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  
•       •       •

6170 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
 
2013-03-26 04:26:30 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: whidbey: The need for home protection every product marketed by the advertising industry is seriously romanticized in this country

Choosy mothers choose Axe Body Spray.


*calls for a total prohibition on Cheez Whiz*
*3 Squirts and You're Out*
 
2013-03-26 05:27:33 AM
Okay, so let me get this straight... NRA robocalls urging people to protect their Second Amendment rights are bad, but immediate irrational Political grandstanding that uses Sandy Hook to push for tighter gun controls that even the Politicians admit wouldn't have prevented this is okay.
Gotcha.
(Dan Malloy said himself that no amount of laws would have prevented this, yet he is using it is an excuse for an "Assault Weapons" ban and magazine size limitations.)

(I hate robocalls no matter who they come from but my point stands)
 
2013-03-26 05:37:46 AM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: How many background checks or forms do you have to undergo to have a protest?  How many laws are there restricting bullhorns, sign making materials, etc.?

What about laws restricting containers designed to be concealed, burglar resistant doors/windows, encryption software, etc. all of which can be used to evade lawfully authorized searches

Again, the first isn't "well-regulated" and speech doesn't generally kill people.

Irrelevant.  The right explicitly protects the right to keep and bear items that can be used to injure or kill.  You'd have to be a moron to think that the idea that arms were deadly somehow escaped those drafting the constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.  Why is it that gun nuts always ignore that part?


Okay, so I'm late to the party, but since you're making uneducated statements I'll join in...
"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again? No matter how many times this comes up, you just never really address these issues.
Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788
Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.
 
2013-03-26 05:49:45 AM

Farkage: Okay, so let me get this straight... NRA robocalls urging people to protect their Second Amendment rights are bad, but immediate irrational Political grandstanding that uses Sandy Hook to push for tighter gun controls that even the Politicians admit wouldn't have prevented this is okay.
Gotcha.
(Dan Malloy said himself that no amount of laws would have prevented this, yet he is using it is an excuse for an "Assault Weapons" ban and magazine size limitations.)

(I hate robocalls no matter who they come from but my point stands)


Yea, that sums it up.
 
2013-03-26 06:46:24 AM
Why blame the instrument of dead? It is an inanimate object, until it is in the hands of a perpetrator.

If those kids were stabbed with knives, would everyone quit eating steak in Newtown? Would they quit slicing their cheese? Spreading butter on their toast?
 
2013-03-26 06:52:38 AM
How is the NRA a nonprofit?  They spend millions lobbying congress, make tons of money selling crap to gun nuts, and I'd imagine they pay their executives a nice salary.
 
2013-03-26 06:52:40 AM

Pick: Why blame the instrument of dead? It is an inanimate object, until it is in the hands of a perpetrator.

If those kids were stabbed with knives, would everyone quit eating steak in Newtown? Would they quit slicing their cheese? Spreading butter on their toast?


Google "England knife control laws". There is a BBC article about the big push to ban the manufacture, sale, or posession of knives with points because there is "No need to have them and they are too dangerous". They even add that Chefs can do anything they need to without a point, and that it will reduce the severity of injury caused by knife attacks. You know, because people have no access to files or other "pointy knife" creating implements.
 
2013-03-26 07:05:15 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: 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?


I love you both.
 
2013-03-26 07:12:59 AM

pedrop357: The Name: 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.

Sweet.  We've never traded liberty for security before.  I can't wait to see how this turns out.


Sure we have... wasn't the Patriot Act something along the same lines?

/i might be repeating what someone else posted.
//sorry
 
2013-03-26 07:17:24 AM

GUTSU: So more kids dying in pools each year isn't important? Why aren't you crusading to ban inflatable/above ground/below ground pools?


Can you carry a pool through a school or mall, killing indiscriminately?

Pools only hurt those who use them.
 
2013-03-26 07:22:35 AM
Revulsion of the NRA will aid in ushering in many new gun regulations.

Keep forking over that cash, revolution fetishists.
 
2013-03-26 07:31:12 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Revulsion of the NRA will aid in ushering in many new gun regulations.

Keep forking over that cash, revolution fetishists.


Or, you know, the political grandstanding to push for more laws that the Politicians themselves state wouldn't have stopped it from happening might just swing the balance the other direction.  A very large number of people don't really like being blamed for things they didn't do...
 
