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 01:38:08 PM  

Giltric: 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.


You're right. Which I should have remembered, considering my old tank used to weep at the valve.

Anyone interested in a pie tin with 3 ounces of old diesel?
 
2013-03-13 01:38:31 PM  

ferretman: 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).


So then why are you opposed to it?
 
2013-03-13 01:38:42 PM  

Father_Jack: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

dittybopper coming up with hypothetical use cases as to why BG checks or legislation against straw purchases is no good is unconvincing. There are always use cases where legislation, when its discussed in bullet point format, will fail. thats why laws are so complicated and debated by lawyers and have so many sub clauses etc etc...

coming up with a hypothetical scenario where something may fail is not rhetorically convincing. Nor is it pragmatic, it just makes one appear obstructionist.

 i have a safe full of C&R weapons. I check the safe ... a lot. I love cleaning stuff, checking for rust.. if someone broke into my house and robbed my safe youre damn straight id know about it in a day, and so would you. Not wanting to try to strengthen safeguards against straw purchases because "someone might become a victim if their stuff is robbed while theyre on vacation" is pretty easily fixed, you have a provisional clause in the law which states if the owner can prove he was on vacay at the time of the theft/crime its not applicable. or something like this.

indeed, while firearm ownership is a RIGHT it is also a huge RESPONSIBILITY, and if we want to exercise our rights in this regard, this has responsibilities attached to it, too. And if you have the Right to own a gun, we must accept the responsibility to secure it so mentally deranged and thieves cant steal them and commit crimes with them. And if they do, and we are unaware of the guns being stolen, thats negligence. If you have a collection, its your responsibility to know whats up with it and keep it inventoried.


I was with you until you used "vacay". That is unforgivable and you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-13 01:40:04 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: 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


So now Dittybopper is Thunderpipes? Frankly I haven't opened my gun safe in over a month and haven't removed my guns in probably closer to 4, since deer season was over just after thanksgiving. I'm the only one with a key to my gun safe, but if someone had jimmied the lock on it I probably wouldn't know. It's not that uncommon for gun owners to leave them locked up for long periods. It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead. I clean my guns before I go shooting or hunting and clean them afterward. That's pretty much the extent of me checking on my guns. They are closed with a breech lock inside of a locked gun safe inside of a locked apartment. Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible, but not constantly checking on locked up guns is definitely not reaching that threshold.
 
2013-03-13 01:40:16 PM  

GUTSU: 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.


Provide a citation for confiscation happening. Needless to say, I believe you're being totally dishonest.

As for saying something could be an option, the sun exploding and killing us all tomorrow is also an option, doesnt mean it will. Lets focus on real things.
 
2013-03-13 01:41:55 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: 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...


Theoretically Illinois state law and federal law are supposed to trump those municipal restrictions, but that's not much consolation when CPD has you face down on the street for having an unloaded rifle inside a case in your trunk.
 
2013-03-13 01:43:28 PM  

justtray: 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.


Well, now you're just playing fast and lose with things and trying to put one over on people.  True, no "legal" SKS rifles were ever confiscated.  That's because California changed their mind on what was a "legal" weapon, then confiscated them.

California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which made SKS model rifles with detachable magazines illegal to sell, but legal to own... if you were stupid enough to register them with the state.  Of course, the California government being composed of people that know nothing at all about firearms, they never realized the difference between a fixed magazine SKS and a detachable magazine SKS is a flat headed screwdriver.   One embarrassing legal loss to James Dingman later, Calif passed AB 48, which theoretically gave immunity to people that Cali had confused as criminals because they didn't know squat about firearms... then in 1997 promptly said, "Oops, nevermind... they're illegal after all, turn them in immediately."

So yes, you are right... sort of.  No "legal" guns were ever seized.  They were all declared illegal, then the poor saps who were stupid enough to register them had to turn them all in or be arrested.

And yes, that does mean that registration has led to confiscation in the United States.
 
2013-03-13 01:45:08 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: 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...


