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.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com) divider line 658
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28463 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



658 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 06:18:38 PM

new_york_monty: WippitGuud:What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.

Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.


"...on land they do not own or occupy."

So if it's your own land, you're good. But going to a track or something, or a neighbor's land, you need insurance.
 
2013-03-19 06:19:54 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.

Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?


You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.
 
2013-03-19 06:21:09 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.

Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?


Only for traffic that doesn't require a license or endanger traffic. You can move across the country walking or on a bicycle on anything but the interstate. I'm not sure if the laws prohibiting interstate traffic under 45 mph (and walking, bikes ,etc..) are state or federal.
 
2013-03-19 06:22:45 PM

alberta_beef: Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags?


Because fark you, that's the need.
 
2013-03-19 06:23:00 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.


Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.
 
2013-03-19 06:24:07 PM

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud:What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.

Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.

"...on land they do not own or occupy."

So if it's your own land, you're good. But going to a track or something, or a neighbor's land, you need insurance.


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me then.
 
2013-03-19 06:24:34 PM

GUTSU: tylerdurden217: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.

If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO

Then we are at an impasse, I believe that felons should be able to earn back their right to own firearms. I also disagree with having to pay to exercise any right. I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke, drink, fark, and own pretty much anything they want. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, why should people care?


I'd stop at any violent felon or someone convicted of domestic violence or something similar. There should be a fairly robust appeal mechanism in place though, and I'm not sure there is one. I've seen some posts here and there addressing it, but I will have to dig further.
 
2013-03-19 06:25:14 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


Rights are not about needs. They never have been.
 
2013-03-19 06:27:20 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


No, a more apt analogy would be restricting firearms in public places. Limiting magazines would be like restricting people from leaving a state.
 
2013-03-19 06:27:49 PM

redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.


If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?
 
2013-03-19 06:28:37 PM

tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.


Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.
 
2013-03-19 06:29:56 PM

HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.


Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-2012 13 233.html
 
2013-03-19 06:30:33 PM

WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?


If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?
 
2013-03-19 06:30:55 PM

WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?


How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?
 
2013-03-19 06:32:05 PM

GUTSU: How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?


Who needs an internet connection faster than dial-up?  The only people who want high-capacity broadband are child pornographers or pirates.
 
2013-03-19 06:32:40 PM

Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?


Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.
 
2013-03-19 06:35:49 PM

WippitGuud: Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?

Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.


Using break-action, single use, coat hangers with a 3 day waiting period would still be legal, if you got a $1000 one time use abortion permit.
 
2013-03-19 06:36:22 PM
heres the problem, the second one of those cops don't enforce the law and someone gets killed who's death could have possibly been prevented, there will be more lawsuits then they'll ever dream of and the govt may have the balls to say "the local police wont listen, we need to send in feds to keep the citizens safe" which could ultimately lead to less 2nd amendment rights
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
 
2013-03-19 06:38:04 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?


How does one speak without vowels?
 
2013-03-19 06:39:01 PM

jso2897: rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.

This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?


Let us know how well the "because FARK YOU, that's why" respone goes with the BATF agents when they show up on your doorstep to confiscate your guns because some neighbor thought you shouldn't have so many.

/the Ruby Ridge precedent might be worth reading
 
2013-03-19 06:39:58 PM

WippitGuud: Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?

Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.


Maybe you should look up the meaning of infringe, cause....
www.chinahearsay.com
 
2013-03-19 06:41:48 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?


Ask the Welsh. They did it for awhile.
 
2013-03-19 06:42:55 PM

gittlebass: heres the problem, the second one of those cops don't enforce the law and someone gets killed who's death could have possibly been prevented, there will be more lawsuits then they'll ever dream of and the govt may have the balls to say "the local police wont listen, we need to send in feds to keep the citizens safe" which could ultimately lead to less 2nd amendment rights
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.


