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.

(Opposing Views)   Father takes pic of 11-year-old son with gun, social services shows up at his door demanding entry into his home and access to guns or else they will "take his kids"   (opposingviews.com) divider line 756
    More: Stupid, Shawn Moore, social services, door demanding, The Blaze, guns  
•       •       •

15883 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 8:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 04:10:22 PM  
Oxford defines a magazine as a container or (detachable) receptacle in a repeating rifle, machine-gun, etc., containing a supply of cartridges which are fed automatically to the breech.Oxford defines a clip as a receptacle containing several cartridges held together at the base for insertion bodily into the magazine of a repeating firearm.
If we are to accept the Oxford English dictionary as the authoritative reference, they are distinctly different.
 
2013-03-20 04:24:42 PM  

manimal2878: MylesHeartVodak: Elmo Jones: badhatharry: Google ruger .22

The GIS showed both kinds. Most of the wooden ones were sans magazine.
Again, why?

This has probably been answered, but I couldn't get through more than half of the derp to check.

It does have a magazine.  From the factory, it comes with a 10-round helical magazine that fits flush with the stock.  Nothing pokes out.  The curved magazines in other photos are usually 25-round single stacks.

It's a special design that ruger uses called a rotary magazine, the bullets kind of coil withing the magazine.


^
If you see a ruger 1022 with a banana magazine, it's aftermarket.  I have only ever seen 1 design for a 22 rifle that included that sort of magazine.  The rest use tube load (like a shotgun) or the ruger helical design.
 
2013-03-20 04:36:31 PM  

feckingmorons: Well this has petered out. Lets post gun pictures. I own a Thompson 1928a1 fully automatic machine gun.


Beautiful! I have a 1896 Mauser...love the classics.
 
2013-03-20 04:59:43 PM  

manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: That said, are you a subscriber?  If so, help us out and post the relavant definitions.

Yes, I am a subscriber.

No I won't violate my license agreement and their copyright. If you want to see it I am sure your local library can assist you.

That would be completely within the realm of fair use.  But whatever, continue to be a condescending dick.


Have you read the license agreement? Let me excerpt that particular portion for you:
in each case, subject to any specific restrictions which appear on particular pages of the Website. Under the licence accepted by the subscriber, you may not:
remove or alter the copyright notices or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear on the Website;
systematically make printed or electronic copies of multiple extracts of restricted content for any purpose;
display or distribute any restricted content on any electronic network, including without limitation on the Internet and the World Wide Web (other than the institution's secure network, where the subscriber is an institution);
permit anyone to access or use restricted content (other than other users authorised by the institution, where the subscriber is an institution); and/or
use any content on the Website whether restricted content or otherwise for any commercial use.


So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-03-20 05:04:53 PM  

fnordfocus: EvilEgg: The article says the police were there, but I find it less than credible that the government official did not tell the cops her name.

I assume the police knew who she was, but that none of them would tell the parents.

In California, it's common for Officers to cover their badge numbers and name tapes with black tape.  I'm not surprised that civilians are getting in on the same anonymity action.


Your lack of understanding is part of the problem. The Officers are civilians, and civilians were in on the action as soon as Officers were. Keep an eye out for all the times you think it's "ok" for LEOs to do something that citizens couldn't do. That's probably where LEOs are pushing the boundaries of their powers.

LEOs don't get to do whatever drugs they want, steal anything they want, rape anyone they want, or extort anyone they want legally. When they do that it's illegal too. They just get away with more than we do.

/sure, in CA they get to own different firearms than we do, but if you start talking about select-fire those arms are all owned by the department, not the officers.
 
2013-03-20 05:15:47 PM  

feckingmorons: manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: That said, are you a subscriber?  If so, help us out and post the relavant definitions.

Yes, I am a subscriber.

No I won't violate my license agreement and their copyright. If you want to see it I am sure your local library can assist you.

That would be completely within the realm of fair use.  But whatever, continue to be a condescending dick.

