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.

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

6215 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



646 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-25 06:16:54 PM  
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-03-25 06:38:13 PM  
"NAMBLA has members, contributors, and supporters in Pennsylvania who expect us to do our jobs and keep them abreast of developments on the legislative front in their state," Kid E. Diddler, NAMBLA's director of public affairs, said in a statement about the calls. "We can be just as tone deaf in Happy Valley as the NRA is in Newtown."
 
FNG [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-03-25 06:57:53 PM  
lol at jbc
 
2013-03-25 07:04:25 PM  
I got the NRA robo-call.  I'm in CT, but not even near Newtown.  I took the call when I saw the caller ID because I was never more hoping for a live marketing caller in my life.
 
2013-03-25 08:13:30 PM  
Classy bunch, that NRA.
 
2013-03-25 09:27:18 PM  
I have a baseball bat under my bed. Seems adequate and easier to use.

/apple pie
//kosher dogs
 
2013-03-25 09:50:27 PM  
I'm guessing Paul Christoforo has a new job working for the NRA.
 
2013-03-25 09:50:35 PM  
I happen to own what most people would regard as an excessive number of large caliber and capacity and rate of fire weapons.  My wife got a call a couple weeks ago from the NRA telling her that Obama was going to take my guns away.  She was like, "Thank God".

They hung up like scalded rats for some reason.
 
2013-03-25 09:51:39 PM  
Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??
 
2013-03-25 09:52:03 PM  
Really??  Really?

Really?


Reaaaaaeeeaaalllllyyy???
 
2013-03-25 09:54:50 PM  
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I'm a gun owner and Second Amendment advocate. As a gun owner, I understand the responsibility and maturity it takes to safely own and use a firearm.

Typical wingnut behavior is  not a demonstration of either.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:50 PM  
Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl
 
2013-03-25 09:55:01 PM  
I got a robocall from the NRA a month ago here in CO... the thing is, they want me to give them money to fight against background checks... I actually agree with them that the AWB is stupid and that magazine sizes are generally irrelevant.... but I'm not going to give money to a crazy ass group that thinks people should be able to buy guns with less difficulty than it takes for me to get Claritin D. The realities with respect to gun crime are that handguns account for the VAST majority of gun crimes, they don't have particularly large magazines to start with, and we, as a nation, have worked diligently over the last 30 years to turn mental health cases out onto the streets because conservatives thought people were freeloading by living in inpatient mental health facilities even though they didn't have money. We made it far easier to get guns than to get mental healthcare, and we're farking insane if we expect any other result. That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... 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.
 
2013-03-25 09:57:58 PM  

fusillade762: Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??


Or the ACLU.
 
2013-03-25 09:58:44 PM  
Boo farking hoo. So, the civil rights group the focuses on protecting the Second Amendment is trying to rally support to oppose legislation that is in direct violation of the amendment their entire organization was founded to protect? Those monsters.

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous grandstanding I have ever seen on the parts of these politicians and on the parts of a good portion of the comments above. You think there are no gun rights supporters in Connecticut? That because this tragedy happened, magically every person in Connecticut who doesn't agree with further gun bans lose their rights to hear an opposing view point? That the NRA and their state affiliates lose their rights of free speech?

Feel free to disagree with the statements made by the NRA. Feel free to donate money to politicians and political groups that oppose the NRA. But don't you dare suggest that we should be silencing people because you've decided their political speech is distasteful. There is literally nothing more un-American than that (well, I suppose other than, you know, throwing people into concentration camps because of their ethnicity, like FDR did, or depriving people of their civil liberties, like most of the South did under Jim Crow... two excellent examples of why giving the government more power often doesn't have positive effects for the general populace).

So, get your panties unbunched and get off your ass and do something the right way for once. Campaign to pass an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the Second Amendment once and for all, so then you can pass whatever restrictions or outright bans you want. Until then, quit using the bully pulpit to push for unconstitutional limitations to American civil liberties. Whether you agree with them or not, they exist. The more you weaken them, the less protection everyone has against government intrusion into our lives (PATRIOT Act, for example).
 
2013-03-25 09:58:53 PM  
Anyone who robocalls deserves to be kneecapped.
 
2013-03-25 09:59:19 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 09:59:23 PM  

firefly212: That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... 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.


Congratulations. According to the NRA, you're a gun grabber.
 
2013-03-25 09:59:54 PM  
Town residents say the automated calls from the NRA began last week and urge people to tell their state legislators to oppose gun control proposals.

Just what realistic purpose does an automated calling machine have in modern America? Why the hell does anyone need to be able to place calls as fast as the machine can dial? This shiat is frightening. What, one call a day isn't enough? Their penis so small that they need to compensate with these "robocalls?" Look, they love their high calling capacity so much that they fetishize it with some mechanical name. Disgusting.
 
2013-03-25 10:00:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:01:24 PM  
STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!!!!!111!
 
2013-03-25 10:01:33 PM  

BeowulfSmith: Boo farking hoo. So, the civil rights group the focuses on protecting the Second Amendment is trying to rally support to oppose legislation that is in direct violation of the amendment their entire organization was founded to protect? Those monsters.

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous grandstanding I have ever seen on the parts of these politicians and on the parts of a good portion of the comments above. You think there are no gun rights supporters in Connecticut? That because this tragedy happened, magically every person in Connecticut who doesn't agree with further gun bans lose their rights to hear an opposing view point? That the NRA and their state affiliates lose their rights of free speech?

Feel free to disagree with the statements made by the NRA. Feel free to donate money to politicians and political groups that oppose the NRA. But don't you dare suggest that we should be silencing people because you've decided their political speech is distasteful. There is literally nothing more un-American than that (well, I suppose other than, you know, throwing people into concentration camps because of their ethnicity, like FDR did, or depriving people of their civil liberties, like most of the South did under Jim Crow... two excellent examples of why giving the government more power often doesn't have positive effects for the general populace).

So, get your panties unbunched and get off your ass and do something the right way for once. Campaign to pass an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the Second Amendment once and for all, so then you can pass whatever restrictions or outright bans you want. Until then, quit using the bully pulpit to push for unconstitutional limitations to American civil liberties. Whether you agree with them or not, they exist. The more you weaken them, the less protection everyone has against government intrusion into our lives (PATRIOT Act, for example).


They don't focus on protecting the second amendment... they focus on idiocy, stopping background checks, donating money to ALEC to fight against gay marriage and for lower corporate income taxes... the idea that the NRA is about gun rights is about as naive as thinking NAMBLA is about love, not rape.
 
2013-03-25 10:01:35 PM  

pedrop357: fusillade762: Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??

Or the ACLU.


wat?

Was this a pathetic attempt at trolling, or just plain pathetic?
 
2013-03-25 10:02:09 PM  
Oh my, would you look at all these possible law violations the NRA might be responsible for that the government somehow overlooked.

/twist their arm for this shiat
 
2013-03-25 10:02:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:04:13 PM  

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
 
2013-03-25 10:04:40 PM  
Would the NRA be upset at this phrases in response:

"Praise Allah. We need high capacity rounds to defend ourselves from these crazy Christians".

"Now we can safely go to Mosque and if a fat white man tries to accost our children, we can shoot him 30 times per each of our guns and all within 10 seconds."

"Can you send some large NRA banners? We could display them on the roadside of our homes and Mosques".
 