Use an FFL if you are concerned. No guarantees though.
 
2013-03-13 01:45:30 PM  

jafiwam: EVERY SINGLE COP I HAVE EVER MET

and I've met them ALL

Right?

So FTFY.

/ WTF is wife-like typing?
 
2013-03-13 01:46:37 PM  

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.



Govern:


1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.

It would seem clear that the "governing" clause (above) was intended to apply ONLY to those "employed in the Service of the United States", and not to the People at large.

And when the above is juxtaposed to the language of the Second Amendment, it would seem obvious that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not tied to "The Militia" at all.

If it were, the Second Amendment would be redundant, would it not?
 
2013-03-13 01:51:09 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: 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


How would that be irresponsible?

Would it be irresponsible for you not to know if someone stole your car while you were on vacation?

Unless you also require very expensive gun safes as a condition of ownership, there is a real possibility that someone who owns a gun might not notice it missing, especially if they don't shoot it a lot.
 
2013-03-13 01:51:45 PM  

Amos Quito: 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.


Govern:


1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.

It would seem clear that the "governing" clause (above) was intended to apply ONLY to those "employed in the Service of the United States", and not to the People at large.

And when the above is juxtaposed to the language of the Second Amendment, it would seem obvious that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not tied to "The Militia" at all.

If it were, the Second Amendment would be redundant, would it not?




Meh, "Commerce Clause."
 
2013-03-13 01:52:25 PM  

In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons.
 Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.
The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding:


There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted.2
Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted."


Fast forward to 1991 when the New York City Council, at the urging of Mayor David N. Dinkins, passed, and the Mayor signed into law, New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1, an out-and-out prohibition on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns... namely, various imitation or look-alike "assault" firearms. The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm... and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee P. Brown's testimony that no "assault weapon" registered with the Firearms Control Bureau had been used in a violent crime in New York City. Mayor Dinkins' response to that bit of information was that he wanted "to send a message."

New York City firearms owners' message back to Dinkins was the chant "We complied, you lied!" Then they made sure he was a one-term mayor.

The year following the enactment of the prohibition, a man's home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city's ban. He was arrested, "an arsenal of firearms" were seized, and a New York City Police Department spokesman rationalized its actions against the citizen by citing his defiance as proof that he was unfit to possess firearms, telling The New York Daily News:


...obviously, someone like that shouldn't be allowed to have guns!
 NYPD had notified some (but, inexplicably, not all!) of the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or physically removed from the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

 The department subsequently announced that the majority... 2,615 out of 3,360... of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city. In addition, Jeremy Travis, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, told The Daily News:


...for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned

New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1:

Prohibition of the possession or disposition of .

It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or dispose of any assault weapon within the city of New York, except as provided in subdivision d, e or f of this section or section 10-305. A person who peaceably surrenders an assault weapon to the commissioner pursuant to subdivision d, e or f of this section or subdivision f of section 10-305 shall not be subject to the criminal or civil penalties set forth in this section.Criminal penalty. Any person who shall violate subdivision a of this section shall be guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment of up to one year, or by both fine and imprisonment, for each assault weapon disposed of or possessed, provided that the first violation of subdivision a of this section involving possession of an assault weapon as defined in paragraph c of subdivision 16 of section 10-301 shall be an offense punishable by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars or imprisonment of not more than fifteen days, or both, on condition that (1) such first violation is not in conjunction with the commission of a crime and (2) the possessor has not been previously convicted of a felony or a serious offense.Civil penalty. In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision b of this section, any person who shall violate subdivision a of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars for each assault weapon disposed of or possessed, to be recovered in a civil action brought by the corporation counsel in the name of the city in any court of competent jurisdiction, provided that the first violation by any person of subdivision a of this section involving possession of an assault weapon as defined in paragraph c of subdivision 16 of section 10-301 shall subject such person to a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars on condition that (1) such first violation is not in conjunction with the commission of a crime and (2) the possessor has not been previously convicted of a felony or a serious offense.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-34.html
 
2013-03-13 01:52:48 PM  

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

An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :


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


That was awesome.
 
