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

5132 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-03-13 10:17:04 AM  
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

familysecuritymatters.orgView Full Size

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends
2013-03-13 02:08:39 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:45:30 PM  
1 vote:


and I've met them ALL



/ WTF is wife-like typing?
2013-03-13 11:33:04 AM  
1 vote:

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?

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

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

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

We need sensible camera control and we need it now.
2013-03-13 11:26:17 AM  
1 vote:
I'm ok with this as long as we enforce background checks on alcohol purchases to make sure you're not a violent drunk and have no DUIs.

/bonus: not even in the Bill of Rights
2013-03-13 10:51:08 AM  
1 vote:

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

Is there evidence that she didn't? I live in Europe so I don't follow all the details in the news, but as far as I've read nobody's reported any details about how the firearms were stored or how the shooter gained access to the safe. (Most gun safes are not difficult to force open with basic hand tools, his mother may have told him where the key is or what the combination was [that is, he could be authorized to open the safe], or he could have discovered the key or combination through other means.)

He could have drilled a large hole in the top of the safe, filled the safe with water, and then lowered an explosive charge into the safe.  The resulting detonation would blow the door off of the safe, but leave the contents of the safe completely unharmed.
2013-03-13 10:46:51 AM  
1 vote:

Dadoody: [ image 600x330]

[ image 640x360]

[ image 410x350]

[ image 480x360]

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.

Why do libs like you hate our men and women in uniform out there protecting us?  Without the troops, Saddam Hussein could just waltz in here and make you eat cous cous.  Mexicans would charge across our borders and put eggs on the cous cous - forming some horrific huevos rancheros cous cous type fusion dish.  Do you want to eat that?

That's why I thank the Department of Homeland Security out there protecting our homeland from evil-doers that create things like North Korean tacos.
2013-03-13 10:17:19 AM  
1 vote:
FTA: "We do not take positions on hypotheticals."

Moments later

"To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.

We don't take positions on hypotheticals. Now here's our response to some imaginary legislation.
2013-03-13 10:13:19 AM  
1 vote:
Jesus h. Christ. These incessant gun control threads make me want to commit a mass shooting and then blow my own head off.
2013-03-13 10:04:28 AM  
1 vote:

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

Try looking at it as though you're completely. illogical and paranoid, or part of the TINY minority who opposes background checks.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 09:35:01 AM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

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

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...

Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.
2013-03-13 09:20:01 AM  
1 vote:

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?
2013-03-13 08:19:02 AM  
1 vote:
No they didn't:

An article appearing today on is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The posted on alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".  This statement is completely untrue.  The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Straight from the Horse's mouth:

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.