Have you read the license agreement? Let me excerpt that particular portion for you:
in each case, subject to any specific restrictions which appear on particular pages of the Website. Under the licence accepted by the subscriber, you may not:
remove or alter the copyright notices or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear on the Website;
systematically make printed or electronic copies of multiple extracts of restricted content for any purpose;
display or distribute any restricted content on any electronic network, including without limitation on the Internet and the World Wide Web (other than the institution's secure network, where the subscriber is an institution);
permit anyone to access or use restricted content (other than other users authorised by the institution, where the subscriber is an institution); and/or
use any content on the Website whether restricted content or otherwise for any commercial use.

So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.


I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.
 
2013-03-20 05:18:31 PM  

manimal2878: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.


Also, you are incorrect.
 
HBK
2013-03-20 05:18:49 PM  

skozlaw: Posted Tuesday:

http://www.ktul.com/story/21725256/family-says-nj-overreacted-to-boy s- gun-photo

"The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said."

The linked article here claims:

"Moore said on Monday night that the DYFS is still insisting on seeing his safe.
He ended his post by saying, "People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn't have stood up to them like I did."


So, basically, somebody called CPS, CPS showed up like they always do, they left when he said they couldn't be there and there no was no obvious reason for them to be there and Captain Cocksucker here went running off to some right-wing website to whine about nothing.

This is exactly why I can't take "pro-gun" people seriously anymore.


The Associated Press is a "right-wing website?"
 
2013-03-20 05:38:25 PM  

feckingmorons: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.


So you're saying there are legal limitations to the 1st amendment? Hum....
 
2013-03-20 05:58:37 PM  
Facebook has been using algorithms to rat out knife owners in the UK.
It wouldn't strike me as odd if they were doing the same thing on US soil.

/Someone there thinks 1984 is a how-to manual.
 
2013-03-20 06:12:13 PM  

manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: That said, are you a subscriber?  If so, help us out and post the relavant definitions.

Yes, I am a subscriber.

No I won't violate my license agreement and their copyright. If you want to see it I am sure your local library can assist you.

That would be completely within the realm of fair use.  But whatever, continue to be a condescending dick.

Have you read the license agreement? Let me excerpt that particular portion for you:
in each case, subject to any specific restrictions which appear on particular pages of the Website. Under the licence accepted by the subscriber, you may not:
remove or alter the copyright notices or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear on the Website;
systematically make printed or electronic copies of multiple extracts of restricted content for any purpose;
display or distribute any restricted content on any electronic network, including without limitation on the Internet and the World Wide Web (other than the institution's secure network, where the subscriber is an institution);
permit anyone to access or use restricted content (other than other users authorised by the institution, where the subscriber is an institution); and/or
use any content on the Website whether restricted content or otherwise for any commercial use.

So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.


At least the sum total of my argument is not calling people rude names. I'm fairly certain you're not very bright.
 
2013-03-20 06:14:19 PM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

So you're saying there are legal limitations to the 1st amendment? Hum....


Where did you get that? The government is not censoring me, it doesn't apply to private contracts.

Your grasp of the Constitution is tenuous at best.
 
2013-03-20 06:15:54 PM  

manimal2878: manimal2878: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.

Also, you are incorrect.


You have absolutely no understanding of IP law.
 
2013-03-20 06:41:49 PM  
It is not illegal to own a weapon.
Photography is not a crime.
 
2013-03-20 06:49:48 PM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

So you're saying there are legal limitations to the 1st amendment? Hum....


I concur with "feckingmorons"--you are a farking moran.

The 1st amendment applies to the government only, to keep its power in check.  Private citizens and businesses can tell what they want and restrict the dissemination of information all they want to.  Ever hear of copyright laws?

/Restrictions aren't always successful, but that's a different issue.
 
2013-03-20 06:52:56 PM  

feckingmorons: manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: That said, are you a subscriber?  If so, help us out and post the relavant definitions.

Yes, I am a subscriber.

No I won't violate my license agreement and their copyright. If you want to see it I am sure your local library can assist you.

That would be completely within the realm of fair use.  But whatever, continue to be a condescending dick.

Have you read the license agreement? Let me excerpt that particular portion for you:
in each case, subject to any specific restrictions which appear on particular pages of the Website. Under the licence accepted by the subscriber, you may not:
remove or alter the copyright notices or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear on the Website;
systematically make printed or electronic copies of multiple extracts of restricted content for any purpose;
display or distribute any restricted content on any electronic network, including without limitation on the Internet and the World Wide Web (other than the institution's secure network, where the subscriber is an institution);
permit anyone to access or use restricted content (other than other users authorised by the institution, where the subscriber is an institution); and/or
use any content on the Website whether restricted content or otherwise for any commercial use.

