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
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5112 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 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 12:36:53 PM  
 Molavian: 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.


Don't forget all the mercury that is released in the air from all the coal that is burned to power those computers.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:16 PM  
I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:56 PM  

JungleBoogie: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x183]

Wednesday March 13, 2013: Four dead at barber shop, car wash in upstate New York


Is this the same New York that had strict gun laws, and decided to go even further with them?
 
2013-03-13 12:41:15 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.


Is there a constitutionally protected right to coach youth baseball?
 
2013-03-13 12:43:23 PM  

pedrop357: Is this the same New York that had strict gun laws, and decided to go even further with them?


On the bright side, none of them died from excessive soda.
 
2013-03-13 12:45:33 PM  

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


Marginalize them?  Most people who own guns generally support the NRA.  I think YOU are the odd one out.

FTA:  "With about 90 percent of the public calling for a comprehensive background check system..."

90 percent?  Citation needed...
 
2013-03-13 12:45:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: 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.

You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.
 
2013-03-13 12:46:14 PM  

JungleBoogie: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x183]

Wednesday March 13, 2013: Four dead at barber shop, car wash in upstate New York


Most mass shootings are committed with handguns.


themoreyouknow.jpeg
 
2013-03-13 12:47:17 PM  

pedrop357: Uranus Is Huge!: I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.

Is there a constitutionally protected right to coach youth baseball?


No, but there is the same presumption of guilt that some are arguing in this thread.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:05 PM  

RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

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

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


yeah, that's not going to mesh well with the laws already on the books that free you of any criminal or civil liability for shooting someone in self defense or in accordance with Castle Laws.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:08 PM  
Sides A and B are at extremes of an issue.
Side A decides to compromise a bit on their position to reach a solution.
Side B uses this as fodder to 'prove' that side A is wrong, gets even more extreme in their views.
Eventual compromise more heavily favors B because side A compromised.

And that's how it works in the United States.

Here's a very simplified example.
You have 50 people want hamburgers, 50 people want pizza.
One person on the hamburger side says "I wouldn't mind having pizza half the time if it means we can have hamburgers half the time."
Pizza side claims victory because it's now 50.5 votes for pizza and 49.5 votes for hamburgers. EVERYONE gets pizza.
 
2013-03-13 12:49:11 PM  

tommygunner: 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


In my state the same fuel is red for my furnace, blue for my on road truck and clear or yellowish for my offroad use.

But maybe my supplier is colorblind.
 
2013-03-13 12:49:40 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.


So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.
 
2013-03-13 12:50:30 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.


You do realize, people can get weapons illegally? Heck, just ask Holder.

You will never stop gun crime. Even if you make weapons 100% illegal, there will be gun crime. banning guns is just treating the symptoms, not a solution to the problem. Problem is we have crappy people, and we are getting crappier every day because kids are taught to be asses.
 
2013-03-13 12:51:54 PM  
God I love this shiat.

We can enact laws that say that my 4th amendment rights are null and void because I live within 100 miles of a border (or I have traveled within 100 miles of a border) and you security nut, zombie apocalypse preparing mall ninja's are ok with that... Begrudgingly...  but I ask you to make sure someone isn't crazy as fark before you hand them something that can take away ALL my rights (Including that important one that says LIFE, Liberty, etc in it) and its HELL NO YOU CAN'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPINGE ON MY RIGHTS YOU ASSHAT!


Pick a side you assholes.
 
2013-03-13 12:52:47 PM  

lennavan: 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.


So how's that war on drugs going?
 
2013-03-13 12:53:12 PM  

CeroX: 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.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Not true.  There are several vehicles a person could buy and operate on private property that don't need any sort of permission from the government.  As far as operating on public roadways and property?  Sure.  Now let's juxtapose with weapons.  The background checks and training required in most states is very stringent for CCW, and yet, unlike my freedom to drive a car in any state in the US with my ND driver license, I can only carry in a handful of states with my ND CCW permit.  And the states I really want to be able to carry in will never allow it (I'm looking at you, New York and California.)
 
