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.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   (thehill.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3834 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-29 11:39:14 AM  

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.
 
2013-03-29 11:39:27 AM  

Bravo Two: MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.

Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


Those bills then garner how much support? None? I'd say that's the definition of "marginalized".
 
2013-03-29 11:39:37 AM  

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.

The gun control lobby doesn't stand a chance against a multi-billion dollar industry.  And they never will.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:38 AM  

Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.


When it is done the right way, yes.

Problem?
 
2013-03-29 11:41:25 AM  

BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.


So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:42:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.


That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:06 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Saying, "You don't need all that stuff, it's weird!" is not a basis for good legislation. Logic like that is what got DOMA passed.
 
2013-03-29 11:43:15 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.


^ This.
 
2013-03-29 11:45:01 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.

^ This.


QFT
 
2013-03-29 11:45:23 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Look kid, feral pigs come in a variety of sizes and lethality.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:00 AM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.

That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?


It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:48 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.

Um, off hand? Stop taking joy in people dying. Especially innocent people. That'd be a start.


Does that include the brown ones?

A biased right-wing media outlet wants people to believe this lie, and since no amount of reality can penetrate the delusion, I find that encouraging it to its inevitable end is the best way of dealing with it. You have to stop and wonder sometimes about just why it is that republicans so readily want to believe things about Obama that no one in their right mind and living in reality would ever believe. And then it should disturb you that they do.

No. I don't honestly delight in the deaths of anyone --be it over a lie or not. It's the death of honesty and honest debate that pisses me off the most.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:05 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.


I guess my point is, are there no ways to improve the background check system? Is it perfect as is? Are there no loopholes? Whenever improvements are brought up, the response is almost invariably a flat "no", saying it's infringing on their rights too much, but there's no counteroffer. There's no discussion. There's no, "Well, I think that's a bit much, but this this and this would make more sense. How about we work on that?"

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.


The KKK having parades in Skokie isn't going to get people killed. I'm talking about people with guns that aren't abiding by regulations, not responsible owners that LOOOOOOVE their guns.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


That's never going to happen. Ever. We have more guns than people in this country. You think that's in danger of going away? I personally think our country would be much better overall with no guns, but I know that's realistically (and Constitutionally) not possible. There have been no actual attempts to make that happen. People can talk about it all the time, but where's the legislation? There are CONSTANT legislative attempts to ban abortion all over the country, at the state and federal level. It's not an apt comparison.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:11 AM  
God forbid the nation's chief executive actually, you know, ensures that laws are executed. That would be a crazy step outside of his authority.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:16 AM  

Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?


I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

cf067b.medialib.glogster.com
 
2013-03-29 11:49:00 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?


That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


You're posting way too much.  Your obsession with the first amendment has slipped into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:54 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.


The hilarious thing is that the $200 NFA tax stamp has not changed since the act passed in 1934. That is equivalent to like $3500 in today's dollars.
 
2013-03-29 11:51:57 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Smaller framed handguns for better concealment, larger frames for open carry, modified handguns for competition. Handguns in .22 for plinking, handgun in .454 or .500 as a sidearm while hunting in case of bears. AR platform in .300blk for home defense. AR platform in .223 for prarie dogs, AR platform in .308 for moose and elk.

Also not every firearm fits every person. So what might be good for me and is ergonomic and fits might not be good for somebody else. Women have smaller hands so a double stacked magazine might not be the best choice since the grip tends to be larger because of the magazine.

Having options and exercising them is not obsession. Why are you obsessed with forcing a one size fits all and you will like it policy on gun owners?
 
2013-03-29 11:53:30 AM  

Mugato: Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?

I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

[cf067b.medialib.glogster.com image 403x402]


I usually just hunt them with a pellet rifle.  But Hey, do what you got to do.
 
2013-03-29 11:54:14 AM  
This is not a repeat from every day starting in 2008.

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-29 11:54:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.



The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.
 
2013-03-29 11:58:51 AM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.
 
2013-03-29 11:59:29 AM  
3/5ths of gun deaths are caused by suicide.  This will do what?  Nothing.

Had a friend that shot himself last spring.  He'd tried it once before with antifreeze, survived and then after getting help and going to Texas to his sister's house with intention of hanging himself, found his nephew's shotgun and did the trick.  They even found the rope that he had bought hanging from his sister's tree in the back yard.  He was damaged goods and didn't feel like he was worth anything.  Would I have left him alone around guns? Hell no but he was bound and determined to do this to himself, he just ended up using a gun as the vehicle.
 