So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.


There's a legal concept called "fair use" wherein it is acceptable to post small portions of copyrighted material.  Posting a single definition from their site would fall under fair use.  Posting everything would be a copyright violation.
 
2013-03-20 07:28:43 PM  

OgreMagi: There's a legal concept called "fair use" wherein it is acceptable to post small portions of copyrighted material.


Yes, there most certainly is. You are completely correct. If you write a book, I can post a few paragraphs in a review. If you perform a musical composition I can play a few seconds of it. You seem to understand fair use fairly well.

OgreMagi: Posting a single definition from their site would fall under fair use.


This is where you've gone off the tracks. You see I am bound by a license as a subscriber. That private contract is over and above what is already allowed by law. I pay a certain amount of money to be able to access that content consistent with the license agreement. I don't own the content, I am only allowed to use it. That license (as I excerpted above) specifically prohibits me from posting it on here. The license is controlling, not copyright law.

Say you rent a car, the law requires that you go the speed limit. The rental agreement requires that you don't paint a unicorn on the hood. The license to use the OED is similar to the rental agreement, you can do specific things and you are prohibited from doing other things. While the car rental agreement probably does not mention unicorns specifically, it certainly requires you to return the car in the same condition you received it normal wear and tear excepted. Just as the contract prohibits you from unicorns on the hood, the license prohibits me from cutting and pasting.

OgreMagi: Posting everything would be a copyright violation.


It would be both a copyright violation and a violation of the license.

Your local library probably has access through a license that allows their patrons to use (but not publish on the Web) the OED.
 
2013-03-20 07:32:00 PM  

feckingmorons: manimal2878: manimal2878: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.

Also, you are incorrect.

You have absolutely no understanding of IP law.


Keep flapping your dick holster all you want, but you are still wrong.
 
2013-03-20 07:34:32 PM  

feckingmorons: OgreMagi: There's a legal concept called "fair use" wherein it is acceptable to post small portions of copyrighted material.

Yes, there most certainly is. You are completely correct. If you write a book, I can post a few paragraphs in a review. If you perform a musical composition I can play a few seconds of it. You seem to understand fair use fairly well.

OgreMagi: Posting a single definition from their site would fall under fair use.

This is where you've gone off the tracks. You see I am bound by a license as a subscriber. That private contract is over and above what is already allowed by law. I pay a certain amount of money to be able to access that content consistent with the license agreement. I don't own the content, I am only allowed to use it. That license (as I excerpted above) specifically prohibits me from posting it on here. The license is controlling, not copyright law.

Say you rent a car, the law requires that you go the speed limit. The rental agreement requires that you don't paint a unicorn on the hood. The license to use the OED is similar to the rental agreement, you can do specific things and you are prohibited from doing other things. While the car rental agreement probably does not mention unicorns specifically, it certainly requires you to return the car in the same condition you received it normal wear and tear excepted. Just as the contract prohibits you from unicorns on the hood, the license prohibits me from cutting and pasting.

OgreMagi: Posting everything would be a copyright violation.

It would be both a copyright violation and a violation of the license.

Your local library probably has access through a license that allows their patrons to use (but not publish on the Web) the OED.


I would have to disagree.  The courts have (usually) made it clear that a EULA can't take away basic rights.  While they can say you can't post an excerpt, that isn't necessarily true.   But then, this is one of those fuzzy areas where the courts get confused when you use the magic words "on the internet".
 
2013-03-20 07:37:22 PM  

OgreMagi: feckingmorons: OgreMagi: There's a legal concept called "fair use" wherein it is acceptable to post small portions of copyrighted material.

Yes, there most certainly is. You are completely correct. If you write a book, I can post a few paragraphs in a review. If you perform a musical composition I can play a few seconds of it. You seem to understand fair use fairly well.

OgreMagi: Posting a single definition from their site would fall under fair use.

This is where you've gone off the tracks. You see I am bound by a license as a subscriber. That private contract is over and above what is already allowed by law. I pay a certain amount of money to be able to access that content consistent with the license agreement. I don't own the content, I am only allowed to use it. That license (as I excerpted above) specifically prohibits me from posting it on here. The license is controlling, not copyright law.