2013-03-25 10:05:11 PM  

pedrop357: fusillade762: Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??

Or the ACLU.


Stop picking on Helen Keller.
 
2013-03-25 10:05:21 PM  

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


Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?
 
2013-03-25 10:06:10 PM  

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


Selling a few guns privately is legal.   Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.
The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.
Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?
 
2013-03-25 10:07:50 PM  

way south: /But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?


Connecticut's all old people. Old people vote. And they have landlines and don't trust those new fangled 'puters that their children put into their house.
 
2013-03-25 10:08:18 PM  

LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


I live with my mom

The "well regulated" portion does not restrict or confine the right to bear arms and you know it.  "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now and applied to the composition and training of the militia.  You have to know that too.

E for effort.
 
2013-03-25 10:08:34 PM  
Well that was D-U-M dumb.

/"You so stupid!!"
 
2013-03-25 10:08:34 PM  
Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.
 
2013-03-25 10:08:53 PM  

firefly212: I got a robocall from the NRA a month ago here in CO... the thing is, they want me to give them money to fight against background checks... I actually agree with them that the AWB is stupid and that magazine sizes are generally irrelevant.... but I'm not going to give money to a crazy ass group that thinks people should be able to buy guns with less difficulty than it takes for me to get Claritin D. The realities with respect to gun crime are that handguns account for the VAST majority of gun crimes, they don't have particularly large magazines to start with, and we, as a nation, have worked diligently over the last 30 years to turn mental health cases out onto the streets because conservatives thought people were freeloading by living in inpatient mental health facilities even though they didn't have money. We made it far easier to get guns than to get mental healthcare, and we're farking insane if we expect any other result. That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... 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.


Good rant, but it needs more carriage returns.

Much like the NRA (Swype suggested bra, which I'd also accept) needs better list cleansing Newtown sounds like they should accept that the incident in their town has been politicized by forces inside and outside of the community, and they might want to be ready to deal with that.

When members of your community start testifying about federal legislation that's a risk that should be accepted.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:12 PM  

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


Speech?

Assembly?

Illegal search?
 
2013-03-25 10:09:19 PM  

way south: 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

Selling a few guns privately is legal.   Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.
The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.
Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?


It turns out old people are the people that vote in the highest numbers consistently. Guess which demographic also still takes a large number of phone calls and even still have landlines?
 
2013-03-25 10:09:26 PM  

ChuDogg: way south: /But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?

Connecticut's all old people. Old people vote. And they have landlines and don't trust those new fangled 'puters that their children put into their house.


yeah, fark old people.  I can't wait until they die.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:39 PM  
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But now that the U.S. has its own army, the militia is no longer needed, so no more guns for you. Please head down to your local recycling center and turn them all in and you get a free cookie.
But if you don't want to tun them in, President Obama is setting up some "freedom lover" communes in a couple of States that will take your guns as soon as you enter. I think 'Citidel' was the name of one of them.

/Glory be to Glenn Beckistani.
 
2013-03-25 10:10:08 PM  

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
 
2013-03-25 10:10:53 PM  

davidphogan: When members of your community start testifying about federal legislation that's a risk that should be accepted.


Yeah, if you testify in front of a federal hearing, you should be willing to be intimidated.
 
2013-03-25 10:11:52 PM  

Hack Patooey: 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

Speech?

Assembly?

Illegal search?


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?
 
2013-03-25 10:11:54 PM  

pedrop357: The "well regulated" portion does not restrict or confine the right to bear arms and you know it. "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now and applied to the composition and training of the militia. You have to know that too.


So you're arguing for a "living" constitution?  How Liberal of you!
 
2013-03-25 10:12:47 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

"Conservatives have little ability
to understand the concerns of others"
 
2013-03-25 10:12:51 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:13:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: fusillade762: Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??

Or the ACLU.

wat?

Was this a pathetic attempt at trolling, or just plain pathetic?


I don't think it's a coincidence you can rearrange the first four letters of his handle to spell "Derp".
 
2013-03-25 10:13:24 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:13:47 PM  

way south: 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

Selling a few guns privately is legal.   Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.
The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.
Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?


I'd like the system to at least be available to private sellers/buyers.  The last thing I'd want on my conscience was knowing I'd sold one of my guns to a raging nutcase/felon who has a burning desire to fill his ex-girlfriend full of holes.  And If I was buying, it'd be nice to be assured that the gun hadn't been used in a crime.  I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.
 
2013-03-25 10:14:06 PM  

ChuDogg: STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKETELEPHONING PEOPLE AFFECTED BY A MASS MURDER ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT A GROUP WHOSE POLICIES WOULD HELP CREATE MORE MASS MURDERS!!!!111!


ftfy.
 
2013-03-25 10:14:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:15:05 PM  

Bonzo_1116: I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.


Easy, you go to a dealer who does the background check for, like $2.
 
2013-03-25 10:15:28 PM  

pedrop357: Hack Patooey: 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

Speech?

Assembly?

Illegal search?

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?


Oh, you are breaking my heart!  You poor, poor thing!
 
2013-03-25 10:15:38 PM  

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.?


How many men murder their families, enjoy a "barricade situation" and then commit suicide using only bullhorns and sign-making materials?
 
2013-03-25 10:15:58 PM  

12349876: pedrop357: The "well regulated" portion does not restrict or confine the right to bear arms and you know it. "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now and applied to the composition and training of the militia. You have to know that too.

So you're arguing for a "living" constitution?  How Liberal of you!


Actually, that's the opposite of a "living" constitution. A living constitution argument would be exactly what he was negating, suggesting that "well regulated" meant "heavily restricted". What pedrop357 is practicing is known as originalism.

When being snarky, it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
 
2013-03-25 10:16:08 PM  

12349876: pedrop357: The "well regulated" portion does not restrict or confine the right to bear arms and you know it. "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now and applied to the composition and training of the militia. You have to know that too.

So you're arguing for a "living" constitution?  How Liberal of you!


Nothing living about it.  We use words differently than they did now.

If a constitutional amendment from 1860 said "All gay people shall be permitted to do X", it's disingenuous to act as though only homosexuals are permitted to do X simply because society changed the way they use the word "gay".  I used this example because as I understand it, the word "gay" several decades ago meant "happy", "jolly", or something along those lines.
 
2013-03-25 10:17:13 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:17:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: davidphogan: When members of your community start testifying about federal legislation that's a risk that should be accepted.

Yeah, if you testify in front of a federal hearing, you should be willing to be intimidated.


What's the intimidation of a well known advocacy group racing out to the public on a public referendum? Did the NRA lose their first amendment rights because of Adam Lanza?
 
2013-03-25 10:18:27 PM  
Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?
 
2013-03-25 10:18:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Bonzo_1116: I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.

Easy, you go to a dealer who does the background check for, like $2.


Ahh, but then the transaction isn't the "free unfettered commerce" with no paper trail that so many seem to crave.
 
2013-03-25 10:18:52 PM  

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.


They banged their slaves, though. Never had a thought it would be different..

It doesn't matter what they thought. All that matters is they left it open to interpretation.
 
2013-03-25 10:19:24 PM  

LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?



Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.
 
2013-03-25 10:19:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:19:55 PM  

Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comView Full Size


"Nope"
 
2013-03-25 10:20:24 PM  

Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?