The courts have already found the police have no specific duty to defend people, and that they can't be sued for neglecting to protect the citizenry*. I imagine they would find similarly in such a case as you describe. I don't think the feds would involve themselves here; they tend to take that step only when local LE are actively repressing people (see: much of the civil rights movement).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
 
2013-03-19 06:43:26 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?


It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?
 
2013-03-19 06:43:42 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I wish I could tell my boss that I think his policies are bullshiat and just refuse to do my job.


Well, technically, you can, there just might be some repercussions if you do

We have had Fark threads along similar lines where pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions because it conflicted with their morality.  This issue with the gun laws strikes me as basically the same deal.  If your job duties and your morality conflict, I am sympathetic to that.  But you may lose your job if you stick to your guns, and that is how it should be.
 
2013-03-19 06:44:47 PM

Fark It: tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.


The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:02 PM
"CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com  relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.  Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It'sfast,  easy and  secure."

Hahaha, it's amazing how "conservative" news sources never seem to be able to go ten minutes without making idiots of themselves....
 
2013-03-19 06:46:19 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link


I just read through all of your posts. I like your style. No derp all substance.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:25 PM

Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


That's rich. I live in Los Angeles where the libtards rule, and the have selective law enforcement all the time.

The latest one being ignoring State Marujuana laws and busting pot smokers while letting the illegals go against federal law because of votes from the Mexicans.
 
2013-03-19 06:47:24 PM

dewright_ca: This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.


Pro tip: don't use "lib-tard" if you want people to take anything you say seriously.
 
2013-03-19 06:47:48 PM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)
 
2013-03-19 06:50:58 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?

It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?


How do I answer that...
... Free Speech vs Anti-Bullying. Wouldn't they cancel each other out?
 
2013-03-19 06:51:22 PM

Krikkitbot: Ow! That was my feelings!: A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link

I just read through all of your posts. I like your style. No derp all substance.


I blame sobriety.  That and months of fighting this fight in the Colorado legislature.
 
2013-03-19 06:51:26 PM
Sheriffs have discretion, as does every LEO, to enforce or not to enforce. I wonder how many condemning this guy praised other sheriffs who refused to evict people from foreclosed homes not so long ago?

/dnrtfa... It might be douchebaggery but don't care to find out.
 
2013-03-19 06:51:48 PM

Shryke: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

Keep dreamin', comrade Police State. Keep dreamin'.


Funny how it's all "police state" when it's restricting a freedom YOU like, but "family values" when the freedom being restricted or denied is something you don't care for.
 
2013-03-19 06:52:46 PM

tom baker's scarf: Fark It: tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.

The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.


They also had cannons, warships, and no laws regarding the open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Careful what bad arguments you try to bring into a debate.

/assault weapons aren't that big of a problem
//handguns are the huge problem in the room that no one is bothering to address
 
2013-03-19 06:52:59 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?

It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?

How do I answer that...
... Free Speech vs Anti-Bullying. Wouldn't they cancel each other out?


Would you rather be restricted in what you could say for fear that someone could be hurt, or would you rather have the freedom to make those mistakes in the first place?
 
2013-03-19 06:54:41 PM

Amos Quito: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)


What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.
 
2013-03-19 06:55:39 PM

ciberido: dewright_ca: This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.

Pro tip: don't use "lib-tard" if you want people to take anything you say seriously.


In fact just stop talking altogether. Better to be thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.
 
2013-03-19 06:57:04 PM

GUTSU: What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


cdn.breitbart.com
 
2013-03-19 06:57:21 PM
Gun control laws are so hilarious. They totally fail to take into account that we're about to have energy weapons (and you can build a pretty hefty 100w laser pistol for roughly the price of a good 1911.)

What're you going to do, limit us on battery size?

Morons.
 
2013-03-19 06:57:45 PM

GUTSU: Amos Quito: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)

What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


No kidding!  Dear god I hate that hypocritical self righteous biatch..
 
2013-03-19 06:58:02 PM

GUTSU: It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?