2013-03-13 12:53:14 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?


I believe there are exceptions for tractors going over-road short distances -- usually as an exception carved out because so many roads were run through existing farms. That said, it's not uncommon to see a tractor registration tag on the backs of those tractors.

But you don't need a tag if it stays in the fields.
 
2013-03-13 12:53:41 PM  

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



There are already enough stupid strict liability laws with respect to guns thank you very much. Those laws are great at ruining the lives of people who did nothing wrong and with had no knowledge that their activity is unlawful. (Unless they are politically connected, then it's okay to break the law, even after being specifically told not to):
 assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-03-13 12:54:31 PM  

Shadow Blasko: God I love this shiat.

We can enact laws that say that my 4th amendment rights are null and void because I live within 100 miles of a border (or I have traveled within 100 miles of a border) and you security nut, zombie apocalypse preparing mall ninja's are ok with that... Begrudgingly...  but I ask you to make sure someone isn't crazy as fark before you hand them something that can take away ALL my rights (Including that important one that says LIFE, Liberty, etc in it) and its HELL NO YOU CAN'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPINGE ON MY RIGHTS YOU ASSHAT!


Pick a side you assholes.


How about not having either one?
 
2013-03-13 12:58:12 PM  

Dadoody: [images.topix.com image 480x480]


As soon as I find a loudly conservative person who is actually informed...
 
2013-03-13 12:58:37 PM  
And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:06 PM  

CthulhuCalling: RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

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

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

yeah, that's not going to mesh well with the laws already on the books that free you of any criminal or civil liability for shooting someone in self defense or in accordance with Castle Laws.




Insurance companies could refuse insurance policies if you own a weapon.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:04 PM  

theMightyRegeya: Dadoody: [images.topix.com image 480x480]

As soon as I find a loudly conservative person who is actually informed...


In most cases I would agree with you, but when it comes to just about anything regarding guns, I'm sorry, but the left is just clueless.  I'm pretty liberal when it comes to most things, and while I'm no fan of the NRA or Republicans in general right now, I just want to cringe when lefties start talking about guns.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:39 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.


Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:47 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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)


But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:56 PM  

FilmBELOH20: CeroX: 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.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...

Not true.  There are several vehicles a person could buy and operate on private property that don't need any sort of permission from the government.  As far as operating on public roadways and property?  Sure.  Now let's juxtapose with weapons.  The background checks and training required in most states is very stringent for CCW, and yet, unlike my freedom to drive a car in any state in the US with my ND driver license, I can only carry in a handful of states with my ND CCW permit.  And the states I really want to be able to carry in will never allow it (I'm looking at you, New York and California.)


Also the whole "There's no clause in the document that is the basis of our government that gives you the right to own or drive a car."
 
2013-03-13 01:03:46 PM  

Thunderpipes: And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.


Stop, that's a slippery slope that would never happen. Never.  I mean, sure it got into one state bill.  But we have been assured it was strictly accidental.
 
2013-03-13 01:03:50 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.


It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:25 PM  

Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.


So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:37 PM  

Thunderpipes: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

You do realize, people can get weapons illegally? Heck, just ask Holder.

You will never stop gun crime. Even if you make weapons 100% illegal, there will be gun crime. banning guns is just treating the symptoms, not a solution to the problem. Problem is we have crappy people, and we are getting crappier every day because kids are taught to be asses.


I already except that. That's why only rich people, cops, and criminals should be able to posses weapons.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:11 PM  

chapman: Thunderpipes: And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.

Stop, that's a slippery slope that would never happen. Never.  I mean, sure it got into one state bill.  But we have been assured it was strictly accidental.


Damn, I was only speculating. But I guess I should not be shocked. So the 4th amendment is already under siege by the left over gun control....

Wow.
 