I'm calling bullshiat on you.

2/10
 
2013-03-25 10:20:24 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-25 10:20:24 PM  

djkutch: I have a baseball bat under my bed. Seems adequate and easier to use.

/apple pie
//kosher dogs


What? Must be a Ford driver
 
2013-03-25 10:21:47 PM  

jaytkay: 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.?

How many men murder their families, enjoy a "barricade situation" and then commit suicide using only bullhorns and sign-making materials?


Irrelevant.  The right to bear arms is still a right just like all others.

How many people have to upload pornographic pictures of children before we restrict cameras and internet access so that a person can't just walk out with a camera, computer, cable modem, etc. with cash and no questions asked?
 
2013-03-25 10:22:15 PM  

Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?


I'm not a fan of people using fear because they were a victim to pass new laws. Do you like the PATRIOT Act?
 
2013-03-25 10:22:41 PM  

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


Nope.  The right to bear arms is not conditioned upon militia membership.
 
2013-03-25 10:22:49 PM  

Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?


Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?
 
2013-03-25 10:23:36 PM  

Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.


Like the definition of 'arms'?
 
2013-03-25 10:23:39 PM  
Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd
 
2013-03-25 10:24:01 PM  
Pro tip.....

Register with the do not call list.
 
2013-03-25 10:24:36 PM  

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?


They're not the brightest people...and what intellect they do have is frequently overridden by emotion.
 
2013-03-25 10:24:57 PM  

Propain_az: Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

I'm calling bullshiat on you.

2/10


I'm interested on what you're calling "BS". Is it that I own a few guns, or that I'm a better shot than you?
 
2013-03-25 10:25:03 PM  

dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?


Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.
 
2013-03-25 10:25:47 PM  

dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?



Sure give me a link to the definition from the time period.

I bet it has more to do with weapons a person can carry than it does saying specifically musket.
 
2013-03-25 10:26:23 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: They're not the brightest people...and what intellect they do have is frequently overridden by emotion.


Were you looking at yourself in a mirror when typing that, or is this just projection.

The anti-gun arguments have been overwhelmingly root entirely in emotion.
 
2013-03-25 10:26:28 PM  

way south: 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

Selling a few guns privately is legal.   Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.
The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.
Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?


I'm ok with private gun sales... with background checks... I don't see what's so onerous about a $10 dollar fee (here in CO, that's part of the private background check law that just passed) to make sure that you're not selling to a violent felon or other prohibited person. The problem with the law, as it stood, is you could come up to me while I was selling my private collection out of the trunk on a street corner, and there wouldn't be crap you could do to prove that I was selling more than the allowed number of weapons, so long as I had fewer than the limit in my trunk. I mean, selling 9 guns out of my trunk at a time isn't any farking better than 29, and if I only sold 9 a day, you couldn't prove what I sold the day before because the total lack of a paperwork or background check or any other documentation requirement.

I don't think the robo-calls are a first amendment issue though, the NRA can call whoever they want... but we shouldn't get so wrapped up in what they *can* do to observe what they *should* do (totally different things). With respect to Newtown, they should have just obtained a list of the Newtown numbers and crossed them off their robocalling list. Calling those people is just as tone deaf of a play as when they held their convention here in CO right after Columbine.

The other problem with the NRA is they could get what they want, they could stop the AWB and magazine limits in just about every state... if they weren't so batshiat crazy against background checks. Just like with their woefully ineffective political spending, they seem so committed to a wackadoo ideology that they're losing the war simply by failing to be reasonable. Frankly, the NRA is to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is for traditional marriage... they're so frickin committed to their cause to crazy extents that nobody wants to be with "that guy."
 
2013-03-25 10:26:30 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd


Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:02 PM  
Pure. farking. Evil.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:04 PM  

davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?


No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:15 PM  

pedrop357: fusillade762: Insensitive and tone deaf? The NRA??

Or the ACLU.


Snappy, clever comeback!  Amazing how folks like this crawl out of the woodwork in gun threads.  Nice to meet you, pedrop357, never seen you before.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:29 PM  

pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.


And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?
 
2013-03-25 10:27:54 PM  

pedrop357: How many people have to upload pornographic pictures of children before we restrict cameras and internet access so that a person can't just walk out with a camera, computer, cable modem, etc. with cash and no questions asked?


So you're saying the NRA is like the kiddie porn business?

I agree.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:23 PM  
pedrop357:  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.

Que?  A militia would have been made up of the general public.  "We will insure that John Smith has access to the same weapon that John Smith has access to" would have to be the lamest Amendment ever.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:50 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.


That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?
 
2013-03-25 10:30:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?


Howizters and jets can indeed be owned and if the police and military are using them, it would seem that the 2nd amendment protections apply to them being kept and beared by the people who empower those groups in the first place.

Flamethrowers are not regulated by the ATF or any other agency of the federal government that I can find.  As such, they're easier to purchase, construct, possess than a firearm.
 
2013-03-25 10:30:16 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?


Flamethrowers only need an agricultural permit. No background check.

Howitzers are privately owned, so are war birds, including modern jet fighters and bombers.
 
2013-03-25 10:30:33 PM  

Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?


The gun control advocates started waving the bloody shirt within minutes of the tragedy. This is tepid by comparison
 
2013-03-25 10:30:53 PM  

Giltric: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?


Sure give me a link to the definition from the time period.

I bet it has more to do with weapons a person can carry than it does saying specifically musket.


I can carry an RPG. Hell, I bet I can carry two.

Can I have one?
 
2013-03-25 10:31:06 PM  
Gun control people have been making calls and being douche bags for 3 months.  The NRA (who doesn't have to defend anything regarding what happened in CT) makes some calls, like it does in many swing states, gets national attention.  POS liberal media making something out of nothing.
 
2013-03-25 10:31:15 PM  

firefly212: The other problem with the NRA is they could get what they want, they could stop the AWB and magazine limits in just about every state... if they weren't so batshiat crazy against background checks.


The NRA, as the gun industry lobby, wants as many guns sold as possible.  A background check may prevent a gun sale.
 
2013-03-25 10:31:47 PM  

dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?


Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.
 
2013-03-25 10:31:49 PM  

phalamir: pedrop357:  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.

Que?  A militia would have been made up of the general public.  "We will insure that John Smith has access to the same weapon that John Smith has access to" would have to be the lamest Amendment ever.


I was trying to express that the people and those in the militia ARE two different things.  The old lady who can't cut it in the militia and isn't in any organized militia doesn't lose her right to bear arms and she can own the exact same arms that the (organized) militia itself uses.
 
2013-03-25 10:32:29 PM  

dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?


Yes you can.  Next question.
 
2013-03-25 10:33:05 PM  

BGates: POS liberal media making something out of nothing.


Yes, clearly the NRA is the victim in Newtown.
 
2013-03-25 10:33:07 PM  

Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.


Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?
 
2013-03-25 10:33:19 PM  

pedrop357: Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?

Howizters and jets can indeed be owned and if the police and military are using them, it would seem that the 2nd amendment protections apply to them being kept and beared by the people who empower those groups in the first place.

Flamethrowers are not regulated by the ATF or any other agency of the federal government that I can find.  As such, they're easier to purchase, construct, possess than a firearm.


Damn.  Even for a gun nut, you're bonkers.

That's cool...the loonier you and the Wayne LaPierres get, the more people support gun control.
 