2013-03-26 08:55:29 AM
http://www.fark.com/comments/7663661/83233457#c83233457" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7663661/83233457#c8 3233457">neversubmit: With friends like these the Republicans will be very lucky to have any kind of a future.

Connecticut Senators Send NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre A Scathing Letter About Robocalling Newtown Residents

"Robocalling members of the Newtown community to promote your agenda less than 100 days after the horrific shooting is absolutely beyond the pale," Murphy and Blumenthal wrote in the letter. "Again, we call on you to show some basic decency and cease and desist these calls."



Ah ha hah ha
 
2013-03-26 08:58:16 AM
www.straight.com

"Hello, this is the NRA, aka Gun Nuts! The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my Newtown robocalling. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to : NRA, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power!"
 
2013-03-26 09:02:01 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I think mainly they couldn't predict repeating or automatic arms easily accessed by the general public.

The founders weren't gods or seers.


The Founders had a decision calculus that incorporated variables like public safety and the relative strength of an armed populace compared to its government. Given the values of those variables have changed wildly over time, it is completely legitimate for society to reëxamine whether the equation is still balanced with popular ownership of firearms.

The problem is that, for some things, they put a very high bar for the public to come to a different conclusion, including slavery and private ownership of firearms. In fact, the bar is higher than they thought, because it has turned out that getting 2/3 of 13 states to vote a certain way is mathematically easier than getting 2/3 of 50, as it turns out. (They didn't foresee that, either.)
 
2013-03-26 09:07:36 AM

cameroncrazy1984: As part of a well-regulated militia.  Why is it that gun nuts always ignore that part?


They don't. It's an explanatory statement as to the purpose of the second, not a limitation on its rights. It's a less wordy form of:

You need to have a well-regulated militia to keep the government from usurping power. You can't have a well-regulated militia unless people own guns. The government can't preëmpt the people's ability to form militias and the states to regulate them well by taking away an individual's right to own a gun. That right cannot be infringed.

Note that the second amendment was intended to be binding only on Congress. Massachusetts should be able to ban whatever it wants. The Supreme Court's recent decision stated that equal protection applies to gun rights in states. There's an argument to be made for it, but an originalist should be appalled.
 
2013-03-26 09:12:10 AM

Giltric: By law the 4473s are thrown out within a couple weeks in order to prevent the government from building a database of firearms owners IIRC.


Not really: 4473s are retained by the dealer for a minimum of 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business, they must turn over all their 4473s to the ATF. If the ATF wants to trace a firearm they need to contact the manufacturer (who is required to maintain records forever and turn over records to the ATF if they go out of business), who tells them what distributor they shipped it to. Repeat the process from the distributor to the dealer and from the dealer to the buyer.

NICS is required to discard records of background checks within 24 hours, assuming that the check passed (that is, the buyer was legally allowed to buy a gun). "Delayed" or "Denied" responses are kept indefinitely.
 
2013-03-26 09:12:11 AM
oblig

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 09:19:01 AM

whidbey: Frank N Stein: Whidbey, you're going off the rails here.

This is also not an argument.

You need to address the following:

1. The NRA is largely responsible for derailing any serious enforceable gun regulation policy


Isn't that like saying the ACLU is largely responsible for derailing any serious enforceable speech regulation policy? It presupposes the policies are reasonable. ie, begging the question. I'm not intending to be inflammatory.

2.  The need for home protection is seriously romanticized in this country

Concur. Recall that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives stay up all night concerned that somewhere out there, someone is getting away with something. So they cut social services to make sure they don't, even if good people starve. They also arm people to make sure a home intruder is less likely to get away with it, even if good people get killed.

(Liberals stay up all night concerned that somewhere out there, someone who needs help isn't getting it. So they spend until they're reasonably sure they got everyone, even if thousands of people take advantage of their largesse. I still think this is the superior moral position, so I admit I am largely liberal.)

3.  Being the world's largest manufacturer of weapons, the US has a serious conflict of interest in regards to the weapons black market.

Are we the world's largest? We only barely have the top-spot for arms exports recently (Russia is consistently #2, and was #1 in 2002), and that includes hyper-expensive aircraft exports like F-35 contracts. If we're looking at small arms, Russia probably has us seriously beat. Then again, you don't have to be #1 to still have that conflict of interest.

If you want a black market, you want guns to be illegal. If they were all legal, you wouldn't have a black market. (Well, not much of one.) Manufacturers want their goods to be as legal as possible.
 