Say you rent a car, the law requires that you go the speed limit. The rental agreement requires that you don't paint a unicorn on the hood. The license to use the OED is similar to the rental agreement, you can do specific things and you are prohibited from doing other things. While the car rental agreement probably does not mention unicorns specifically, it certainly requires you to return the car in the same condition you received it normal wear and tear excepted. Just as the contract prohibits you from unicorns on the hood, the license prohibits me from cutting and pasting.

OgreMagi: Posting everything would be a copyright violation.

It would be both a copyright violation and a violation of the license.

Your local library probably has access through a license that allows their patrons to use (but not publish on the Web) the OED.

I would have to disagree.  The courts have (usually) made it clear that a EULA can't take away basic rights.  While they can say you can't post an excerpt, that isn't necessarily true.   But then, this is one of those fuzzy areas where t ...


I should add that it makes good business sense to allow standard fair use if you gave credit.  It's free advertising.  Though when it comes to copyrighted material, "good business sense" is often lacking.
 
2013-03-20 07:57:03 PM  

OgreMagi: I would have to disagree.


OK

OgreMagi: The courts have (usually) made it clear that a EULA can't take away basic rights.



This is vastly more complicated than a simple fair use discussion. The OED is provided from the UK, not the US. UCITA makes no difference (this is where there EULA and fair use are frequently at odds depending on which Court opines).

OgreMagi: While they can say you can't post an excerpt, that isn't necessarily true.


Yes, it is true, you can read it for yourself in the excerpt above. I bet if I asked for permission to do so one this one occasion it would be granted, but if I didn't and they objected it would be a long Court battle in the UK for my violation of fair dealing (what in the US is called fair use) The UK Copyright Service has a quick reference on this.

I am a lawyer and amazingly enough qualified to practice in the UK [through QLTT - now QLTS] (and Ireland and one US state), If a client asked me of this was OK my answer would be a resounding no.

Why would I take the risk when anyone can go to their local public or academic library and look for themselves?
 
2013-03-20 07:58:07 PM  

manimal2878: feckingmorons: manimal2878: manimal2878: So, no I can't post it without violating the license. It is not fair use, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a pretty good idea you are being an asshole.

Also, you are incorrect.

You have absolutely no understanding of IP law.

Keep flapping your dick holster all you want, but you are still wrong.


I would prefer it if you would refrain from autoeroticism whilst responding to Fark posts.
 
2013-03-20 08:05:05 PM  

feckingmorons: OgreMagi: I would have to disagree.

OK
OgreMagi: The courts have (usually) made it clear that a EULA can't take away basic rights.


This is vastly more complicated than a simple fair use discussion. The OED is provided from the UK, not the US. UCITA makes no difference (this is where there EULA and fair use are frequently at odds depending on which Court opines).

OgreMagi: While they can say you can't post an excerpt, that isn't necessarily true.

Yes, it is true, you can read it for yourself in the excerpt above. I bet if I asked for permission to do so one this one occasion it would be granted, but if I didn't and they objected it would be a long Court battle in the UK for my violation of fair dealing (what in the US is called fair use) The UK Copyright Service has a quick reference on this.

I am a lawyer and amazingly enough qualified to practice in the UK [through QLTT - now QLTS] (and Ireland and one US state), If a client asked me of this was OK my answer would be a resounding no.

Why would I take the risk when anyone can go to their local public or academic library and look for themselves?


I was basing my opinion on US law.  I have no clue what the UK laws say about this.  Also, I am not a lawyer, I am system administrator.  For our online materials we require an actual signed non-disclosure (mailed or faxed) before we grant access.  Part of the reason we do that is because a simple online license agreement has too many legal exceptions, and in our particular case even an excerpt could reveal valuable trade secrets.  But we are a special case and we don't allow just anyone online to have access.
 
2013-03-20 08:10:29 PM  

OgreMagi: I was basing my opinion on US law.  I have no clue what the UK laws say about this.  Also, I am not a lawyer, I am system administrator.  For our online materials we require an actual signed non-disclosure (mailed or faxed) before we grant access.  Part of the reason we do that is because a simple online license agreement has too many legal exceptions, and in our particular case even an excerpt could reveal valuable trade secrets.  But we are a special case and we don't allow just anyone online to have access.


