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.

(Denver Channel)   NRA takes a shot at making robocalls in Newtown, CT   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary School  
•       •       •

6171 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 11:29:02 PM  

Craptastic: BayouOtter: Craptastic: Giltric: Feinstein

Feinstein? Really?

See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat. You take a quote from a fringe element and assume that all people on one "side" support it. My only point in this thread is that the NRA is full of a bunch of scared assholes, and that they have no shame. Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

Yet she and other talk about it incessantly.

Jesus Herman Christ. Do you think that she and "other" speak for everyone? Are you that dense?


given their history?  Yes.

Gun control groups of the 70s wanted handgun bans (funny aside-they claimed that handguns were not protected because they weren't military), they supported the DC and Chicago full out handgun bans, they've pushed and supported confiscation efforts, etc.

The history of gun control groups over the last 50 or so years has elements like confiscation woven throughout it.
 
2013-03-25 11:29:12 PM  

parasol: Bayou Otter- Yeah, here's the thing - I'd love to be able to perform a background check before I sold a rifle of mine. As a private face to face seller, not a dealer, I cannot do that. Pretty lame, right?

actually? you can - just contact your local PD and ask - and tack on the minimal charge to your selling price - it just takes some extra time and effort


Uh, no, actually, I have to go to an FFL and get it done. Plus pay whatever fee the dealer will gouge me for not buying from him, assuming he'll even do a transfer/BG check). Oh, and get there during business hours. And coordinate with the buyer.

Gosh, I hope I life someplace where there are FFLs within a few hundred miles or I might be screwed.

Meanwhile, the criminal heads down to the same corner where he buys his crack and asks for the kilogram special, one free black market gun with every purchase.
 
2013-03-25 11:30:41 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: davidphogan: You're the one who decided they're playing the victim card.

Someone else was blaming the liberal media (ha) for reporting on the reaction to the NRA's calls, as if the NRA was the victim. I called them out on it.


Oh.  You responded to me, and I hadn't posted anything about the liberal media (they're not liberal, they just know that money mostly only exists in reality), so I wasn't sure if you were just making an artistic statement or you were too drunk to quote the person you meant to reply to.
 
2013-03-25 11:31:04 PM  

WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?

So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?


Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime, just increases cost, and necessarily requires some kind of registration in order to be effective, and registration info has been abused before.
 
2013-03-25 11:31:38 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: You could say that the NRA is... under fire ... because of this stunt. YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!


That joke was just...  (puts on sunglasses) right on target.
 
2013-03-25 11:31:49 PM  

pedrop357: "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now


So was "arms"
 
2013-03-25 11:32:04 PM  

BayouOtter: Meanwhile, the criminal heads down to the same corner where he buys his crack and asks for the kilogram special, one free black market gun with every purchase.


Well if you wan to stop that you need to do something with the sale of guns. Like making sure every sale transaction is handled under some set of controls.
 
2013-03-25 11:32:20 PM  

BayouOtter: parasol: Bayou Otter- Yeah, here's the thing - I'd love to be able to perform a background check before I sold a rifle of mine. As a private face to face seller, not a dealer, I cannot do that. Pretty lame, right?

actually? you can - just contact your local PD and ask - and tack on the minimal charge to your selling price - it just takes some extra time and effort

Uh, no, actually, I have to go to an FFL and get it done. Plus pay whatever fee the dealer will gouge me for not buying from him, assuming he'll even do a transfer/BG check). Oh, and get there during business hours. And coordinate with the buyer.

Gosh, I hope I life someplace where there are FFLs within a few hundred miles or I might be screwed.

Meanwhile, the criminal heads down to the same corner where he buys his crack and asks for the kilogram special, one free black market gun with every purchase.


what state do you live in?  The states that do their own checks usually have a mechanism to do checks on private individuals.
 
2013-03-25 11:32:42 PM  

davidphogan: Oh.  You responded to me


Because you responded to me, after I responded to another person. So this was all your doing. H'okay then.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:40 PM  

Kome: pedrop357: "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now

So was "arms"


Arms included the weaponry used by the militia (used in war) just like it does today.

Speech today includes the internet, home printers, etc.
 
2013-03-25 11:33:46 PM  

pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime,


And no one is talking about that, but sales. And sure various registration info has been abused before, however that doesn't mean there's any rational basis for opposing gun registration.
 