2013-03-26 09:20:54 AM
RockofAges:
Yes, gun purchases should always be accompanied by a thorough background check. Everyone who wants to legally own a firearm should have to attend and pass a whole day firearms training and safety course.

So will the government pay for these training courses and offer them 7 days a week, or is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only for the wealthy who can afford days off and training fees, permits, and licensing?

No, pistols are not permitted

I guess the disabled, who might not be capable of using a long gun, don't get their rights either.

except by special permit which requires a police records check in addition to all requirements above.

Current background check systems include 'police record checks'. What makes you think they wouldn't?

After licensing, the only place you are allowed to carry your pistol are at home, in-transit (and under lock) in your vehicle to, or from, a shooting range -- and at the range. See: Canada. The only purpose a pistol is created for is, ultimately, to end human life. You do not hunt with a pistol.

Nobody ever hunts with handguns. I, for example, have never hunted rabbit or squirrel with a .22 pistol. (I have) My uncle certainly doesn't brush hunt with a .44 revolver. Nope, nobody hunts with a pistol.

Sport shooting is a valid sport, however, the "ideal" behind the sport is essentially to improve marksmanship with the weapon for "when it matters". This does not taint the sport, but it also does not shield the fact that pistols are created to kill human beings, ultimately.

Just like wrestling and fencing shield the fact that grappling and swordplay were invented to kill people and only exist to train 'athletes' in murder. Ban singlets and anything pointy.

America has a BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG problem with guns and it's not just going away, sadly. However, the 2nd Amendment is largely to blame, frankly. It's irresponsible and, also frankly, highly stupid. Maybe it made sense when a "militia of the people" with much simpler and primitive firearms , it's somewhat akin to saying: "Well, we allowed men to carry slingshots back in the day to defend themselves.."

The 1st Amendment was written in the time of simpler, more primitive religions and modes of communication. It is irresponsible that these days it applies to high-capacity industrial printing presses, Scientology, and the internet. America has a big problem shooting its mouth off and worshiping ridiculous shiat, and that needs to stop.

I agree. Obviously you've thought about the rising efficacy of weaponry over the centuries since the 2nd Amendment was written. Back in the day, you had to go pick up the sword, wield the sword, and personally stand within feet of your victim, actively working to murder them. Sure, I bet more than a few people were killed by mistake.

Back in the day when it was written? You're some kind of Ren fair person, aren't you? Even before the rifles of the American Revolution, archers and siege engines killed people at long range. The rifles at the time of the American Revolution had some decent range as well, no sword necessary. I will of course mention that, despite your romanticism, the sword's merits are based on the strength and speed of the user - it does no good to a frail lady for example.

It's basic common sense. When you make the tools easier to use, ten to twenty times more effective, with thousands of times the range, what do you think is going to happen to the wielders of these weapons?

Unless you want to start bringing in ICBMs and Gustav guns, the 'thousands of times the range' is a bit specious.

Do you think, magically, that modern Americans are more skilled with the use of lethal weaponry than our historical forbears?

With their weapons or ours? I am sure they could outshoot me with an arm from their period, and I with one from mine. Given some training time, maybe we would equalize. I don't know - who are you picked up and from what historical period?

Because I think I would argue the precise opposite, that most modern Americans are much softer, less skilled, less hardy, and certainly less respectful towards weaponry than their historical forbears, despite the weaponry being many-fold more powerful and lethal.


Well it is good to know you're a military historian with a deep knowledge and research aplenty to back up your points.

Now you pick up a stick, point it, pull the trigger as many times as you want until the target "falls down". Hey, you didn't even get ANY blood on you! Nor did you have the psychological experience of being up close and personal, connected to your victim and forced to "empathize" with them! Awesome!

"Shoot, Roger, I was about to murder you in cold blood over some black market drugs and money, but then I looked into your warm, soulful eyes and empathized you with you. If only I had a gun to shoot you with, because then I wouldn't confront my own humanity in those green mirrors."

I'll close with a quote I think your ancestor wrote.

"Swords are cool and guns are stupid and I hate them." - First Swordsman Replaced By a Rifleman
 
2013-03-26 09:23:40 AM

James F. Campbell: The NRA suppressed research on gun violence.

Please, gun fellators, descant, if you will, on the benefits of suppressing statistical research.