For all intense porpoises, I could post it and I really doubt anyone at OED would care. They probably don't go on Fark, and they probably wouldn't really mind the 488 words being lifted and shifted.


/I don't practice law for a living it was boring.

//intensive porpoise
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-20 08:28:31 PM  
So happy the gun retards finally got a thread they can post in.

No registration required in NJ. What a bunch of farking idiots.
 
2013-03-20 08:33:37 PM  
I am not a fan of lots of guns. I don't believe that more guns equals less crime. NRA stats are fixed.... Left wing stats are fixed too. Somewhere in the middle, is the truth.  Taking a guy's kids away because the posed in a pic with an unloaded weapon? WRONG... This is the definition of government overreach.  I am not a fan of the current interpretation on the 2nd amendment. I do think liberty is essential and this is anti liberty.

Guns are things.... It is how people treat them that make them good or bad.  Not all bad people have guns and not all people with guns are good people. It is a problem. The answer, which is unpopular, is to have strict and legal requirements for gun education and legal liability for misuse and storage abuses.

We need to account for the guns. It HAS to happen. It WILL happen even if you think your rights are being stomped on. We have the RIGHT to bear arms. We don't have the right for the Feds to not know we bear arms. The government will do what they do. They will do it legally. You can choose to be an outlaw but most folks will capitulate.

I don't think the government thinks an army of slaves is reasonable right now.  Gun ownership is pretty low on their priority list. If a tank division rolls in to take over your neighborhood, Your AR-15 ain't gonna do shiat.  It is a toy for you. something fun to shoot and you don't want to lose that right. I get it. I am an Army guy. I like to shoot. It is fun and I keep my skills sharp. I am a radio fixing guy but we are all a soldier first.
 
2013-03-20 08:56:03 PM  

chumboobler: The answer, which is unpopular, is to have strict and legal requirements for gun education and legal liability for misuse and storage abuses.


That seems very reasonable to me. You can own a gun without education, but if you want to hunt you should take hunter education, if you want to carry it around you should take carry it around education. If you only want to use it in your house or store and never carry it around or hunt then maybe a 10 minute video at the gun store. I had to watch a 15 minute video to get a permit to use the bike racks on the front of a municipal bus.

All guns when not in use should be locked up. In use can be in the bedstand while you're sleeping, but when you get up lock it up. Making a gun accessible to an unsupervised minor should be a criminal offense (in most jurisdictions it is).

These are things responsible gun owners already do. I do these things myself. I have no problem codifying these best practices into law. Sure, criminals (and idiots) won't obey them, but that is the risk they take.
 
2013-03-20 09:24:13 PM  
He ended his post by saying, "People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn't have stood up to them like I did."

I believe this to be true most of the time.  Most people would bow to perceived authority.  Milgram proved it.
 
2013-03-20 09:36:18 PM  

Frederick: He ended his post by saying, "People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn't have stood up to them like I did."

I believe this to be true most of the time.  Most people would bow to perceived authority.  Milgram proved it.


That is shocking!
 
2013-03-20 09:36:41 PM  

chumboobler: I don't think the government thinks an army of slaves is reasonable right now. Gun ownership is pretty low on their priority list. If a tank division rolls in to take over your neighborhood, Your AR-15 ain't gonna do shiat.


When they get out of the burning tank it will.
 
2013-03-20 09:53:17 PM  

Fissile: StoPPeRmobile: Fissile: Dad just happened to have an attorney who specializes in 2nd amendment cases on speed dial?   Um, anyone else think this guy was trying to create an incident?

Why does the attorney need to specialze in 2nd ammendment cases. This is due process. Any student of law knows that, most basic, shiat. Hell, even a business major.

/not a lawyer
=========

His attorney is Evan Nappen, the top gun rights lawyer in New Jersey.   http://www.evannappen.com/    Seems a bit suspicious to me that gun-dad has Nappen's office on speed dial.....almost like he was expecting a visit from the cops.




Oh, like the term that defines ambulance chasing?
 
2013-03-20 09:57:45 PM  
Hey, look the police chief confirmed the story and it is even on HuffPo for all you gun grabbers.
 