2013-03-13 01:54:49 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st?


I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones.  That's downright skillful.
 
2013-03-13 01:56:01 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: 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.


I haven't been attacked by a tiger since I started wearing Super Tiger Repellent spray. Would you like to buy some?
 
2013-03-13 01:58:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: 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.

Well, now you're just playing fast and lose with things and trying to put one over on people.  True, no "legal" SKS rifles were ever confiscated.  That's because California changed their mind on what was a "legal" weapon, then confiscated them.

California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which made SKS model rifles with detachable magazines illegal to sell, but legal to own... if you were stupid enough to register them with the state.  Of course, the California government being composed of people that know nothing at all about firearms, they never realized the difference between a fixed magazine SKS and a detachable magazine SKS is a flat headed screwdriver.   One embarrassing legal loss to James Dingman later, Calif passed AB 48, which theoretically gave immunity to people that Cali had confused as criminals because they didn't know squat about firearms... then in 1997 promptly said, "Oops, nevermind... they're illegal after all, turn them in immediately."

So yes, you are right... sort of.  No "legal" guns were ever seized.  They were all declared illegal, then the poor saps who were stupid enough to register them had to turn them all in or be arrested.

And yes, that does mean that registration has led to confiscation in the United States.


Other than your entire story above being false, you make a strong point.

The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.

Good try though.
 
2013-03-13 02:01:07 PM  

justtray: ferretman: 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).

So then why are you opposed to it?


One of us is confused....I have never stated I was against background checks (had to do it myself....think it makes common sense).
 
2013-03-13 02:01:20 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: 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.

I haven't been attacked by a tiger since I started wearing Super Tiger Repellent spray. Would you like to buy some?


Notice how I mentioned Dorner as an example of multiple background checks?

Of course I'll buy your Super Tiger Repellent spray. You can never be too careful. If we can save just one child from Super Duper Tigers I say it's all worth it. Maybe you can get a law enacted, requiring training, background checks, and licensing before obtaining Super Duper Tiger repellent. It's really the only way to be safe.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:34 PM  

GUTSU: In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons. Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on th ...


Interesting history lesson. Not exactly confiscation though, except the one Law abiding gun owner who said he would disobey the law. Can't really be too mad at that.

No one who wasnt registered was off the hook, if their weapons were found in their possession they too would be prosecuted, so there is only a tangental relationship at best that doesnt really prove your argument that registration leads to confiscation.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:48 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.


How could you confuse me with anyone else?
 
2013-03-13 02:08:39 PM  

dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?


You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!
 
2013-03-13 02:12:23 PM  

redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,


So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?


Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?
 
2013-03-13 02:12:35 PM  

ferretman: justtray: ferretman: 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).

So then why are you opposed to it?

One of us is confused....I have never stated I was against background checks (had to do it myself....think it makes common sense).


I was referring to registration and liability insurance.
 
2013-03-13 02:13:18 PM  

redmid17: dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?

You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!


Technically, I haven't made a bow yet.  I do make the arrows myself, though.
 
2013-03-13 02:15:43 PM  

redmid17: dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?

You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!


Actually, I know another guy that *exactly* fits the description.  He doesn't post much though.
 
2013-03-13 02:16:38 PM  

justtray: The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.


In the event of making things up, please attempt to make sure that the actual law is not readily available:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 12281 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12281. (a)  Any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, operated a retail or other commercial firm, company, or corporation, and manufactured, distributed, transported, imported, possessed, possessed for sale, offered for sale, or transferred, for commercial purpose, an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is or was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person, firm, company, or corporation is final.(b)  Any person who possessed, gave, loaned, or transferred an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person is final.(c)  Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.(d)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or to reopen his or her case and assert the immunities provided in this section, if the court determines that the allowance of the immunity is in the interests of justice. The court shall interpret this section liberally to the benefit of the defendant.(e)  The Department of Justice shall notify all district attorneys on or before January 31, 1999, of the provisions of this section. The department shall identify all criminal prosecutions in the state for conduct related to SKS rifles within 90 days of the effective date of this section. In all cases so identified by the Attorney General, the district attorneys shall inform defense counsel, or the defendant if the defendant is in propria persona, in writing, of the provisions of this section within 120 days of the effective date of this section.(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.


