarmed kids really a "crisis situation" for that shooter?  Does it really matter if he has to shoot twice or three times to hit someone 5 feet away if he's got 15 or 20 minutes to shoot people unopposed?

Hell, I know *EXACTLY* what you are talking about because I shoot timed competitions where you have to run between shooting stations (wearing snowshoes, no less), so I know how your shooting can go to shiat when your adrenaline is up and you are physically exerting yourself, and I just don't think that applies to very much to people who can walk up to contact range unopposed and just shoot unarmed kids.

Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.
 
2013-03-13 12:03:45 PM  

Benjamin Orr: 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.


I've never brought up VA Tech in any post.

What goalpost has moved? Background checks should actually check for disqualifying events.

Try being honest every once in a while.
 
2013-03-13 12:05:06 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?
 
2013-03-13 12:05:31 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


And race car drivers.  I know a guy who has a dirt sprinter.  Totally not street legal.
 
2013-03-13 12:05:54 PM  

Thunderpipes: Why not just outright ban anything that could hurt you, or is bad for you?

I remember a movie about that. Sex can kill you. Candy. Swearing. Guns. Ban em all!!


I know your throwing a straw man out there but its a good diversion to bring up the law of unintended consequences. When we had locations ban trans fats in this nation and the general switch from those trans fats many companies, restaurants, etc.. switched to use palm oil. Palm oil is primarily manufactured in the south east Asia area and many who produce it are land stripping areas of forest to increase palm oil production.

So with our intent to protect American consumers and try to get them a healthier product, we doomed rain forests across south east Asia.

Resume your bickering
 
2013-03-13 12:06:32 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: 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.


I don't think I can wade through the rest of this thread but THIS is a million dollar idea.
 
2013-03-13 12:07:42 PM  

tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.


Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...
 
2013-03-13 12:08:43 PM  

dittybopper: Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.


You're not, it was a preemptive strike for anyone who might have spring boarded off your comment into the argument having weapons protects you from other people with weapons.

dittybopper: I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.


However, you have a higher chance of dying by a gun shot than someone like myself who owns no weapons. Stop being disingenuous.
 
2013-03-13 12:10:29 PM  

dittybopper: tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.

Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...


Don't be silly.  FDA regulations and drug laws have done literally nothing to stop drug abuse.  If we got rid of all FDA regulations and drug laws, we'd have the exact same number of people abusing painkillers and whatnot.
 
2013-03-13 12:10:42 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.


What previous law held that you could censor political speech?
 
2013-03-13 12:12:12 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.

You're not, it was a preemptive strike for anyone who might have spring boarded off your comment into the argument having weapons protects you from other people with weapons.

dittybopper: I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.

However, you have a higher chance of dying by a gun shot than someone like myself who owns no weapons. Stop being disingenuous.


No weapons?

I bet you do. Maybe a background check needs to be done on you, for our safety.
 
2013-03-13 12:12:58 PM  

justtray: 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.


Do you have to pass a test and maintain a license or pass safety tests to put a car on your private property?
 
2013-03-13 12:13:57 PM  

This text is now purple: What previous law held that you could censor political speech?


Buckley although it was narrowed in scope with McConnell vs FEC (yep, that McConnell)
 
2013-03-13 12:14:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I bet you do. Maybe a background check needs to be done on you, for our safety.


A background check on me would read like the Penthouse Letters section, only with slightly more flesh and sweat added.

I ain't picky
 
2013-03-13 12:15:06 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


You still hold a title for it.
 
2013-03-13 12:15:27 PM  

lennavan: Thunderpipes: Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime.

No, it cannot.

Thunderpipes: How is that for freedom of speech?

How can your totally imagined completely not true scenario be for freedom of speech?  I'd say it's about as stupid as you are.  Hey look, I called you stupid.  Do you think I committed a crime?

Thunderpipes: 2nd amendment is already regulated... Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights.

Let's take one very specific proposed regulation.  A cap magazine size.  How does that make your right to bear arms no longer a right?  You have to reload more often and you're equating that with we may as well get rid of the 2nd entirely?  Yeah, you're stupid.


Yes, it can. Hate crimes and bullying laws. Kid in school can be arrested in places now if they call someone a name. Hate crime if it also considered racist or against anyone non-white/straight.

Magazine size? Well, when the founders made that right clear, did they say the government can make you only use blunderbusses from 100 years back, or whatever they were using at the time?

What about internal magazines? How long until the Garand and Enfield are declared evil and banned? Why stop there? That is the problem with you liberal wingnuts. You have nothing better to do that useless regulation, and you will never stop until you have your goal. In this case, it is the complete repeal of the 2nd amendment. Obama gets his next justice, that is a very real possibility.
 
2013-03-13 12:15:32 PM  

dittybopper: tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.

Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...