2013-03-20 10:32:48 PM  

feckingmorons: That seems very reasonable to me. You can own a gun without education, but if you want to hunt you should take hunter education, if you want to carry it around you should take carry it around education. If you only want to use it in your house or store and never carry it around or hunt then maybe a 10 minute video at the gun store. I had to watch a 15 minute video to get a permit to use the bike racks on the front of a municipal bus.

All guns when not in use should be locked up. In use can be in the bedstand while you're sleeping, but when you get up lock it up. Making a gun accessible to an unsupervised minor should be a criminal offense (in most jurisdictions it is).

These are things responsible gun owners already do. I do these things myself. I have no problem codifying these best practices into law. Sure, criminals (and idiots) won't obey them, but that is the risk they take.


feckingmorons: Hey, look the police chief confirmed the story and it is even on HuffPo for all you gun grabbers.


According to the NRA, you're a gun grabber.
 
2013-03-20 10:52:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: According to the NRA


According to the NRA those are the exact things you're supposed to do, proper training and keeping firearms away from those who should not posses them.
 
2013-03-20 10:55:38 PM  

manimal2878: lolpix: In academia, science, law, medicine, and high-tech fields we have a lot of words or specific usages that aren't commonly in the dictionary.

 Clip and magazine are not among those words.


I know I'm very late to this thread, but this particular exchange caught my attention. If I might interject;

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/receiver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_(firearms)

:|
 
2013-03-20 11:23:44 PM  

feckingmorons: NightOwl2255: According to the NRA

According to the NRA those are the exact things you're supposed to do, proper training and keeping firearms away from those who should not posses them.


Good idea, sure. Now, ask the NRA how they fell about legislating it. Anyone in favor of such draconian gun laws clearly wants to disarm the American people.
 
2013-03-21 12:12:26 AM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: NightOwl2255: According to the NRA

According to the NRA those are the exact things you're supposed to do, proper training and keeping firearms away from those who should not posses them.

Good idea, sure. Now, ask the NRA how they fell about legislating it. Anyone in favor of such draconian gun laws clearly wants to disarm the American people.


The NRA supports (and provides) shooter training and I got a very good price on my FatboyJR safe through the NRA. They are in favor of responsible gun ownership and use.
 
2013-03-21 01:23:20 AM  

feckingmorons: The NRA supports (and provides) shooter training and I got a very good price on my FatboyJR safe through the NRA. They are in favor of responsible gun ownership and use.


Yes, of course they are. Now, once again, ask the NRA how they feel about legislating your reasonable ideas. Make no mistake, if a congressman with a D after his name recommended the same measures as you suggest be made laws, he would be branded a gun grabber by the NRA. For the NRA only sees the world as black and white. Either you are for a close to limitless right to bare arms or you are a gun grabber. No middle ground.
 
2013-03-21 01:42:33 AM  

NightOwl2255: Good idea, sure. Now, ask the NRA how they fell about legislating it. Anyone in favor of such draconian gun laws clearly wants to disarm the American people.


This reminds me of how NPR was going on about a bill to expand background checks and I was nodding along in approval.  Then in the last second or so they tacked on 'and magazine limits', which brought my approval to a screaming reversal.

NRA tends to oppose gun control measures that will inconvenience/inhibit legitimate gun owners more than the criminals.  While I'm not opposed to requiring the NICS check on private sales(IE non-dealer to non-dealer, which is often mislabeled as the 'gun show loophole'), thus far I haven't seen good legislation to implement it.

Plus, as it's the source of somewhere lower than 2% of crime guns, the NRA is in my opinion rightfully asking 'is it worth the expense/hassle/loss of freedom?'.  It's a bit better than California's banning of .50BMG rifles, used for approximately ZERO crimes in the state in many decades, but not much.

I'm also going to restate:
NRA Foundation:  Gun safety programs, support of ranges, shooting programs, etc...
NRA-ILA:  Lobbying and political statements
They're separate organizations today due to tax reasons regarding lobbying.  The NRA Foundation is a non-profit; you can get a tax deduction donating to it.  The NRA-ILA is a lobbying organization, and money given to it is NOT tax deductible.
 
2013-03-21 01:54:57 AM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: The NRA supports (and provides) shooter training and I got a very good price on my FatboyJR safe through the NRA. They are in favor of responsible gun ownership and use.