2013-03-25 10:33:21 PM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.


So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.
 
2013-03-25 10:33:46 PM  

davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.


You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.
 
2013-03-25 10:34:21 PM  

dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?


You lose. Swallow your ego/pride and move on brah.
 
2013-03-25 10:34:32 PM  

dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?


If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes.  Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.

You do know that explosive destructive devices were largely unregulated before 1968 right?
 
2013-03-25 10:35:05 PM  

Abox: firefly212: The other problem with the NRA is they could get what they want, they could stop the AWB and magazine limits in just about every state... if they weren't so batshiat crazy against background checks.

The NRA, as the gun industry lobby, wants as many guns sold as possible.  A background check may prevent a gun sale.


When you can get either 90% of what you want, or alienate a crapton of people and get 30% of what you want... you're not doing a very good job if you choose the second option.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:09 PM  
You know, if liberals actually hated America, they'd be all for the proliferation of handguns.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:55 PM  
Just send in Ted Nugent.  That'll make it all better.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:59 PM  
Once again.  Thank God, the NRA is protecting my right to murder children.  Just like Jesus would.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:20 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: Yep. Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

And howitzers, and flamethrowers and F-16s?

Howizters and jets can indeed be owned and if the police and military are using them, it would seem that the 2nd amendment protections apply to them being kept and beared by the people who empower those groups in the first place.

Flamethrowers are not regulated by the ATF or any other agency of the federal government that I can find.  As such, they're easier to purchase, construct, possess than a firearm.

Damn.  Even for a gun nut, you're bonkers.

That's cool...the loonier you and the Wayne LaPierres get, the more people support gun control.


For pointing out the truth, and suggesting that the people have a right possess the same arms used by those they empower and employ?

In that case, I'm proud to be a nut.  it's infinitely better then being endorsed or supported by a loon like you.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:23 PM  

Giltric: dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

You lose. Swallow your ego/pride and move on brah.


Do you have a problem with people selling rocket-propelled grenades at Wal-Mart?

Guns don't kill people. Grenades don't either.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:30 PM  

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


How will they ever live out their fantasy of marching people to the gallows or guillotine over "fairness" without firearms.  Strong words?
 
2013-03-25 10:37:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BGates: POS liberal media making something out of nothing.

Yes, clearly the NRA is the victim in Newtown.


So again, do only the victims get a voice?
 
2013-03-25 10:37:53 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: dave2198: pedrop357: dave2198: Giltric: LordJiro: 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

Which amendment specifically mentions being "Well-regulated" besides the Second?


Do you have a late 1700s early 1800s dictionary to cite the definition?

Words have meaning....and it may vary with the time period.

Like the definition of 'arms'?

Yep.  Arms were muskets then and are AR-15s, M16s, etc. today.

When companies start producing phased plasma rifles in the 40w range and type II hand phasers, those will be protected by the 2nd amendment as well.

That's a nice, selective list there. I want an RPG. That doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you think 'arms' means. However, I need to defend my family from the government. And they have armored SUV's and shiat.

So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes.  Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.

You do know that explosive destructive devices were largely unregulated before 1968 right?


You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?
 
2013-03-25 10:38:03 PM  

pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms


Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.
 
2013-03-25 10:38:27 PM  

dave2198: You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?


They do now.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:17 PM  

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.


Well, logically then, the Second protects all killings done with the guns.  If we hold that the lethality was intrinsic in the Amendment, then the use of that lethality must also be protected.  To not protect the killing is to render the Amendment useless.  No killing by a gun can ever been seen as a crime, for to do so nullifies the right to bear arms.  In the same way, saying you can have free speech, but just not use it in public, makes the First Amendment moot.  The parents of the slain children should be executed for treason, since their children died as part of the patriotic execution of the Second Amendment - to feel anything but orgasmic joy for their children's deaths is to defile the Constitution.  Any gun owner who hasn't killed another person is personally defaming the Founding Fathers
 
2013-03-25 10:39:33 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: You see no problem with selling explosives at Wal-Mart?

They do now.


herpa drrrr.

You know what I mean. Since you're trying to avoid the question, I think I have my answer.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:34 PM  

Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.


Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.
 
2013-03-25 10:39:41 PM  

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.


Both sides are bad so do what the NRA wants.

Thanks for the calm, reasoned advice.
 
2013-03-25 10:40:10 PM  

Giltric: Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?


I see that you're trying to use a hysterical example to somehow "prove" your point. I don't know how to address your piece of crap "point". Let's put it this way: I'm a gun owner who thinks that it should be more difficult to buy guns. I'm OK with background checks, and I'm OK with removing the "gun-show loopholes". I'm the only non-cop in a cop family, so I've been raised to respect firearms. I don't want any speculative gub'mint to "take yer guns", but jesuschrist, have a little perspective.
 
2013-03-25 10:40:17 PM  

pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.



i159.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-25 10:40:17 PM  

phalamir: Well, logically then, the Second protects all killings done with the guns. If we hold that the lethality was intrinsic in the Amendment, then the use of that lethality must also be protected. To not protect the killing is to render the Amendment useless. No killing by a gun can ever been seen as a crime, for to do so nullifies the right to bear arms. In the same way, saying you can have free speech, but just not use it in public, makes the First Amendment moot. The parents of the slain children should be executed for treason, since their children died as part of the patriotic execution of the Second Amendment - to feel anything but orgasmic joy for their children's deaths is to defile the Constitution. Any gun owner who hasn't killed another person is personally defaming the Founding Fathers


I live with my mom
 
2013-03-25 10:41:03 PM  

pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.


but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:20 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.


[i159.photobucket.com image 400x304]


Well reasoned response.

Do you dispute that they were largely unregulated prior to 1968?
 
2013-03-25 10:42:09 PM  

dave2198: pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.

but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.


So the government can ban you from fark.com and that's not a 1st amendment violation because you can post at other sites?
 
2013-03-25 10:42:10 PM  

Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: Have you no sense of decency?

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?

I see that you're trying to use a hysterical example to somehow "prove" your point. I don't know how to address your piece of crap "point". Let's put it this way: I'm a gun owner who thinks that it should be more difficult to buy guns. I'm OK with background checks, and I'm OK with removing the "gun-show loopholes". I'm the only non-cop in a cop family, so I've been raised to respect firearms. I don't want any speculative gub'mint to "take yer guns", but jesuschrist, have a little perspective.


You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.
 
2013-03-25 10:42:28 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 10:43:11 PM  

firefly212: davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.

You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.


So because they failed at effective marketing they should lose their right to free speech?

They obviously should have targeted their efforts better, but it doesn't mean they can't do the advocacy thing that's at the core of their mission?

compared to the mom who did an open casket for her son this seems kind of mild.
 
2013-03-25 10:43:15 PM  

pedrop357: Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: So can I have an RPG?

Yes. Destructive device as per the NFA. there is a 200$ tax stamp and background check needed per round and for the launcher though. You also need a certified explosives storage bunker.

Can we sell them at Wal-Mart?

If the 2nd amendment was actually respected, yes. Keep them in the sporting goods (or home improvement?) section and call it a day.


[i159.photobucket.com image 400x304]

Well reasoned response.

Do you dispute that they were largely unregulated prior to 1968?


I save those for reasonable people.
 