2013-03-25 11:34:56 PM  

WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime,

And no one is talking about that, but sales. And sure various registration info has been abused before, however that doesn't mean there's any rational basis for opposing gun registration.


Yes, actually they are.  Most of the universal background check proposals define transfer to a degree that it would cover any kind of lending, as well as intra-familial transfers.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:08 PM  

pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?

So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?

Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime, just increases cost, and necessarily requires some kind of registration in order to be effective, and registration info has been abused before.


To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a background check prior to loaning a hunting buddy a firearm.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Craptastic: Giltric: Feinstein

Feinstein? Really?

See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat. You take a quote from a fringe element and assume that all people on one "side" support it. My only point in this thread is that the NRA is full of a bunch of scared assholes, and that they have no shame. Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

Yet she and other talk about it incessantly.


To be fair, Feinstein had a front row seat at a workplace shooting back in the day.  Got to see George Moscone's and Harvey Milk's brains all over the office carpet, execution style.  It easily could have been her if she was in the wrong hallway.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:27 PM  
It's cute how so many conservatives were cheering when Occupy protestors had their first amendment rights violated by police because "they were told to disperse and that's the law," but scream if the law says they have to register their guns.  Bless their hearts.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:49 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And sure various registration info has been abused before, however that doesn't mean there's any rational basis for opposing gun registration.


Yes there is.  Because it's been abused before.  There's the reason.

another reason?  It doesn't solve any kind of crime.
 
2013-03-25 11:36:01 PM  

WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime,

And no one is talking about that, but sales. And sure various registration info has been abused before, however that doesn't mean there's any rational basis for opposing gun registration.


Actually, the text of the bill covers all possession:

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren't very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.

In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:

The temporary transfer takes place at the owner's houseThe gun can't be moved from the propertyThe transfer must last less than 7 daysThere's also a poorly worded exception for hunting and "sporting purposes," as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I'm reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don't transfer them as a gift.

There's also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoon on the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.

It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.
I quote from the bill the definition of "transfer" includes:


shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition
Broad much? The only exception appears to be handing a gun to a potential buyer to evaluate and lending guns at a shooting range but ONLY IF:

*at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation8
*purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
So, only facilities where the stated purpose in the incorporation documents is conservation (hunting) or firearms proficiency. And if you're shooting on your own private property, or on BLM land, ANY lending of guns EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER for recreational shooting would be illegal.
As one of the provisions designed to "alleviate the fears" of the gun-owning public, it looks like there's a provision in here that permanently sets the price of all FFL transfer fees to the same amount. That number will be set by the Attorney General, which these days is still Eric Holder. The current speculation is that this FFL fee will be used to do what the NFA tax was originally designed to do - make buying or transferring a gun so expensive that almost no one can do it.
In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn't reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that's a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.
 
2013-03-25 11:36:26 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?

So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?

Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime, just increases cost, and necessarily requires some kind of registration in order to be effective, and registration info has been abused before.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a background check prior to loaning a hunting buddy a firearm.


You're not up to date on the "universal" background check proposals lately I see.
 
2013-03-25 11:36:44 PM  

davidphogan: Uchiha_Cycliste: You could say that the NRA is... under fire ... because of this stunt. YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!

That joke was just...  (puts on sunglasses) right on target.


Heh, nice. I don't think I have any more puns even worth... taking a shot at.
 
2013-03-25 11:36:56 PM  
I have always thought the NRA was a crappy organization because they really didn't do enough to defend the rights of gun owners.  Now that I see the incredible amount of butthurt pussies that they are infuriating, however, I'm back in their corner.
 
2013-03-25 11:37:44 PM  

Moonfisher: It's cute how so many conservatives were cheering when Occupy protestors had their first amendment rights violated by police because "they were told to disperse and that's the law," but scream if the law says they have to register their guns.  Bless their hearts.


Isn't "Bless their hearts" an underhanded Southern way if saying "Christ, what an asshole" ?
 
2013-03-25 11:38:05 PM  

pedrop357: How do you feel about drugs designed to combat overdoses?  Do you rail against them by complaining that "MORE drugs is not the answer"?


You might need to rephrase that question, because you sound stupid.

Here's why, Zippy: You're comparing a self-imposed drug overdose to shooting someone. I'm not sure you've made a point.

I'd like to add that I've never tried to argue against gun ownership. i've admitted that I own guns. What the eff are you NRA assholes trying to prove?
 