Sure - try that in court and let us know how it works out.

Also, it's been a while since I read up on all this, but I'm pretty sure that in the US, a right being identified as a fundamental right doesn't magically invalidate any laws that restrict or regulate it. All it does is change the type of scrutiny that is applied when the law is being reviewed, and even under strict scrutiny such laws can be upheld if they meet certain criteria.

The differences between the gun laws being discussed and these silly hypotheticals about vowels and coat hangers become obvious when you start evaluating them based on those criteria.
 
2013-03-19 06:59:06 PM

Tatterdemalian: jso2897: rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.

This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?

Let us know how well the "because FARK YOU, that's why" respone goes with the BATF agents when they show up on your doorstep to confiscate your guns because some neighbor thought you shouldn't have so many.

/the Ruby Ridge precedent might be worth reading


See - this is the kind of bizarre, drama queen crap I don't get. Back in the sixties and seventies, gun laws were actually stricter than they are now. Far stricter ones were being proposed - hell, the NRA wanted to ban "saturday night specials". and there wasn't anywhere near the hysterical paranoia that you see now.
I mean seriously - what am I going to do in the event your fantasy scenario comes true (unlikely, since I am not a felonious nutbag who terrorizes his neighbors)? I'll give them my goddamn guns, just like I would my pot, and say "Gee, I'm sorry, ocifer!" Then, when they are gone, I'll just go get another one - like I would go get some more weed. Of course, that will never happen, since I do not advertise what I do or own to my neighbors, as I am not a drama queen attention whore and felon. This is why this whole debate has become a joke to me - you people may scare a few hysterical urban liberals - but you are a joke to me. You are silly, and funny, and all I can do is laugh at you.
 
2013-03-19 06:59:47 PM

MacWizard: Deciding that certain laws are not worth enforcing sounds like common sense. Very liberal, actually.


It's not even that (although it sounds like it could have been), he decided that certain laws are impossible to enforce. If you read his statements it's pretty plain that regardless of his feelings on the laws, he doesn't have the ability to enforce them even if he wanted to.

muck4doo: Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.


That theater was, that's why I stopped going to it. I can't say I regret that decision.

alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.


I'd like to see what the SCOTUS has to say on that one. They've already said that ammo restrictions are de facto gun restrictions because ammo is an integral part when it comes to using a gun (they worded it better), and IMO magazines are the same. If you ban a part of a gun that is required for it to function, you've banned the gun. CO's ban wouldn't necessarily ban my guns as the capacity is higher than the standard mags. I have pistols that would effectively be banned in NY because the standard mags are over their limit and I can't get anything smaller. It's not that low-cap mags for them are hard to find, it's that they don't farking exist.
 
2013-03-19 07:01:10 PM

GanjSmokr: GUTSU: What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


cdn.breitbart.com


1.bp.blogspot.com

Apologies to Cloris Leachman.

/I LIKE Cloris Leachman
 
2013-03-19 07:01:30 PM
".....and we'll hang any n*gger we catch acting all uppity or leering at our white wimmun too!"
 
2013-03-19 07:02:30 PM
This may be one of those ideas that work out better in your head than they do on posted on Facebook.
 
2013-03-19 07:02:58 PM

GUTSU: What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.



She'll be biatching, moaning and whining to her heavily armed body guards for weeks.
 
2013-03-19 07:02:59 PM

redmid17: tom baker's scarf: Fark It: tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.

The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.

They also had cannons, warships, and no laws regarding the open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Careful what bad arguments you try to bring into a debate.

/assault weapons aren't that big of a problem
//handguns are the huge problem in the room that no one is bothering to address


You new not give me a history lesson. The American warships were largely ineffective and you bet your ass the British had laws about carrying guns leading up to and during the war.

I'll make you a deal. We get serious about gun control in this country and I'll fully support any plan you want to put forward pertaining to the ownership of 6lb horse or 12lb foot artillery.
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report