2013-03-25 10:44:55 PM  

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.


Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.
 
2013-03-25 10:47:59 PM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.


Oh no, you solved the mystery.  Those millions of members and tens of thousands of people they get to attend their conferences have nothing to do with the NRA's existence.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:01 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: pedrop357: Uncle Pooky: pedrop357: No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Sorry that you have to fill out extra paperwork in order to own something that its entire purpose is to destroy and kill.

Well I'm glad you're sorry.  You didn't really address the point that the 2nd amendment is more restricted than any other right, nor do you seem to understand that it explicitly protects the right to own things that can be used to destroy or kill.

but not every single thing that can destroy or kill. You can bear arms without owning assault rifles. banning them does nothing to infringe on your rights, if you are still allowed to carry other arms.

So the government can ban you from fark.com and that's not a 1st amendment violation because you can post at other sites?


The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:26 PM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.


NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:54 PM  

Bonzo_1116: I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.


That's one of the big problems.
I understand your concern, and I agree that it would be nice to know I'm dealing with people who can be trusted.  But this system runs through government and I'm not satisfied that they can pass up turning this into a giant "gotcha" to harass legitimate traders or milk us for transfer fees.

Then there is the practicality of it.
This is the same background check system that allowed sales to Loughner, Holmes and Cho while flagging 3% of buyers in error. A forced check isn't fool proof and doesn't account for a sellers patience.  If there are too many hurdles more people might sell illegally.

What we have now isn't that bad, but I'm not convinced we're going to get much better until we tighten up the known loose ends.
Take known violators to court and make sure the headcases are flagged. You'll also  get more mileage from putting officers in a gun show to look for felons than by shaking down the private sellers.

UBC is about passing up the big fish to look for a handful of small timers.  It makes a good political promise, but its not the kind of enforcement we need.
 
2013-03-25 10:49:16 PM  

Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.


I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight
 
2013-03-25 10:49:20 PM  

Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.


WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?
 
2013-03-25 10:51:05 PM  

Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?



So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.
 
2013-03-25 10:52:33 PM  

davidphogan: firefly212: davidphogan: Doom MD: Gun control advocates have also been making robocalls in the same area. Bfd

Apparently since they're the victims that's okay. They're victims, so only they have a valid opinion. Otherwise you're just intimidating them.

You don't need to be an expert on intimidation or constitutional rights to know that from a PR perspective, this is someone between Hindenburg and Lindsay Lohan.

So because they failed at effective marketing they should lose their right to free speech?

They obviously should have targeted their efforts better, but it doesn't mean they can't do the advocacy thing that's at the core of their mission?

compared to the mom who did an open casket for her son this seems kind of mild.


Nope, they should just be aware it's in bad taste, and that a whole lot of folks are going to think they're assholes.  There's been a lot of posturing and crisis-mongering both pro- and anti-.  I know people who've bought their first gun because of the noises that "you better buy one now while you still can. omg omg omg"...And I also know folks who've dropped their NRA memberships over their crass behaviour.


/And God help you if you get on the NRA's mailing/phone lists.  All the goddamn time asking for money.
It's like a giant festival of You're Not HelpingTM.
 
2013-03-25 10:53:27 PM  

pedrop357: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

Oh no, you solved the mystery.  Those millions of members and tens of thousands of people they get to attend their conferences have nothing to do with the NRA's existence.


Well, without those rubes to send them money and horde guns where would all the profit be?  Wayne's not going to pull down a seven-figure salary by being calm and reasonable, and nothing fills the pocketbook of the gun manufacturers than a bunch of frenzied teabaggers.

So be a good little tool and go buy more guns, because some day you may need to throw off the shackles of oppression!!

Which should be any minute now, judging from the volume of whining from the gun nuts.  It's practically the Fourth Reich here!!
 
2013-03-25 10:54:08 PM  

dave2198: The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.


Nice evasion.  Can you be banned from fark.com, or can the government regulate the content of cable TV?
 
2013-03-25 10:54:56 PM  

Giltric: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.


I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-03-25 10:56:00 PM  

Craptastic: I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?


Nice walkback.
 
2013-03-25 10:56:13 PM  

Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.


Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?
 
2013-03-25 10:56:17 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight


According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.
 
2013-03-25 10:57:21 PM  
Al Qaeda takes notes, writes email to it's NYC Outreach Coordinator.
 
2013-03-25 10:57:34 PM  

dave2198: Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?


I live with my mom

Nice try.
 
2013-03-25 10:58:10 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: The government regulates broadcast airwaves through the FCC, and owners are prohibited from saying certain things or broadcasting into specific areas. Their rights are restricted and regulated.

Yet we still have free speech.

Nice evasion.  Can you be banned from fark.com, or can the government regulate the content of cable TV?


Since our government doesn't have a track record of being capable to regulate much of anything on the internet, I chose an example that wasn't retarded.

Point still stands. Regulation does not kill free speech.
 
2013-03-25 10:59:14 PM  

Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.


Huh? If you're trying to score some internet-points, you should be more precise. Otherwise, you just look like a drooling knuckle-dragger. What "principles" are you trying to "gauge"?
 
2013-03-25 10:59:48 PM  

firefly212: They don't focus on protecting the second amendment... they focus on idiocy, stopping background checks, donating money to ALEC to fight against gay marriage and for lower corporate income taxes...


get a grip. the google doesn't bring up any ties to gay marriage pro or con by ALEC or the NRA. why you think the NRA cares about gay marriage is beyond me.
 
2013-03-25 11:00:40 PM  

Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Listen, kid. The NRA exists for one reason. It isn't safety, and it isn't "self defense"... They exist because they're paid by firearm manufacturers to encourage people to buy more guns. It's that simple.

NRA has only collected between 14 and 34 million dollars from the firearms industry since 2004.

They have collected over 2 BILLION dollars from private citizens in the same time frame.

tired talking point is tired.

I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?


"They exist because they are paid by the firearms manufacturers"......your words are a little further up post. I'll bold them for you in case you don't remember.

Confiscation would be on the table but Feinstein claimed she didn't have enough votes to go ahead with it. Instead they wish to ban certain firearms but it doesn't look like that will succeed either....so yes they want to take away guns but are being met with resistance.
 
2013-03-25 11:01:05 PM  

pedrop357: Craptastic: I'm not sure what "talking point" I'm being accused of using. My only point is that I think that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and that the NRA is an organization full of dumb f*cks who are afraid that the "libruls" are going to take away their guns. WTF are you talking about?

Nice walkback.



"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
 
2013-03-25 11:01:30 PM  

dave2198: Since our government doesn't have a track record of being capable to regulate much of anything on the internet, I chose an example that wasn't retarded.

Point still stands. Regulation does not kill free speech.


No, you evaded it by using the FCC/airwaves example despite the unique, unusual, and continuously questioned exercise of authority there.  Even then, their power to limit speech on the airwaves is very narrow.

You claimed that banning large classes of firearms was not a rights violation because you can still own other types of firearms.

As such, it would follow that it's OK for the government to ban HBO or movies on HBO, or posting on fark.com and still not violate the 1st amendment.
 
2013-03-25 11:02:14 PM  
pedrop - I was trying to express that the people and those in the militia ARE two different things.  The old lady who can't cut it in the militia and isn't in any organized militia doesn't lose her right to bear arms and she can own the exact same arms that the (organized) militia itself uses.