There's really no excuse for suppressing research. That having been said, this is really rather over-stated. The FBI statistics are still kept, and are still public. Plenty of private institutions have done statistical research. The NRA can't prevent Brady from researching it. And where do you think statistics like, "43 times more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder," come from if not analysis of the statistics? There is both plenty of opportunity and plenty of people who are not beholden or even affected by what the NRA wants to argue that there is no research.
 
2013-03-26 09:34:46 AM

vygramul: James F. Campbell: The NRA suppressed research on gun violence.

Please, gun fellators, descant, if you will, on the benefits of suppressing statistical research.

There's really no excuse for suppressing research. That having been said, this is really rather over-stated. The FBI statistics are still kept, and are still public. Plenty of private institutions have done statistical research. The NRA can't prevent Brady from researching it. And where do you think statistics like, "43 times more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder," come from if not analysis of the statistics? There is both plenty of opportunity and plenty of people who are not beholden or even affected by what the NRA wants to argue that there is no research.


The study mentioned in that article, the Kellerman study, was pretty embarrassing for the CDC.For those not familiar with scientific studies and papers, I'll explain a bit. At first Kellerman refused to release his methodology (how he selected and analyzed his data) which is a big red flag -  explaining your methodology is a pretty standard feature of any study. Then he also refused to talk about his original data for YEARS, which was another red flag. Both of these issues were so counter to the expected standards that the CDC was getting a lot of flak for throwing government money at the first shiatty grant they got, and Congress finally said "Enough of making us look like idiots, no more gun research for you. Leave it to the FBI and Justice department, people in the business of crime." I'll grant the NRA probably supported this measure, or even suggested it.

Oh wait, wikipedia has the information right here, with citations.

In 1996, lobbyists for the National Rifle Association began pressuring Congress to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) which had funded much of Kellermann's research. Although the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the House voted to cut the NCIPC's funding by $2.6 million, precisely the amount it had spent on the firearms research the previous year. The money was ultimately restored by the Senate, but earmarked for traumatic brain injury prevention. The final appropriation language included the following statement: "[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control". These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day.
 
2013-03-26 09:34:55 AM

whidbey: GUTSU: whidbey: GUTSU: As we all know home invasions, muggings, and rapes NEVER happen, EVER

So what's the big deal? Keep something at home to protect yourself.    Overcompensating with a basement arsenal isn't necessary. And yeah, we have the right as a society to make such a determination.

Please, tell me how many guns is an "arsenal." Do muzzleloaders count? .22's, lever actions, bolt action, break action, semi-automatics, shotguns, do those count? Why does society get to decide how much personal property I, as a law abiding citizen can own?

How about...ONE gun?   Why would that not be enough?


I ended up with, at my height, 6 guns:

Handgun for plinking at the handgun range (it used to be easy to find an indoor handgun range nearby)
1888 Mauser because 100+ year-old guns are cool
1954 North Korean Army Moshin Nagant because a rifle a North Korean defector brought over is cool
1865 Replica black powder revolver because replicas of 100+ year-old guns are cool
Pump-action shotgun because I discovered trap shooting is fun and renting is expensive
AR-15 because I wanted a rifle whose ammo was not expensive

Is that an unreasonable arsenal? It's down to four guns, as I had the Mauser and revolver destroyed because they had become unsafe and not worth fixing. So four weapons, and only two with any reasonable overlap in functionality. (The Nagant I got in a private transfer!)
 
2013-03-26 09:37:52 AM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: phalamir: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Maybe because the right to a speedy trial pretty much can't injure anyone

That's only relevant if you think that the people drafting the 2nd amendment had no idea that arms could be lethal.

I think mainly they couldn't predict repeating or automatic arms easily accessed by the general public.

The founders weren't gods or seers.

Get off of fark.com and send your reply on parchment paper filled out by quill pen and delivered by horse back carrier.

The founders couldn't predict home printing presses, personal movie studios, etc. yet all of those are protected by the 1st amendment.

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is that that general public had the right to the same arms that would be used by the militia.

If it's outdated, you and those who think like you should start a campaign to amend the constitution.


So, to sum up, you're defending a ** year old precept by saying the passing of time has changed the definition of words but that the law itself is still sound and relevant?.. in the twenty first century?.. but the words have changed their meaning?... but the law is still meaningful? ... That there's no way it needs .. oh what's the word... amending? ...
 
2013-03-26 09:42:24 AM
In regard to the robocalls, my completely emotion-free response is, hit end...hang up the phone. It's a robocall. No one from the NRA called anyone directly. They are automated and simply go from one number to the next.