Yes, of course they are. Now, once again, ask the NRA how they feel about legislating your reasonable ideas. Make no mistake, if a congressman with a D after his name recommended the same measures as you suggest be made laws, he would be branded a gun grabber by the NRA. For the NRA only sees the world as black and white. Either you are for a close to limitless right to bare arms or you are a gun grabber. No middle ground.


You mean like Max Baucus(MT), . Heidi Heitkamp(ND), . Tim Johnson (SD), Mark Begich(AK),Joe Manchin (WV),or Jon Tester(MT) all A rated by the NRA for support of the Second Amendment, and all Democrats. Heck Harry Reid gets a B rating.

You were out of your depth when you made comment about the Constitution, and you're out of your depth again.
 
2013-03-21 01:57:01 AM  

Firethorn: NRA tends to oppose gun control measures that will inconvenience/inhibit legitimate gun owners more than the criminals


Go back and read your proposed new laws. Now, do you think for one second that the NRA would not fight tooth and nail against any law to such end? The NRA's stated position is they are against any new legislation regarding firearms, and in fact, would like to see the repel of almost all laws regarding firearms.
 
2013-03-21 02:06:12 AM  

NightOwl2255: Firethorn: NRA tends to oppose gun control measures that will inconvenience/inhibit legitimate gun owners more than the criminals

Go back and read your proposed new laws. Now, do you think for one second that the NRA would not fight tooth and nail against any law to such end? The NRA's stated position is they are against any new legislation regarding firearms, and in fact, would like to see the repel of almost all laws regarding firearms.


Not at all, they are all for measures in two states that will allow employees to carry their guns to work with them and lock them in their vehicles on company property. They are in favor of opening more federal lands to hunting, they are in favor of normalizing concealed weapon permit state laws and with regulations in federal land in the same state.

There are plenty of laws the NRA supports, they just don't support those that are pointless such as the magazine capacity and scary looking gun bans or other laws that improperly infringe upon the lawful right to own a gun.

They are all for funding and mandating reporting of involuntary commitments so that those persons so disqualified can be found during an NICS at a FFL, yet many Democrats oppose that - amazing Democrats opposing spending money.

You just don't like guns or the NRA, we see that.
 
2013-03-21 02:07:46 AM  

feckingmorons: You mean like Max Baucus(MT), . Heidi Heitkamp(ND), . Tim Johnson (SD), Mark Begich(AK),Joe Manchin (WV),or Jon Tester(MT) all A rated by the NRA for support of the Second Amendment, and all Democrats. Heck Harry Reid gets a B rating.

You were out of your depth when you made comment about the Constitution, and you're out of your depth again.


Are you being dense on purpose? Let any of those people suggest the laws you suggest and see how they are ranked. Are you naive enough to believe that the NRA would support a law that "All guns when not in use should be locked up. In use can be in the bedstand while you're sleeping, but when you get up lock it up"
If you do you're a fool. If you don't then you are being disingenuous. Anyone that tried to get that law passed would be called a gun grabber.
 
2013-03-21 02:11:07 AM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: You mean like Max Baucus(MT), . Heidi Heitkamp(ND), . Tim Johnson (SD), Mark Begich(AK),Joe Manchin (WV),or Jon Tester(MT) all A rated by the NRA for support of the Second Amendment, and all Democrats. Heck Harry Reid gets a B rating.

You were out of your depth when you made comment about the Constitution, and you're out of your depth again.

Are you being dense on purpose? Let any of those people suggest the laws you suggest and see how they are ranked. Are you naive enough to believe that the NRA would support a law that "All guns when not in use should be locked up. In use can be in the bedstand while you're sleeping, but when you get up lock it up"
If you do you're a fool. If you don't then you are being disingenuous. Anyone that tried to get that law passed would be called a gun grabber.


Perhaps you think they would prefer Joe Biden's advice to put a couple of shots from a shotgun through the door? The NRA advocates for the safe use of firearms, locking them up when not needed is safe.
 
2013-03-21 02:11:34 AM  

feckingmorons: You just don't like guns or the NRA, we see that.