  I was trying to express that the people and those in the militia ARE two different things. The manic depressive/psychopath who can't cut it in the militia and isn't in any organized militia doesn't lose their right to bear arms .......

due respect, pedrop - your posts in this thread are weak - I understand where you are trying to go, but your arguments look like the dotted-lined Billy's paths from the "Family Circus" cartoons
 
2013-03-25 11:02:35 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?

I live with my mom

Nice try.


It becomes more difficult to answer once I take the object of your affection out of the equation, doesn't it?
 
2013-03-25 11:02:38 PM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight

According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.


So how do you explain the fact that NRA is opposed to closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks?
 
2013-03-25 11:03:32 PM  

dave2198: Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.

Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?


Arson is a crime. Killing people whether they are kids or adults is a crime. Owning gasoline is not a crime neither should owning firearms.
 
2013-03-25 11:04:50 PM  
I am weak and frightened. But the NRA tells me I am powerful and women admire me!
 
2013-03-25 11:05:12 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 11:05:38 PM  

Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.

Huh? If you're trying to score some internet-points, you should be more precise. Otherwise, you just look like a drooling knuckle-dragger. What "principles" are you trying to "gauge"?


I almost feel bad discussing this with you. I've already got you to the point where you are angry and flustered and calling people names with almost no effort on my part.
 
2013-03-25 11:06:09 PM  

Giltric: According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.


To my mind keeping your guns locked up is a good idea, gov't mandated or not.  I don't want anybody f*cking around with my guns without my knowledge, especially kids visiting the house with zero gun training except that they go BANG in the movies.

The better question is where the felons in that police chief's testimony are getting their firearms....Unregistered sales over Craigslist / straw buyers / out of the trunk of the car at the gunshow parking lot?  Those are the shiatstains the ATF needs to be after.
 
2013-03-25 11:06:10 PM  

pedrop357: dave2198: Since our government doesn't have a track record of being capable to regulate much of anything on the internet, I chose an example that wasn't retarded.

Point still stands. Regulation does not kill free speech.

No, you evaded it by using the FCC/airwaves example despite the unique, unusual, and continuously questioned exercise of authority there.  Even then, their power to limit speech on the airwaves is very narrow.

You claimed that banning large classes of firearms was not a rights violation because you can still own other types of firearms.

As such, it would follow that it's OK for the government to ban HBO or movies on HBO, or posting on fark.com and still not violate the 1st amendment.


The government bans all kinds of things from appearing on cable TV.

And? Do you feel oppressed since you can't get the NAMBLA HD station on your network?
 
2013-03-25 11:07:00 PM  

novalord2: Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight

According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.

So how do you explain the fact that NRA is opposed to closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks?


Define "gun show loophole". I am unfamiliar with the term.
 
2013-03-25 11:07:13 PM  
Sounds like just the sort of thing a dirty-playing bunch of hoplophobes would pull.  It's ridiculously easy to fake numbers on caller ID.
 
2013-03-25 11:10:14 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Giltric: According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.

To my mind keeping your guns locked up is a good idea, gov't mandated or not.  I don't want anybody f*cking around with my guns without my knowledge, especially kids visiting the house with zero gun training except that they go BANG in the movies.

The better question is where the felons in that police chief's testimony are getting their firearms....Unregistered sales over Craigslist / straw buyers / out of the trunk of the car at the gunshow parking lot?  Those are the shiatstains the ATF needs to be after.


By their own admittance they are getting them from straw purchasers who are usually family members, from other people who have stolen them or aquired them through a straw purchase or another way and by stealing them.
 
2013-03-25 11:10:17 PM  

dave2198: The government bans all kinds of things from appearing on cable TV.

And? Do you feel oppressed since you can't get the NAMBLA HD station on your network?


I wasn't aware that NAMBLA had a channel, but if they did, the government couldn't ban it.  They could ban any child pornography (which is banned irrespective of the medium), but no the channel itself.

Still no answer about whether the government can ban HBO or fark.com and not violate the 1st amendment?
 
2013-03-25 11:10:47 PM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight

According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.


Up until very recently in PA, if you were turned down for a CC, you could apply for a permit in Florida, which would be granted perfunctoraly.  It's the wild wild west here.  But the REAL problem is the people that are allowed to sell weapons on the street.  In a lot of places Uncle Joey can sell you a cheap assed 38 for $200 out of his trunk no questions asked.  Not in PA.  You can own a howitzer in PA, but you can't transfer a weapon without a dealer doing a background check.  So the hardware flows out of places like Florida and moves to wherever its needed.
 
2013-03-25 11:11:49 PM  

Giltric: dave2198: Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.

Let's think of this a different way. Let's say a fire killed these kids. Arson. One robocall comes from a group trying to regulate access to the materials used to start the fire, in an attempt to limit future suffering, and one robocall comes from a group trying to protect the rights of arsonists.

You see no difference here?

Arson is a crime. Killing people whether they are kids or adults is a crime. Owning gasoline is not a crime neither should owning firearms.


What if they used an accelerant more exotic than gasoline? One that is highly dangerous to own without proper care? Gasoline would seem to be the handgun or hunting rifle of accelerants... You can find it easily and buy it without much trouble.  It's not the best example to use here.
 
2013-03-25 11:12:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Up until very recently in PA, if you were turned down for a CC, you could apply for a permit in Florida, which would be granted perfunctoraly. It's the wild wild west here. But the REAL problem is the people that are allowed to sell weapons on the street. In a lot of places Uncle Joey can sell you a cheap assed 38 for $200 out of his trunk no questions asked. Not in PA. You can own a howitzer in PA, but you can't transfer a weapon without a dealer doing a background check. So the hardware flows out of places like Florida and moves to wherever its needed.


What was stupid is that they could have just done what a lot of states do and simply require that residents have a resident permit.  This wouldn't have caused problems for out-of-state residents with FL permits.
 
2013-03-25 11:12:59 PM  
pedrop No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

actually? no

the right to free speech is subject to a number of restrictions, as it the right to vote (are you a convict in florida?), marry (we all know this one), the right to privacy (unless there is a warrant), the right to end a pregnancy is restricted by a time-frame...

in fact? the only truly unfettered right i can think of off-hand is the freedom of religion and we seem to restrict that largely by bigotry in some aspects.
 
2013-03-25 11:13:27 PM  

dave2198: What if they used an accelerant more exotic than gasoline? One that is highly dangerous to own without proper care? Gasoline would seem to be the handgun or hunting rifle of accelerants... You can find it easily and buy it without much trouble. It's not the best example to use here.


Still protected.

You're confusing (deliberately it seems) the harm with the means.
 
2013-03-25 11:13:36 PM  
What I want to know is:
WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?  I mean, even if you're a NRA supporter, NO ONE likes robocalls.  I don't if it's from an organization campaigning for free daily blow jobs from Japanese women dressed as nuns, school girls, and nurses for Virginia Tech mining engineer grads, I'd be against it just because it was a robocall.
 
2013-03-25 11:14:23 PM  

novalord2: Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight

According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.

So how do you explain the fact that NRA is opposed to closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks?


Hey, a violent psychopath's money is as good as anyone else's.
 
2013-03-25 11:14:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?


The NRA is utterly incapable of introspection. It's why they're against background checks and things like that. Also the people in charge are batshiat crazy.
 