My heart bleeds for the families of the victims, but Americans have lost their backbone somewhere along the road. Yes, the robocalls are insensitive, but instead of complaining to the media about it, (who are pretty much incapable of reporting the news objectively anymore), speak with your vote. Speak to your government. I think it's impossible for any American to walk out the door in the morning anymore without offending someone or being offended.
 
2013-03-26 09:44:51 AM

BayouOtter: vygramul: James F. Campbell: The NRA suppressed research on gun violence.

Please, gun fellators, descant, if you will, on the benefits of suppressing statistical research.

There's really no excuse for suppressing research. That having been said, this is really rather over-stated. The FBI statistics are still kept, and are still public. Plenty of private institutions have done statistical research. The NRA can't prevent Brady from researching it. And where do you think statistics like, "43 times more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder," come from if not analysis of the statistics? There is both plenty of opportunity and plenty of people who are not beholden or even affected by what the NRA wants to argue that there is no research.

The study mentioned in that article, the Kellerman study, was pretty embarrassing for the CDC.For those not familiar with scientific studies and papers, I'll explain a bit. At first Kellerman refused to release his methodology (how he selected and analyzed his data) which is a big red flag -  explaining your methodology is a pretty standard feature of any study. Then he also refused to talk about his original data for YEARS, which was another red flag. Both of these issues were so counter to the expected standards that the CDC was getting a lot of flak for throwing government money at the first shiatty grant they got, and Congress finally said "Enough of making us look like idiots, no more gun research for you. Leave it to the FBI and Justice department, people in the business of crime." I'll grant the NRA probably supported this measure, or even suggested it.

Oh wait, wikipedia has the information right here, with citations.

In 1996, lobbyists for the National Rifle Association began pressuring Congress to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) which had funded much of Kellermann's research. Although the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the House voted to cut the NCIPC's funding by $ ...


Kellerman certainly has problems, and it's very hard, if not impossible, to get peer-review without full access to data and methodology. However, there are things there where both data and methodology are provided. For example: ALL firearms deaths in Seattle. That's your data-set. CCM - your methodology. The correlations are interesting and should lead to further study. But while correlations are not substantive proof, it does call into question as to whether the null hypothesis makes sense, and the idea that a gun in the home makes you safer is not a good null hypothesis.
 
2013-03-26 09:47:18 AM

pedrop357: firefly212: . the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

If you're in the business of selling guns, you have to have a license and do checks.

If you're just selling your private collection, it's no different than selling any other object that is protected by the constitution whether it's books, cameras, video games, etc.


So obviously stores shouldn't have to background checks either.  Books are in Libraries so we should have gun Libraries as well right?
 
2013-03-26 09:59:44 AM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: firefly212: . the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

If you're in the business of selling guns, you have to have a license and do checks.

If you're just selling your private collection, it's no different than selling any other object that is protected by the constitution whether it's books, cameras, video games, etc.

So obviously stores shouldn't have to background checks either.  Books are in Libraries so we should have gun Libraries as well right?


I'm not sure what you mean. Do you understand current federal law? Under it, there are private sellers and dealers.
The guy running Jim's Sporting Goods with a gun counter is a dealer, he's in it for profit. He buys guns from the factory and sells them as a commercial business.
My uncle who sells one of his older rifles or shotguns every couple of years is a private seller. He doesn't deal in guns as his business as a merchant.

A dealer can buy guns from the factory, and when they sell them to people are required to have paperwork filled out and call in a background check.
A private seller can only sell his own guns, obviously, and doesn't have access to the paperwork or background system. He is, however, prohibited by law from selling to a person he reasonably suspects is a prohibited possessor. So if 'Wild Eye' McReady with prison tats all over his face goes to buy my uncle's old shotgun, bragging about how he served 20 years for felony murder, my uncle is barred from selling to him.

Making any sense to you?
 
2013-03-26 10:02:29 AM
Since the truetm intent of the 2nd Amendment is to make us a country armed and ready to fight off a future totalitarian regime, let us follow the path of logic.

(1) Land mines and IEDs kill more US troops than bullets

(2) Citizens need to actually be capable of defending themselves against government troops

(3) Ergo, by not allowing me to easily (and paper free!) buy land mines, the government is oppressing my right to hypothetically be deadly against its soldiers in a hypothetical dystopian future

(4) Also of note: the law cannot forbid me from making my front-yard a minefield. It's private property. If some dumb ass kid knowingly violates the private property of my lawn and get a leg blown off and/or dies, that's the price of freedom, and just shows what happens to people when they aren't responsible.
 