Now you're just being a dick. I, in fact, love guns. Own several. Shoot 3 gun and Steel challenge. That has nothing to do with the fact that I am 100% correct that the NRA would not support the laws that you would not have any issues being passed.
 
2013-03-21 02:15:11 AM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: You just don't like guns or the NRA, we see that.

Now you're just being a dick. I, in fact, love guns. Own several. Shoot 3 gun and Steel challenge. That has nothing to do with the fact that I am 100% correct that the NRA would not support the laws that you would not have any issues being passed.


Well do a bit of research on those and get back to me tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

Perhaps the question should be do we need more laws - any kind of laws- or should we enforce those we have on the books. I'm sure the NRA would ask that first.
 
2013-03-21 02:15:14 AM  

feckingmorons: The NRA advocates for the safe use of firearms, locking them up when not needed is safe.


Once again, as you seem to have a problem grasping this concept. They may advocate, but that damn sure would not support legislation to that end.

You're the one that said you would not have any issue with passing laws. I pointed out, correctly, that the NRA would brand anyone suggesting such legislation a gun grabber.,
 
2013-03-21 02:17:39 AM  

feckingmorons: Perhaps the question should be do we need more laws


No, we do not. We have way too many as it is.
 
2013-03-21 02:20:44 AM  

NightOwl2255: feckingmorons: Perhaps the question should be do we need more laws

No, we do not. We have way too many as it is.


Well, there ya go. We do agree!

Now I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
 
2013-03-21 03:02:11 AM  

NightOwl2255: Go back and read your proposed new laws. Now, do you think for one second that the NRA would not fight tooth and nail against any law to such end? The NRA's stated position is they are against any new legislation regarding firearms, and in fact, would like to see the repel of almost all laws regarding firearms.


You're going to have to be more specific here.  Keep in mind that I am a 'Gun Nut', owning a dozen firearms-5 handguns, 7 rifles, and 2 shotguns.  I'm a lifetime member of the NRA for a reason, I agree with them better than 90% of the time.  My viewpoint is alien to yours, I've gone back and I don't really have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Hmm...  Perhaps this was it:  Part of the reason that NRA seems to oppose improved gun control checks isn't so much the checks themselves.  It's that legislators proposing said improvements always seem to put a 'poison pill' in said legislation.  Remember my talking about the background check bill?  NPR spent over a minute talking about the bill, only to spend a second at the end mentioning that a magazine restriction was part of said bill, at which point I went from mild approval to intense disapproval.

At this point the NRA isn't going to 'approve' of ANY bill with such restrictions - 'Assault Weapon' bans, magazine restrictions, biometrics, ammo purchase limitations, etc...  Are all poison pills.  The NRA will oppose ANY bill with them in it.  Might they approve of a bill that featured fixing some known problems with NICS?  Probably.  Would they support such a bill if it had a rider granting CCW licenses recognition in all states much like driver's licenses enjoy?  Almost certainly.

Give and take.  Most of the bills are like 'give me that cake', 'but it's my cake', 'then we'll compromise, I'll take HALF the cake'.  Then, after getting half the cake, they demand the other half, then offer to 'compromise' again for half the remaining half cake.  Nope.

The NRA isn't going to approve of any 'gun control' measures unless they grant more rights in some other area and the NRA likes the balance.

NightOwl2255: Are you being dense on purpose? Let any of those people suggest the laws you suggest and see how they are ranked. Are you naive enough to believe that the NRA would support a law that "All guns when not in use should be locked up. In use can be in the bedstand while you're sleeping, but when you get up lock it up"
If you do you're a fool. If you don't then you are being disingenuous. Anyone that tried to get that law passed would be called a gun grabber.


1.  I doubt that I'd EVER see a safe container law that would exempt your bedstand while you're 'asleep'.
2.  The NRA recognizes that self defense, especially with a firearm, is a valid right, and a gun that's locked up with ammunition separated* isn't very good for that purpose.
3.  Safe but available security varies.

There are some kids you can trust with firearms, and admittedly many who you can't.  In some cases locking the firearms up is the safest option, sometimes letting the 12-15 year old be able to get to the shotgun if somebody is trying to break in is.  It *depends*.  I, and the NRA, believe that should be up to the choice of the individual/family.

*I'm going by the security requirements of countries that have lock up laws
 
Displayed 50 of 756 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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