2013-03-25 11:38:10 PM  

violentsalvation: Marcintosh: violentsalvation: James F. Campbell: You know, if liberals actually hated America, they'd be all for the proliferation of handguns.

If "liberals" were actually liberal they wouldn't be trying to shiat on rights they don't like.

typical derp.  Can't hear what's being said for the noises in the head.

I was wondering what to favorite you as since the gun thread earlier today, thank you for so succinctly describing your mental deficiencies. With a rhyme even!


so good of you
 
2013-03-25 11:39:36 PM  

pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?

So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?

Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime, just increases cost, and necessarily requires some kind of registration in order to be effective, and registration info has been abused before.


And for the record, giving a firearm to your children is one of the few exceptions in PA law to requiring a licensed dealer to certify the transaction.
 
2013-03-25 11:41:01 PM  
Bayou Otter- Yeah, here's the thing - I'd love to be able to perform a background check before I sold a rifle of mine. As a private face to face seller, not a dealer, I cannot do that. Pretty lame, right?

actually? you can - just contact your local PD and ask - and tack on the minimal charge to your selling price - it just takes some extra time and effort

Uh, no, actually, I have to go to an FFL and get it done. Plus pay whatever fee the dealer will gouge me for not buying from him, assuming he'll even do a transfer/BG check). Oh, and get there during business hours. And coordinate with the buyer.

Gosh, I hope I life someplace where there are FFLs within a few hundred miles or I might be screwed.

Meanwhile, the criminal heads down to the same corner where he buys his crack and asks for the kilogram special, one free black market gun with every purchase.



It's not that difficult for a "responsible person" to run a background check on someone. If I want to hire someone, say? or, make sure the gun registered to me that i want to sell isn't falling into crack-user hands? I would think as someone who seems to be interested in ensuring a safe sell, it would be worth it? Of course, we can just lay about complaining that the Federal government is either not doing enough to regulate our private sales or that we can't find out in the internet age if we are selling to someone with (at least) a public record of criminal behavior....
 
2013-03-25 11:41:04 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: davidphogan: Uchiha_Cycliste: You could say that the NRA is... under fire ... because of this stunt. YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!

That joke was just...  (puts on sunglasses) right on target.

Heh, nice. I don't think I have any more puns even worth... taking a shot at.


It's okay...  They can't always the same caliber as the first.
 
2013-03-25 11:43:47 PM  

davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.


How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!
 
2013-03-25 11:44:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: davidphogan: So again, do only the victims get a voice?

Someone said it earlier. It's not a matter of whether the NRA can do this, it's a matter of whether they should do this. Criticizing these calls isn't an attempt to stifle free speech, it's just more free speech.


Not to mention that individuals and private entities can stifle "free speech" all they want.  It's only government that can't.

It's really stunning how little people know about the way the constitution, and laws in general, work.
 
2013-03-25 11:44:26 PM  

davidphogan: Uchiha_Cycliste: davidphogan: Uchiha_Cycliste: You could say that the NRA is... under fire ... because of this stunt. YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!

That joke was just...  (puts on sunglasses) right on target.

Heh, nice. I don't think I have any more puns even worth... taking a shot at.

It's okay...  They can't always the same caliber as the first.


You are really... gunning to win this one aren't ya?
 
2013-03-25 11:45:57 PM  

pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime


Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.
 
2013-03-25 11:46:28 PM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!


Yep, until someone actually violates your rights, keep quiet about proposals to violate your rights by people who've repeatedly embraced severe violations.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:09 PM  

The Name: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime

Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.


That's how they get them now despite the illegality of straw purchases and transferring to felons.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: davidphogan: Oh.  You responded to me

Because you responded to me, after I responded to another person. So this was all your doing. H'okay then.


The NRA is obviously bad at connecting with the typical voter, but it still seems odd that they're the only ones who get called out for politicizing Newtown when anyone who wants gunned restricted for any reason can trot out the victims with impunity.

They really need a better team handling their communications and PR, but they're no more or less exploitative than any other interest group in this situation.

After so many previous knee jerk reactions I'm just wary of any response that reinstates a ban that didn't work instead of trying to deal with some of the flaws in the currently existing system, like mental health issues being ignored as was the case in the Aurora shootings, or Gabby Giffords' massacre, or Columbie, or VA Tech, or so many other mass killings where nothing was done afterwards that would have gotten crazy people who were diagnosed as a danger to themselves or others onto the DON'T SELL THIS DICK GUNS list.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:48 PM  

JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl


We're not oppressed.  We're just sick of hearing ignorant people biatch about guns.
 