2013-03-26 10:06:49 AM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules: pedrop357: firefly212: . the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

If you're in the business of selling guns, you have to have a license and do checks.

If you're just selling your private collection, it's no different than selling any other object that is protected by the constitution whether it's books, cameras, video games, etc.

So obviously stores shouldn't have to background checks either.  Books are in Libraries so we should have gun Libraries as well right?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you understand current federal law? Under it, there are private sellers and dealers.
The guy running Jim's Sporting Goods with a gun counter is a dealer, he's in it for profit. He buys guns from the factory and sells them as a commercial business.
My uncle who sells one of his older rifles or shotguns every couple of years is a private seller. He doesn't deal in guns as his business as a merchant.

A dealer can buy guns from the factory, and when they sell them to people are required to have paperwork filled out and call in a background check.
A private seller can only sell his own guns, obviously, and doesn't have access to the paperwork or background system. He is, however, prohibited by law from selling to a person he reasonably suspects is a prohibited possessor. So if 'Wild Eye' McReady with prison tats all over his face goes to buy my uncle's old shotgun, bragging about how he served 20 years for felony murder, my uncle is barred from selling to him.

Making any sense to you?


So I should be able to sell alcohol or pharmaceutical drugs from the trunk of my car or to relatives/neighbours/friends because I'm not a merchant?

You said guns are like books.  Books don't require a background check.  Books can't be sold to kids.  Books can't be sold to felons. Books can be sold to the mentally ill.   Start my not saying stupid shiat and then we could perhaps have some discussion on the subject.

Let's start over.  Are you saying no one ever makes money on a personal sale?  Are you saying a personal sales only happen between people who are related and who know each other?
 
2013-03-26 10:25:21 AM
mrshowrules:
Let's start over.


Good idea. Most of your post was insane gibberish.

 Are you saying no one ever makes money on a personal sale?

Nope. Hell, I made money last month on a personal sale, let my couch go for a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist. Doesn't make me a merchant or dealer in fine furnishings.

Are you saying a personal sales only happen between people who are related and who know each other?

I wouldn't know the guy I sold my couch to from Adam. I did make a copy of his driver's license, though.
 
2013-03-26 10:30:41 AM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
Let's start over.

Good idea. Most of your post was insane gibberish.

 Are you saying no one ever makes money on a personal sale?

Nope. Hell, I made money last month on a personal sale, let my couch go for a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist. Doesn't make me a merchant or dealer in fine furnishings.

Are you saying a personal sales only happen between people who are related and who know each other?

I wouldn't know the guy I sold my couch to from Adam. I did make a copy of his driver's license, though.


You interjected in my response to another post.  So if you can follow the exchange, that's your fault.

Dinglenuts was saying that guns were no different than books.

If a background check is a good idea for a merchant, it is a good idea for someone who doesn't have a store.

There is no significant difference:
1) both can make money
2) both sell to strangers
3) and both can deal in volume

My response to the other guy was that if you are against background checks for personal sales, you should be against background checks in general.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 10:46:14 AM
The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier. I choose to exercise it. Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-03-26 10:51:56 AM
mrshowrules:

If a background check is a good idea for a merchant, it is a good idea for someone who doesn't have a store.

There is no significant difference:
1) both can make money


A merchant makes enough, in principle, to sustain his life and business. My uncle doesn't support himself selling the occassional old gun he doesn;t want anymore.

2) both sell to strangers

Both are barred from selling to prohibited persons, but one of them has access to better vetting systems since they have more resources and volume.

3) and both can deal in volume

Not really. The gun store owner can buy stock from the factory to resell for profit, but the instant you buy a gun for the purpose of reselling it, you've crossed the line and need a license or you get thrown in the clink. The amount of volume a private seller can move is limited to guns he owns and have used.

The ATF is really sensitive on this subject.
 
2013-03-26 10:59:07 AM

SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.


Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.
 
2013-03-26 11:03:09 AM

SRD: The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier. I choose to exercise it. Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.


<gunzzzzz.jpgzzzz>

Hey everyone! Look at how scared THIS guy is!
 
2013-03-26 11:04:41 AM

whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?