2013-03-13 01:14:52 PM  
How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option
 
2013-03-13 01:18:44 PM  

GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option


Well...  This certainly isn't going to help...

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x930813837/2-people-reportedly-shot-at-H er kimer-car-wash?photo=0


Mohawk police have identified the man suspected of fatally shooting six and wounding two others as 64-year-old Kurt Myers of Mohawk.

Police have not yet apprehended Myers. State police expect to hold a news conference at the Herkimer barracks within the hour. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and State Police Superintendent Joseph D'Amico will be in attendance, police said.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:30 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.

It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.


No building have been blown up since they were formed. Sounds like it works.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:57 PM  
Uh oh. He used a long gun.

Gotta ban em.

no idea what type, if assault weapon, just adds fuel to the fire. If not, adds a new fire that must be put out.
 
2013-03-13 01:23:47 PM  

This text is now purple: Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.

So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.


That reminds me. We need to have background checks on people that have large amounts of heating oil. Just to be safe.
 
2013-03-13 01:24:28 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: 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.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.


All rights are exactly the same today and should be subject to the same standards. So let's require registration to own a weapon, ID when showing up, and have limtiations on when and where guns can be used to protect the safety of others to match non 2nd ammendment limitations. Good idea.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:14 PM  
I'm glad <b>thuderpipes</b>, the admittedly irresponsible gun owner, is here to lecture us all on the 2nd Amendment.  Keep fighting the good fight!
 
2013-03-13 01:26:18 PM  

This text is now purple: Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.

So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.


it is dyed red.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:33 PM  

SurfaceTension: 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)


So if someone steals your car and kills someone in a drunk driving incident before your realize it's been stolen you should be held accountable?
 
2013-03-13 01:27:05 PM  

GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option


Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.
 
2013-03-13 01:28:17 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: I'm glad <b>thuderpipes</b>, the admittedly irresponsible gun owner, is here to lecture us all on the 2nd Amendment.  Keep fighting the good fight!


What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?
 
2013-03-13 01:29:22 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


Actually, I'm probably not.  At least not a significantly higher chance.

Don't forget that non-gun owners can be killed by guns also.  It's especially true in the case of homicide, and also significantly true of accidental gun deaths.

My homicide risk is very, very low.  Everyone's accidental gun death risk is very, very low.

Suicide really isn't a problem here, because I can't think of a circumstance where I would off myself.

Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.
 
2013-03-13 01:32:12 PM  

redmid17: What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?


dittybopper: So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing? ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

 
2013-03-13 01:32:33 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option

Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.


You do realize that the NYPD used a registry made in the 60's to confiscate weapons in the 90's right? Also, how is it a "slippery slope" when the governor himself said "Confiscation could be an option" That's not me being paranoid, the guy who ramrodded the NY SAFE act into existence said that.
 
2013-03-13 01:32:36 PM  

CeroX: 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.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Rights, privileges, they're all the same.
 
2013-03-13 01:33:14 PM  
D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.
 
2013-03-13 01:33:44 PM  

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.


I'm for background checks....not registration or have to purchase liability insurance. Most legal gun owners are not the ones killing people randomly (look at inner city crime).
 
2013-03-13 01:34:15 PM  
This is a serious question ( i haven't read the entire thread)...

As a legal gun owner if I want to sell one of my guns to another individual how would I go about doing it?

Would I submit information to an internet database and wait for a reply?  Would I be forced to go to a retailer and entail an additional expense for the to do it?  I'm not even going to argue about it from a philosophical perspective only a functional.  I don't see how this is anything other than a money grab for either the Gov or brick and mortar gun stores.  I hate the idea that the only people that will ever be affected by any of this is already law abiding citizens.  There are laws in my state that make me a felon if I drive into the wrong municipality with a legal rifle legally secured in my trunk.

This is all straight up bullshiat.

/liberal, anti-nra, obama voter, cop hater...
 
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