2013-03-25 11:48:52 PM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!


I don't own any, so unless you count my Red Ryder my mom took away...

Oh, crap!  My mom's a gun grabber too!

/seriously, if you're going to say there are NO gun grabbers, it would help if you don't acknowledge they exist in the same post
//being ineffective doesn't mean you don't exist
///the mafia tried that like
 
2013-03-25 11:48:52 PM  
They should just take the guns away so they can get moving on banning the next dangerous thing we can readily get.

//restrictions and banning are a slippery slope once started
 
2013-03-25 11:49:01 PM  
I think we need to conduct some background checks on the guys running the NRA. No normal humans can act the way they do with so much blood on their hands.
 
2013-03-25 11:49:17 PM  
Bayou Otter :Actually, the text of the bill covers all possession:

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm,


Just read this post - very interesting - ty for it

Having read it it almost seems as if we ought to regulate gun ownership as we do cars - the examples you mention (ie, loaning out for competition, access to others while traveling, etc) - would be easily covered if you were the titled owner with some sort of liability insurance and a way to lock your property away - say, a safe of some sort - so your roomies couldn't use your property w/o permission
 
2013-03-25 11:49:31 PM  

pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime

Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.

That's how they get them now despite the illegality of straw purchases and transferring to felons.


Sounds like we need a much more comprehensive and meticulous system for checking these things, then.  You know, like mandatory background checks on all sales/transfers, with a hefty enforcement arm to make sure everything's on the up and up.
 
2013-03-25 11:49:41 PM  

The Name: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime

Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.


Under some proposed Universal Background check legislation, if I go on a business trip for eight days I first have to go down to some FFL and pay a fee (set by the attorney general to whatever he likes) for every gun to run a check for a transfer for my live-in partner. When I return, we have to do the same in reverse. Otherwise we are both felons.

If I go down to the range with my friend and he offers to carry in the gun cases, we have to get a background check first. If he so much as picks up one of my guns, we're both felons*.

How does that address criminals?

*Outside of extremely narrow circumstances.
 
2013-03-25 11:50:19 PM  

pedrop357: Yep, until someone actually violates your rights, keep quiet about proposals to violate your rights by people who've repeatedly embraced severe violations.


LOL.

"libertarian", right?
 
2013-03-25 11:50:36 PM  

The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime

Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.

That's how they get them now despite the illegality of straw purchases and transferring to felons.

Sounds like we need a much more comprehensive and meticulous system for checking these things, then.  You know, like mandatory background checks on all sales/transfers, with a hefty enforcement arm to make sure everything's on the up and up.


If people are illegally transferring guns NOW, what makes you think they will do background checks or obey other laws?
 
2013-03-25 11:52:31 PM  

davidphogan: The NRA is obviously bad at connecting with the typical voter,


Voters? They're out of touch with their own members.

davidphogan: but it still seems odd that they're the only ones who get called out for politicizing Newtown when anyone who wants gunned restricted for any reason can trot out the victims with impunity.


It doesn't seem like that. The NRA is not the victim here.

davidphogan: After so many previous knee jerk reactions I'm just wary of any response that reinstates a ban


The ban is DOA. Background checks are currently being worked on by Coburn and Manchin.
 
2013-03-25 11:52:33 PM  

davidphogan: The NRA is obviously bad at connecting with the typical voter, but it still seems odd that they're the only ones who get called out for politicizing Newtown when anyone who wants gunned restricted for any reason can trot out the victims with impunity.


I believe those victims are the reason, aren't they?  I sure don't hear anyone saying they want to restrict guns just for the hell of it.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:08 PM  

parasol: Bayou Otter :Actually, the text of the bill covers all possession:

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm,

Just read this post - very interesting - ty for it

Having read it it almost seems as if we ought to regulate gun ownership as we do cars - the examples you mention (ie, loaning out for competition, access to others while traveling, etc) - would be easily covered if you were the titled owner with some sort of liability insurance and a way to lock your property away - say, a safe of some sort - so your roomies couldn't use your property w/o permission


Sweet.

no background checks to buy
no limitations on short term loans
no registration or insurance for possession on private property
nationwide honoring of licenses
no limits on military vehicles or automatics
no bans on possessing on school or government grounds
16-17 age limit for public use, no age limit for private property

Sounds like this car thing might be really great for gun owners.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:56 PM  

RabidJade: They should just take the guns away so they can get moving on banning the next dangerous thing we can readily get.