2013-03-25 11:14:58 PM  

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!
 
2013-03-25 11:16:11 PM  

Giltric: By their own admittance they are getting them from straw purchasers who are usually family members, from other people who have stolen them or aquired them through a straw purchase or another way and by stealing them.


Sounds like illegal weapons trafficking to me.  I think the straw buyers should do more time for the bogus purchase than the felon looking to get armed, because they're abusing the public trust--whereas the felon has already lost it.
 
2013-03-25 11:16:26 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Satanic_Hamster: WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?

The NRA is utterly incapable of introspection. It's why they're against background checks and things like that. Also the people in charge are batshiat crazy.


One group that also seems incapable of introspection?  Lefties, especially gun control supporters.

If the NRA was so out of touch with its members, why aren't they hemorrhaging money?
 
2013-03-25 11:16:48 PM  

firefly212: I got a robocall from the NRA a month ago here in CO... the thing is, they want me to give them money to fight against background checks... I actually agree with them that the AWB is stupid and that magazine sizes are generally irrelevant.... but I'm not going to give money to a crazy ass group that thinks people should be able to buy guns with less difficulty than it takes for me to get Claritin D. The realities with respect to gun crime are that handguns account for the VAST majority of gun crimes, they don't have particularly large magazines to start with, and we, as a nation, have worked diligently over the last 30 years to turn mental health cases out onto the streets because conservatives thought people were freeloading by living in inpatient mental health facilities even though they didn't have money. We made it far easier to get guns than to get mental healthcare, and we're farking insane if we expect any other result. That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... 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.


As a responsible gun owner, I assure you it does. Background checks FTW.
And having sought treatment for depression was much harder than buying a piece.
The last 4 mass shooters in the news all had red flags soaked in gasoline and lit on fire showing they were dangerous. Hell, the Aurora guys psychiatrist called the cops and said he was dangerous, and they didn't do  damn thing. Maybe she should have said he had a meth lab in his apartment.
 
2013-03-25 11:17:21 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: novalord2: Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Propain_az: Just for the record, I turned in my 2 AR-15s, My AR-10, and my two hand guns to the police.  I couldn't live with them anymore.  Too dangerous.

I don't know about the hand guns, but the ARs could jam any time.  Usually when it's inconvenient.

/all guns should be registered and insured and locked up tight

According to the Chief of Police of Milwaukee during Feinsteins hearing on gun control. 90% of the perpetrators of firearm related homicide are felons with prior convictions and 80% of their victims are felons with prior convictions. Both of which are excluded from owning or possessing firearms due to felonies on record.

Do you think they would purchase insurance, lock their firearms up or register them?

The goal of gun control is to turn law abiding citizens like many firearms owners hear on Fark into criminals.

It is nothing more than thought crime due to the potential death that a firearm may create.

So how do you explain the fact that NRA is opposed to closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks?

Hey, a violent psychopath's money is as good as anyone else's.


In some threads you are well spoken and have well thought out ideas. Why do you become a petulant child throwing a tantrum in other threads...like this one?

You don't even make points or counter points. You just reach into your diaper and smear poop all over your own face.
 
2013-03-25 11:17:34 PM  

jaytkay: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Do you like the PATRIOT Act?

No sir. I do not like it. I didn't like it when Bush signed, and I liked it even less when Obama extended it.

So is one emotional policy reaction better or worse than another? If the NRA's actions are so bad assume you have the same issue with the victims families testifying in favor of gun control?

Emotional responses to a tragedy don't result in good policy no mater which side you agree with.

Both sides are bad so do what the NRA wants.

Thanks for the calm, reasoned advice.


Coming from you I wouldn't expect calm, rational, or anything but a do-nothing knee-jerk response based on "guns scare me!"
 
2013-03-25 11:18:20 PM  

Giltric: Define "gun show loophole". I am unfamiliar with the term.


You sound really well-informed

/ Disingenuous asshole is disingenuous
 
2013-03-25 11:18:35 PM  

pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: Satanic_Hamster: WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?

The NRA is utterly incapable of introspection. It's why they're against background checks and things like that. Also the people in charge are batshiat crazy.

One group that also seems incapable of introspection?  Lefties, especially gun control supporters.

If the NRA was so out of touch with its members, why aren't they hemorrhaging money?


Scare the shiat out of people and the money flows in.  Fear is good for business.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:37 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Giltric: By their own admittance they are getting them from straw purchasers who are usually family members, from other people who have stolen them or aquired them through a straw purchase or another way and by stealing them.

Sounds like illegal weapons trafficking to me.  I think the straw buyers should do more time for the bogus purchase than the felon looking to get armed, because they're abusing the public trust--whereas the felon has already lost it.


Yep, and couple that with the lack of interest in prosecuting people who lie on their background check and fail them and you have people who should be in jail free to go out and procure a firearm by other methods.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:52 PM  

dave2198: The government bans all kinds of things from appearing on cable TV.


What do they ban on cable?  I'd love the list.
 
2013-03-25 11:20:12 PM  
It's sad that the NRA doesn't get it. They think they are defending an "American Institution". In reality, they are ineptly defending a hobby that is declining in popularity (unless you buy the incredibly lame "they are lying to the surveyors" explanation). They are f**king themselves, and gun owners, in the ass. If you are a gun owner, and give the NRA money, you are the textbook example of a "sucker".
It's pitiful - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I thought we gun owners (sane ones) had this won, with Heller. But the NRA is going to f**k it up. Oh well.
 
2013-03-25 11:20:18 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: Define "gun show loophole". I am unfamiliar with the term.

You sound really well-informed

/ Disingenuous asshole is disingenuous



Can you define it for me?
 
2013-03-25 11:20:43 PM  

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.

If your response to gun violence is "Maybe MORE guns is the answer!" then you might be an asshole.
 
2013-03-25 11:21:10 PM  
I. R. Rottweiler:
As a responsible gun owner, I assure you it does. Background checks FTW.

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?
So lets get some legislation passed to let me do that, which I as a gun owner support! Oh wait, what did the democrats put in there? Its a felony not to do so? Well I don't think that - wait, and they charge me a fee for it? That the AG can arbitrarily set at any level? Wait now....and any transfer without one is a felony, even gifts to my immediate family? Hold up just a second - wait, they define any handling as a transfer? So if my buddy and I go shooting and he brings my rifle case in from the truck, we're both felons? If I go out of town and leave my guns in the safe at home for 7+ days, my wife and I are felons now? (We would have had to transfer them all to my spouse at 50+ bucks a pop before I left, then transfer them back to me when I returned.) Oh, and every transfer is tied to serial numbers and addresses and all so its a backdoor registry?

I'm not feeling so positive about this legislation now.

And having sought treatment for depression was much harder than buying a piece.
The last 4 mass shooters in the news all had red flags soaked in gasoline and lit on fire showing they were dangerous. Hell, the Aurora guys psychiatrist called the cops and said he was dangerous, and they didn't do  damn thing. Maybe she should have said he had a meth lab in his apartment.


Oh, I know. Mental illness and mental health in general is so neglected. Some of these really crazy farks - if they had early intervention they might be fine today, holding down jobs and contributing to society. Instead, dead.
 
2013-03-25 11:21:52 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Satanic_Hamster: WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?