Basically. "Assault weapons' like the AR are used to kill a few hundred people per year. Alcohol kills 80,000 annually, cars about 34,000 per year.
Next to those numbers, 27 is a blip on the map. You're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.
 
2013-03-26 11:08:36 AM

SRD: The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier. I choose to exercise it. Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.


Nice. I also have an Outback-II. It's fantastic when shooting in hot weather (no need for earmuffs) or when teaching a new shooter.

The mousepad is nice too.

/waiting on a shipment of PMAGS
 
2013-03-26 11:13:32 AM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules:

If a background check is a good idea for a merchant, it is a good idea for someone who doesn't have a store.

There is no significant difference:
1) both can make money

A merchant makes enough, in principle, to sustain his life and business. My uncle doesn't support himself selling the occassional old gun he doesn;t want anymore.


Bullshiat.  They only do well when you have a Liberal President, otherwise they make as much profit/losses as any store.  Plus, you have no farking clue how much money is being made on personal sales.  No one does.

2) both sell to strangers

Both are barred from selling to prohibited persons, but one of them has access to better vetting systems since they have more resources and volume.

So make it consistent and apply the regulations consistently.

3) and both can deal in volume

Not really. The gun store owner can buy stock from the factory to resell for profit, but the instant you buy a gun for the purpose of reselling it, you've crossed the line and need a license or you get thrown in the clink. The amount of volume a private seller can move is limited to guns he owns and have used.

The ATF is really sensitive on this subject.


You are really just making shiat up at this point.  There are absolutely no volume limits on personal sales.  To say there isn't serious money being made (with no overhead costs) is just disingenous.  I'm a positive you know people (of people) who are raking it in right now and there are shortages in many different guns that people are making a shiatload of money off of on personal sales.

To make a regulatory distinction on gun sales based on whether it is a store or not is just  silly.  Either you are for or against background checks regardless.  Full stop.
 
2013-03-26 11:15:15 AM

vygramul: Kellerman certainly has problems, and it's very hard, if not impossible, to get peer-review without full access to data and methodology.


That's funny, because when I Google "problems with Kellerman," all I can find are whackadoodle right-wing gun-fellatio websites.
 
2013-03-26 11:19:04 AM

James F. Campbell: vygramul: Kellerman certainly has problems, and it's very hard, if not impossible, to get peer-review without full access to data and methodology.

That's funny, because when I Google "problems with Kellerman," all I can find are whackadoodle right-wing gun-fellatio websites.


I'm not basing my opinions on any gun-fellatio websites, which I do not read. As I said, it's not entirely true he provides no access to any of his data or methodologies, something I challenge you to find on a right-wing gun-fellatio website.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 11:20:19 AM

whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.


So if all rifles were gone and he used a pistol or shotgun or bomb does that make it better. He took years to plan it. He was a sociopath. Gun permit holders owners are 7 to 14 times less likely to be arrested for a crime than the average public. So it seems to me we are more sane in general. Sandy hook was terrible and his mother was negligent. But gun violence by a large margine is by average pistols with less than 6 shots fired and by felons. And the FBI has even stated more gun laws have little to no effect on crime. All rights are important. None should be taken lightly. And no I'm not scared as someone stated I'm a collector.
 
2013-03-26 11:26:06 AM

BayouOtter: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

Basically. "Assault weapons' like the AR are used to kill a few hundred people per year. Alcohol kills 80,000 annually, cars about 34,000 per year.
Next to those numbers, 27 is a blip on the map. You're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.


Nice to know that you feel a mere 27 dead children is an acceptable level of collateral damage in this society to continue with our ineffective gun regulation policy.
 
2013-03-26 11:26:42 AM
mrshowrules:
Bullshiat.  They only do well when you have a Liberal President, otherwise they make as much profit/losses as any store.  Plus, you have no farking clue how much money is being made on personal sales.  No one does.

Right, because all the gun stores shut down when a Republican is in office? I don't even understand this.


You are really just making shiat up at this point.  There are absolutely no volume limits on personal sales.

You're the one making things up, man.

To say there isn't serious money being made (with no overhead costs) is just disingenous.

You might call a few hundred or a few thousand bucks as 'serious money' but that won't feed a family. And yes, putting ads in the paper and going to meet buyers is overhead cost - don't you value your time?

 I'm a positive you know people (of people) who are raking it in right now and there are shortages in many different guns that people are making a shiatload of money off of on personal sales.