//restrictions and banning are a slippery slope once started


So, what should have banned next?  Cigarettes?  Gay Marriage (again?)  Large sodas?  Black people?  Alcohol?  Medical pot?  People who say the H in whip?  Fourth line enforcers?  Sharia Law?  Crotch rockets?  Crotch rot?  Jarts?  Darts?  SARS?  Farts?  The Tuck Rule?  Go carts?  Taxes?  Texas?  California?  Flyover states?  Lowering your head before you get tackled?  Fourth meal?  Homeopaths?  Homeopathic Marriage?
 
2013-03-25 11:55:49 PM  

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!

I don't own any, so unless you count my Red Ryder my mom took away...

Oh, crap!  My mom's a gun grabber too!

/seriously, if you're going to say there are NO gun grabbers, it would help if you don't acknowledge they exist in the same post
//being ineffective doesn't mean you don't exist
///the mafia tried that like


You should note that I didn't claim that there are no "gun-grabbers". I only asked if any guns have been "grabbed". The answer is "NO". Jesus Christ, people get weird in gun-threads. "It hasn't ever happened, but it MIGHT!"

Assholes. Keep being afraid; that always works.
 
2013-03-25 11:57:13 PM  

BayouOtter: The Name: pedrop357: Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime

Right, because criminals don't have buddies or relatives.

Under some proposed Universal Background check legislation, if I go on a business trip for eight days I first have to go down to some FFL and pay a fee (set by the attorney general to whatever he likes) for every gun to run a check for a transfer for my live-in partner. When I return, we have to do the same in reverse. Otherwise we are both felons.

If I go down to the range with my friend and he offers to carry in the gun cases, we have to get a background check first. If he so much as picks up one of my guns, we're both felons*.

How does that address criminals?

*Outside of extremely narrow circumstances.


Well, I'm not going to sit here and defend every single provision that's been proposed.  Some of what you just said does sound a little ridiculous.  But a little inconvenience is the price we all have to pay for a stronger, safer and healthier society sometimes.  You acknowledge this every time you stop at a stop light even though there's no one around for miles, or when you turn your turn signal on even though nobody's near you.
 
2013-03-25 11:58:31 PM  

Craptastic: pedrop357: How do you feel about drugs designed to combat overdoses?  Do you rail against them by complaining that "MORE drugs is not the answer"?

You might need to rephrase that question, because you sound stupid.

Here's why, Zippy: You're comparing a self-imposed drug overdose to shooting someone. I'm not sure you've made a point.

I'd like to add that I've never tried to argue against gun ownership. i've admitted that I own guns. What the eff are you NRA assholes trying to prove?


Not all drug overdoses are self inflicted and not all gun shot wounds are inflected by someone else.  With a high school education or less in chemistry you can kill a cafeteria full of kids with the shiat under your kitchen sink.  Why aren't you trying to ban backyard swimming pools, bleach and or window cleaner?  shiat happens, stop trying to make the government crawl up my ass because somebody shot your farking kid.
 
2013-03-25 11:58:32 PM  
Why is it that the Second Amendment is protected with such ferocity? What value does gun ownership have in a civilized society?

Modernizing the Second Amendment could vastly improve American culture. One sentence isn't sufficient to address the plethora of firearms and weapons that exist in the 21st century. Everyone knows that most firearm deaths are committed with hand guns. But what does anyone need with an Assault Rifle? And I hate when people pretend not to know what an assault rifle is. That rebuttal is intellectually dishonest. Like when people say "A screwdriver could be an assault weapon". Right, but when someone plans to commit mass murder, they have never chosen a screw driver. The semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, like the AR15 has no civilian use. It's made for killing multiple human targets. That won't solve all problems, but it has a chance of solving just one.

I've wondered that if someone was able to make a pocket sized version of the Raetheon Active Denial System if that would be an acceptable weapon. It's "non-lethal" but I think being targeted with that would be absolute torture. Imagine what someone could do with that. Robbing and forcing someone's will away and leaving no evidence that it ever happened. And what happens when we get even more advanced than that? Suddenly the one sentence that is the Second Amendment seems even more inadequate. (if that's even possible) So it has been up to the courts to interpret and they seem to err on the side of not limiting freedom. As a result, high powered weapons that are designed to kill people manufactured prolifically and are therefor inexpensive and easy to obtain.
 
Displayed 50 of 647 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report