The NRA is utterly incapable of introspection. It's why they're against background checks and things like that. Also the people in charge are batshiat crazy.


I'm not saying they should have thought about the message (which they should have).  I'm questioning the basic competency of even using robocalls.  I mean, did some guy sit there and was all like, "Robocalls, fark yeah!" and the people in the room were all like, "Right on, bro."
 
2013-03-25 11:22:19 PM  

Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: Craptastic: Giltric: You didn't address the part about turning tragedy into a sales pitch when the gun control side is doing it.

WTF are you talking about? The NRA uses this tragedy to sell more guns, and the anti-gun folks use this tragedy to discourage the access to guns. What am I supposed to address?


So it is a hysterical example when who does it?

I was trying to gauge if you had any principles.

Huh? If you're trying to score some internet-points, you should be more precise. Otherwise, you just look like a drooling knuckle-dragger. What "principles" are you trying to "gauge"?

I almost feel bad discussing this with you. I've already got you to the point where you are angry and flustered and calling people names with almost no effort on my part.


Look at you. You think that you're capable of making me angry. How cute.
 
2013-03-25 11:23:13 PM  

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.

If your response to gun violence is "Maybe MORE guns is the answer!" then you might be an asshole.


The police seem to think that more guns is the answer.  So do all the areas adding more school police.

How do you feel about drugs designed to combat overdoses?  Do you rail against them by complaining that "MORE drugs is not the answer"?
 
2013-03-25 11:23:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 11:24:45 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: Satanic_Hamster: WHO at the NRA thought this was a good idea?

The NRA is utterly incapable of introspection. It's why they're against background checks and things like that. Also the people in charge are batshiat crazy.

One group that also seems incapable of introspection?  Lefties, especially gun control supporters.

If the NRA was so out of touch with its members, why aren't they hemorrhaging money?

Scare the shiat out of people and the money flows in.  Fear is good for business.


See also: The entire GOP.
 
2013-03-25 11:25:19 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.


You're the one who decided they're playing the victim card.  They're politicizing the tragedy just as much as the other side.

But both sides are bad, so vote for gun control?
 
2013-03-25 11:26:05 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
 
2013-03-25 11:26:42 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.


Jesus Herman Christ. Do you think that she and "other" speak for everyone? Are you that dense?
 
2013-03-25 11:27:04 PM  

jso2897: It's sad that the NRA doesn't get it. They think they are defending an "American Institution". In reality, they are ineptly defending a hobby that is declining in popularity (unless you buy the incredibly lame "they are lying to the surveyors" explanation). They are f**king themselves, and gun owners, in the ass. If you are a gun owner, and give the NRA money, you are the textbook example of a "sucker".
It's pitiful - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I thought we gun owners (sane ones) had this won, with Heller. But the NRA is going to f**k it up. Oh well.


I have a co-worker who signed up for the NRA lifetime membership because he thought the mailers and the calls would slow down.  I choked on my coffee.

That's like blood in the water, then you get on the "donor list" for sure because now they know you have money and are willing to give it to them.  farking leeches.  I joined the CRPA instead, they actually have timely info on California regs and upcoming legislation, and they don't herp the message with endless pleas for cash to prevent the USA from sliding into darkest jackbooted tyranny.
 
2013-03-25 11:28:03 PM  

Bonzo_1116: I think the straw buyers should do more time for the bogus purchase than the felon looking to get armed, because they're abusing the public trust--whereas the felon has already lost it.


One of the big issues with gun sales like that is that currently there's little risk to it. Sell a gun to a felon who then commits a crime with said gun? Good chance you won't face any consequences.

pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?


So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?
 
2013-03-25 11:28:14 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 11:28:35 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 11:28:51 PM  
You could say that the NRA is... under fire ... because of this stunt. YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!
 
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 11:48:52 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.
 
2013-03-25 11:59:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-25 11:59:54 PM  

pedrop357: If people are illegally transferring guns NOW, what makes you think they will do background checks or obey other laws?


So any time we think people will disobey a law, we just throw up our hands and give up on ever passing or enforcing it?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:06 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: If people are illegally transferring guns NOW, what makes you think they will do background checks or obey other laws?

So any time we think people will disobey a law, we just throw up our hands and give up on ever passing or enforcing it?


The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:13 AM  

thisisarepeat: 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.


Wow.

A is to B as C is to potato.
 
2013-03-26 12:01:30 AM  

pedrop357: We've never traded liberty for security before.


What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:35 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It doesn't seem like that. The NRA is not the victim here.


So we're back to only the victims have the right to have an opinion?

Dusk-You-n-Me: The ban is DOA. Background checks are currently being worked on by Coburn and Manchin.


Good.  I disagree with the NRA about background checks.  I just don't like the immediate jump from "common sense solutions" to assault weapons ban, which didn't do anything last time it was in place.  I'd like to see a better system for background checks, and a better system for making those who are seen as a threat by mental health services at the local, state or county level more easily added to those lists provided there's a reasonable provision to appeal being on the list.  That seems like a fair compromise for everyone.

I don't like that suddenly they're evil for having an opinion while anti-gun groups can exploit the dead kids with impunity.  Hell yes, the kids were victims.  Mourn for them, advocate for them, don't biatch about someone who disagrees making phone calls to within 50 miles of their graves when their open casket is being shown to the Governor of the state to make an impact on his gun control decisions.

Once they've been exploited like that it's hard to get mad that someone else is politically active in the same town/region/state/country making some phone calls.
 
2013-03-26 12:02:06 AM  
pedrop -

Sweet.

no background checks to buy
  - oh, yes, initial background checks (as part of licensure) and, with sales,  transfer of title and mandated insurance -

no limitations on short term loans
   - who buys guns on a loan plan?

no registration or insurance for possession on private property
   - pretty sure guns are already registered?

nationwide honoring of licenses
    - i've no problem with this assuming gun licenses came with mandates such as safety courses and continuing education - and a federal registry to ensure it is, in fact, nationwide - much like driver information?

no limits on military vehicles or automatics
    - nope - see limits above

no bans on possessing on school or government grounds
     - nope

16-17 age limit for public use, no age limit for private property
      - nope

Sounds like this car thing might be really great for gun owners.
      - pretty sure i posted "like cars" not "as cars" -

      still - that's a better compromise than we get out of washington these days
 
2013-03-26 12:03:13 AM  

pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?


So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?
 
2013-03-26 12:03:25 AM  

pedrop357: 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.


Yeah farking awesome!  That'll be $200 a year for each of your firearms for your "gun tags"  and $1.50 a round for ammunition, just like cars.  Fark you.
 
2013-03-26 12:03:30 AM  

pedrop357: 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.


"Proposals"?

PROPOSALS?

heh.  you so funny.
 
2013-03-26 12:03:34 AM  
img.tapatalk.comView Full Size
 
maricopatactical.comView Full Size
4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-03-26 12:03:38 AM  

Craptastic: 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.


No, read what you posted.  You said, and I quote, "Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake."  You didn't say that nobody is going to take your guns, you said nobody is trying.

You then contradicted yourself within the same post.  Some people are.  They might fail at it, but there are people trying.
 
2013-03-26 12:04:43 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?


We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.
 
2013-03-26 12:06:20 AM  

pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.


Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.
 
2013-03-26 12:06:31 AM