Not anyone who's 'raking it in'. I know a few guys that sold a gun or two for more than they paid, but they aren't feeding their family on it. Gun stores are doing well, because they can order rifles from the factory and sell them directly. Anybody who had enough rifles to sell at current prices for enough to live a year was already rich.
 
2013-03-26 11:28:04 AM

whidbey: BayouOtter: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

Basically. "Assault weapons' like the AR are used to kill a few hundred people per year. Alcohol kills 80,000 annually, cars about 34,000 per year.
Next to those numbers, 27 is a blip on the map. You're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.

Nice to know that you feel a mere 27 dead children is an acceptable level of collateral damage in this society to continue with our ineffective gun regulation policy.


The cost of living in a free society is that sometimes people use that freedom to do harm. Would you feel better if we all lived in concrete isolation cubes with entertainment and food piped in? It'd be pretty safe.
 
2013-03-26 11:28:50 AM

SRD: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

So if all rifles were gone and he used a pistol or shotgun or bomb does that make it better. He took years to plan it. He was a sociopath. Gun permit holders owners are 7 to 14 times less likely to be arrested for a crime than the average public. So it seems to me we are more sane in general. Sandy hook was terrible and his mother was negligent. But gun violence by a large margine is by average pistols with less than 6 shots fired and by felons. And the FBI has even stated more gun laws have little to no effect on crime. All rights are important. None should be taken lightly. And no I'm not scared as someone stated I'm a collector.


By all means, be a collector of weapons.

I'm still going to comment when someone waves a bunch of gun porn in my face and then tells me no one can do shiat about regulating weapons because the Constitution.

Guns are not an absolute right. They are subject to regulation, and we as a society have the right to determine what those regulations should be.
 
2013-03-26 11:29:57 AM

BayouOtter: whidbey: BayouOtter: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

Basically. "Assault weapons' like the AR are used to kill a few hundred people per year. Alcohol kills 80,000 annually, cars about 34,000 per year.
Next to those numbers, 27 is a blip on the map. You're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.

Nice to know that you feel a mere 27 dead children is an acceptable level of collateral damage in this society to continue with our ineffective gun regulation policy.

The cost of living in a free society is that sometimes people use that freedom to do harm. Would you feel better if we all lived in concrete isolation cubes with entertainment and food piped in? It'd be pretty safe.


What does that have to do with having a realistic enforceable gun regulation policy?
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 11:30:28 AM

whidbey: BayouOtter: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

Basically. "Assault weapons' like the AR are used to kill a few hundred people per year. Alcohol kills 80,000 annually, cars about 34,000 per year.
Next to those numbers, 27 is a blip on the map. You're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.

Nice to know that you feel a mere 27 dead children is an acceptable level of collateral damage in this society to continue with our ineffective gun regulation policy.


See you are assuming gun crime will go down if the average law abiding citizen can't own guns. People die all sorts of ways. Its terrible but the world is dangerous. So you are saying anything that can kill from.bats to booze etc should have extreme restrictions? If they can change the 2nd amendment without the legal process to amend it then no rights are safe. Sorry you don't care about your rights and want to give them away.
 
2013-03-26 11:31:56 AM
whidbey:

What does that have to do with having a realistic enforceable gun regulation policy?

I haven't seen any proposed yet.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 11:33:32 AM

whidbey: SRD: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

So if all rifles were gone and he used a pistol or shotgun or bomb does that make it better. He took years to plan it. He was a sociopath. Gun permit holders owners are 7 to 14 times less likely to be arrested for a crime than the average public. So it seems to me we are more sane in general. Sandy hook was terrible and his mother was negligent. But gun violence by a large margine is by average pistols with less than 6 shots fired and by felons. And the FBI has even stated more gun laws have little to no effect on crime. All rights are important. None should be taken lightly. And no I'm not scared as someone stated I'm a collector.

By all means, be a collector of weapons.

I'm still going to comment when someone waves a bunch of gun porn in my face and then tells me no one can do shiat about regulating weapons because the Constitution.

Guns are not an absolute right. They are subject to regulation, and we as a society have the right to determine what those regulations should be.


We already can't really own select fire military weapons. Very few are allowed. So guns are regulated already. All that's left is semi auto rifle and pistols not automatic. These guns are all The same 100 year old guns with different looks. Gun crime has gone down 50 percent with double the amount of guns in public hands. Things are getting better year by year.
 
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