Notice the part up top is one giant "oops, yeah, that wasn't illegal, we aren't charging you" and the bottom part (underlined) is confiscation.
And in case you were wondering if there was some ambiguity of the term "SKS", they went ahead and defined that for us:

 Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.

Note the underlined part, where they flat out admit they are confiscating lawfully owned firearms... which FYI, meant they were registered in order to be lawfully possessed.

Want to try again how California didn't set up registration then confiscate the registered firearms?
 
2013-03-13 02:16:53 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?


Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do? For someone to get and use my guns they would have to break into my apartment, break into my gun safe, and then get some bolt cutters and cut off the breech locks. If guns are locked up, that's pretty much the end of the story. If someone has to commit a crime to get your guns, there is no way liability should fall on you.
 
2013-03-13 02:20:05 PM  

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

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


That was an adjudicated restriction of your rights. A judge and jury decided the rights of the convicted warranted a restriction as a result of a crime that was committed.

That is vastly different than the legislative branch making up rules that impose a restriction of rights on people who have not been convicted of any crime.
 
2013-03-13 02:20:44 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons. Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearin ...


So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?
 
2013-03-13 02:23:27 PM  

redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?


Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.
 
2013-03-13 02:23:41 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: 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.


So that reference to Virginia Tech (VA is the abbreviation for Virginia btw) that was in your post was not a reference to VA Tech?
 
2013-03-13 02:26:26 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st?

I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones.  That's downright skillful.


All while arguing the concept is a fallacy.

\It's not, if intent and means can also be shown
 
2013-03-13 02:26:45 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?

Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do? For someone to get and use my guns they would have to break into my apartment, break into my gun safe, and then get some bolt cutters and cut off the breech locks. If guns are locked up, that's pretty much the end of the story. If someone has to commit a crime to get your guns, there is no way liability should fall on you.


This. Do people realize, entire generations like me grew up with lots of guns, sitting on gun racks, unlocked, with ammo around, and we just did not have these problems?

Has nothing to do with guns or where we store them.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:08 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.


Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:09 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.

In the event of making things up, please attempt to make sure that the actual law is not readily available:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 12281 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12281. (a)  Any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, operated a retail or other commercial firm, company, or corporation, and manufactured, distributed, transported, imported, possessed, possessed for sale, offered for sale, or transferred, for commercial purpose, an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is or was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person, firm, company, or corporation is final.(b)  Any person who possessed, gave, loaned, or transferred an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person is final.(c)  Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.(d)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, ...




The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:46 PM  

This text is now purple: But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.


It wasn't but for whatever reason the deciding judges decided to expand the scope which redefined speech as it adheres to the political scape. Essentially the deciding side decided to just throw caution to the wind and decided on things which technically weren't even being addressed.
 
2013-03-13 02:31:01 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?


The modern guns are in a metal gun safe.  That safe isn't Fort Knox, it can be opened by anyone reasonably competent in that sort of thing, because I can't afford a $1,000 safe.

Or is that the point, to price gun ownership out of the hands of everyone except the rich?
 
2013-03-13 02:33:05 PM  

redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.


I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.
 
2013-03-13 02:34:53 PM  
I wish gun nut cowards would at least be honest here. The argument of "background checks won't prevent dangerous criminals from getting guns!" conveniently leaves out the "...except that dangerous criminals won't buy a gun from a shop because of background checks" part.

At least use truthful language here guys: "Background checks don't reduce gun supply to criminals, so we may as well abolish the background check system so gun sellers can make a few bucks selling the guns to criminals!"

/Got a few guns in my house
//Perfectly fine with any background check
 
2013-03-13 02:35:06 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.

Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.