Actually, those things have been reasonably effective in the prevention of the marketing of contaminated, mislabeled, and "quack" drugs within the context of medicine. The failure has largely come in the failed attempt to regulate the consumption of recreational drugs by adults who know and accept the risks - which has failed for the same reason that Prohibition failed.
If your point is that no approach to ANYTHING can solve ALL problems associated with it, I must refer you to professor Ric Romero, of the Wellduh Institute for Stating the Obvious.
 
2013-03-13 12:16:29 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: 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.


You don't think our nation of lard-asses has been impacted by computers in any fashion?

Who's delusional?

I'd say that computers are probably responsible for more deaths than that, and are going to be responsible for epidemic levels of poor health in the next 20 years.
 
2013-03-13 12:16:33 PM  

Pixiest: I trust anti-gun people with "sensible restrictions" on gun use as much as I trust pro-lifers with "sensible restrictions" on abortion.

Can't you fuquers see that you're the exact same type of person?


Way to bring dead fetuses into this.
 
2013-03-13 12:18:15 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: 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.

This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time


Well duh.  That's why nobody needs more than a 5 round magazine to shoot a home intruder.
 
2013-03-13 12:19:33 PM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_anti-bullying_legislation_in_the_ U nited_States

Just a quick wiki search. Yes, calling someone a name can now be a crime, all because liberal wusscakes are wuss. Not federal law, yet. State by state.
 
2013-03-13 12:23:38 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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 commit a federal felony.


FTFY
 
2013-03-13 12:24:26 PM  
d1vezy1iv2ypkg.cloudfront.net
 
2013-03-13 12:24:57 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


This is also my problem with the NRA. Their leadership is made up of individuals who are vehemently opposed to any actions regarding root causes; if not through their NRA service (outside of favoring Republicans in most cases where there's equal gun rights candidates), then through every other avenue they engage in their lobbying activities.

I would think that a pro-RKBA group would spend time proposing public policies that would reduce gun crimes, violence and other misuse instead of just "no way" in response to any proposed regulation. Proper lobbying could get things like the FOPA and GCA repealed and/or replaced with actual smart legislation. There's no valid argument I've seen that supports elimination of gun regs altogether, but I'd still like to the ones on the books actually perform a public service and not just make whomever wrote it feel good that they've "done something" even if that "something" doesn't address the problems they were trying to correct.
 
2013-03-13 12:25:29 PM  

tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?


As long as they are travelling within a 25 mile distance of their home license and registration is not required. This may vary by state. farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed. If you get caught driving a licensed road vehicle and the DOT dips your tanks and they find undyed "offroad" fuel it may be a bit of a problem.
 
2013-03-13 12:27:53 PM  

This text is now purple: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.

What previous law held that you could censor political speech?


Gat a background check on this guy, ASAP.
 
2013-03-13 12:28:11 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Deep Contact: 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.

A long as the politician is rich, he may posses a gun.



Right, forgot they are all rich.
 
2013-03-13 12:29:27 PM  
theMightyRegeya: "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?"

They're staking out extreme positions so that they can drag any final deal further toward their preferences than they could if they held and espoused a reasonable position.
Further, the extreme position allows them to rile up the extreme portion of the base, who are more likely to call their congresspeople, support primary challengers, etc - which gives them even further political leverage than if they'd stated a reasonable position.

It's just a political weapon.
 
2013-03-13 12:30:40 PM  
 
2013-03-13 12:31:15 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: 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.

This is also my problem with the NRA. Their leadership is made up of individuals who are vehemently opposed to any actions regarding root causes; if not through their NRA service (outside of favoring Republicans in most cases where there's equal gun rights candidates), then through every other avenue they engage in their lobbying activities.

I would think that a pro-RKBA group would spend time proposing public policies that would reduce gun crimes, violence and other misuse instead of just "no way" in response to any proposed regulation. Proper lobbying could get things like the FOPA and GCA repealed and/or replaced with actual smart legislation. There's no valid argument I've seen that supports elimination of gun regs altogether, but I'd still like to the ones on the bo ...


That is the problem. Not a single proposal from Democrats will really do anything to curb gun violence. Nothing. In fact, the only real evidence shows at best, it will do nothing (previous assault weapons ban), at worst, it will increase gun violence (Hi Chicago!).

The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.
 
2013-03-13 12:33:41 PM  

Giltric: tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?

As long as they are travelling within a 25 mile distance of their home license and registration is not required. This may vary by state. farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed. If you get caught driving a licensed road vehicle and the DOT dips your tanks and they find undyed "offroad" fuel it may be a bit of a problem.


actually the "on road" does not contain dye and is yellow in color. the "off road" is dyed red
 
2013-03-13 12:35:20 PM  

dittybopper: Satanic_Hamster: The NRA;
For universal background checks before they were against them.

Nope.  At least as far as this debate goes, they were never for them.


Yes they were.  They as recently as seven years ago considered universal background checks to be completely legal and reasonable.

And yet now they're the agent of satan.
 
2013-03-13 12:36:25 PM  
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
By Michael B. Marois & James Nash - Mar 12, 2013 3:06 PM ET
Bloomberg

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who'd recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-o wn ers-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
 
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 »
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