Even a sawzall would work on mine.  It's just sheet metal.  I could have the back open in a very few minutes, take the guns, bend the sheet metal back, and put it back in place and until you opened it up again, you'd never know.

Plus, the lock isn't super secure.  Looking at it, I could probably pick it.

I got it as a concession to the distaffbopper when we got the littlebopper.  It's meant to keep a kid out, not a determined thief.
 
2013-03-13 02:36:19 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.

It wasn't but for whatever reason the deciding judges decided to expand the scope which redefined speech as it adheres to the political scape. Essentially the deciding side decided to just throw caution to the wind and decided on things which technically weren't even being addressed.


A film is "redefined speech"? In what world?
 
2013-03-13 02:36:23 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.


So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.
 
2013-03-13 02:36:59 PM  

justtray: The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.


No, the ban went into effect in 1989.  Hence, why it's named:Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

1992-1997 is the period during which law enforcement agents were harassing lawful owners of registered SKS rifles because they couldn't be bothered to learn the law.  The part that you don't understand why it's relevant is the part of AB-48 in which the State of California has to pass a law to stop it's own people from continuously violating the rights of people.

I notice you don't comment on the part where CA outlawed and mandated confiscation of all registered and legally owned SKS Sporter rifles.  Does this mean you are willing to cede the point that CA did in fact use registration as a pathway to confiscation?

It's rather indisputable now.  The law is plain for all to see, linked above.
 
2013-03-13 02:37:11 PM  
How far we have fallen, and continue to fall.

Deer season used to be packed full of pick ups with gun racks and guns, in the high school parking lot. Now all those kids would be in jail.

kid makes a gun out of a pizza crust? Suspended. Make a gun gesture with fingers? Suspended. Swiss army knife hanging from your belt? Suspended/expelled.

Sucks. This is why we fail.
 
2013-03-13 02:37:58 PM  

GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?


The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.
 
2013-03-13 02:38:45 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.

Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.


To expand on this.  I have a Fort Knox safe weighing ~1165 lbs empty.  Mine's not easy to get into or steal , BUT nonethless people have had those stolen.  Not the contents, the whole farking thing.  The same equipment that was used to get it into my apartment is the same equipment thieves were using to wheel them out of houses, garages, etc. when the owners were on vacation or otherwise out.
 
2013-03-13 02:40:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.

No, the ban went into effect in 1989.  Hence, why it's named:Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

1992-1997 is the period during which law enforcement agents were harassing lawful owners of registered SKS rifles because they couldn't be bothered to learn the law.  The part that you don't understand why it's relevant is the part of AB-48 in which the State of California has to pass a law to stop it's own people from continuously violating the rights of people.

I notice you don't comment on the part where CA outlawed and mandated confiscation of all registered and legally owned SKS Sporter rifles.  Does this mean you are willing to cede the point that CA did in fact use registration as a pathway to confiscation?

It's rather indisputable now.  The law is plain for all to see, linked above.


I don't know why you can't just admit you're wrong instead of continually trying to rewrite history to fit your narrative.

Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.

Pretty simple. That people registered them after they were banned is not valid in this argument. If you can show me some instances of the above being incorrect, I will reliquish the argument, otherwise, you should.
 
2013-03-13 02:40:39 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones. That's downright skillful.


As much as it might distaste some of us, there are those of us who see it clearly that much of this stuff is lawful and necessary.

We don't live in a bubble, are not nearly as isolated as we once were, and as a society we require rules to ensure the most stupid of us don't harm the rest of us.

redmid17: It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead


Well I know if I had that browning MG Morgan had, I'd be stroking while watching.

dittybopper: Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.


Both are low relativistically speaking to our status, however sorry, statistically speaking yours are higher. Here, let me google that for you.

Its just simple statistics, but like all things ardent pro 2nd amendment people tend to ignore things like math.
 
2013-03-13 02:41:54 PM  

This text is now purple: A film is "redefined speech"? In what world?


No they expanded what the redefinition of what speech is, they went beyond the film
 
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