2013-03-29 12:00:47 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


WHO YOU CALLIN' A PSYCHO?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4u5dttxQv8
 
2013-03-29 12:01:11 PM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:19 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo.  I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:20 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


5 cars in a 2 person family is beyond need too.  I have a friend that has exactly that.  He just sold one pickup.   He earned the money and could afford it, so your argument can go toward a lot of things, but people will scream "apples and oranges".
 
2013-03-29 12:03:44 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:59 PM  
And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:53 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed application and appropriate tax payment to the Bureau of ATF, National Firearms Act Branch, P.O. Box 530298, Atlanta, GA 30353-0298.
Transfer of the NFA firearm may be made only upon approval of the ATF Form 4 by the NFA Branch. If the application is approved, the original of the form with the cancelled stamp affixed showing approval will be returned to the applicant. If the tax application is denied, the tax will be refunded.
Upon approval of the ATF Form 4, the transferor should transfer the firearm as soon as possible, since the firearm is now registered to the transferee.
[26 U.S.C. 5812, 27 CFR 479.84-86]


Car_Ramrod:

But not this. You having a gun kid doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby child.

So you're against taxes for schools if your kid doesn't go there, or roads you don't drive on, etc?

And actually, my having a gun does keep you safe (in the home or CC), because the criminals do not know who is armed, and are less likely to engage in a violent confrontation. When Flordia passed their concealed carry laws, they becan to notice a trend - a spike in crime against tourists. The criminals shifted away from Florida residents, partly because they now had no way to know if they would meet the end of a gun.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.


My registration on a vehicle with almost no safety equipment or crumple zones is less than the vehicle with front and side airbags, abs, seat belts, crumple zones etc.... The vehicle is also grandfathered to 1950s smog standards of like 40000ppm of co2 where as my new car has to adhere to strict standards of like 90ppm co2.

Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?
 
2013-03-29 12:06:49 PM  
Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.
 
2013-03-29 12:07:13 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


If you want to stay safe by making sure dangerous people do not get a hold of a firearm than chip in....just like the costs of police are cocialized, just like fire departments, just like social safety nets that keep the poors from robbing you.

/im rubber youre glue
//infinity +1
 
2013-03-29 12:07:39 PM  

Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.


The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits. Maximizing demand and sales of guns is their primary goal. Whether the end use is legal or illegal is immaterial as long as that goal is met.
 
2013-03-29 12:08:19 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


I have the following in my household.

12 gauge pump shotgun with multiple choke tubes and barrels: General hunting from small game to deer. It's a good all around firearm.
Model 336 lever action 30-30: Actually I have two. One is for my son. Both used for deer season.
.50 cal black powder muzzle loader: Deer season again but this time black powder.
Ruger 10-22: Small game ie rabbits and squirrels.
Glock 21: Home defense.
Ruger 22/45 handgun: General plinking and practice. It's cheaper to shoot than the glock is.Cheap entertainment.
Ruger Judge 45LC/.410:I inherited it from my now deceased father. It's still NIB. Never going to sell it.

Gee, I have eight firearms. Am I really a gun nut? Do these firearms really all do the same thing?
 
2013-03-29 12:08:42 PM  

BayouOtter: Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed applicatio ...


You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.
 
2013-03-29 12:10:18 PM  
WHEN ARE WE GONNA FROGMARCH THIS BASTARD OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE AND INTO PMITA PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS

/bleh
 
2013-03-29 12:12:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo. I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check


The new legislation regarding proposed background checks places the determination of fees on the AG. Many proponents of gun control who hold elected office want this to be as sky high as possible in order to deter people from buying firearms. Do you think a pro gun control AG would set the fee at 40$ or 400$?

I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?
 
2013-03-29 12:13:57 PM  

Giltric: I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?


Pass a gun ownership version of the 24th Amendment and you might have a point.
 
2013-03-29 12:14:10 PM  

violentsalvation: Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.


img95.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-29 12:14:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.


Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!

Marcus Aurelius:
You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Oh wait, you're lying.

Again.
Destructive Device26 U.S.C. § 5845(F)
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Destructive Device" means:
A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.
That fully-automatic machine gun falls under the rules I posted previously.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:15 PM  

BayouOtter: Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.



Yes most definately. Firearm registries have been used in the past to go door to door to seize firearms and force people to turn them in under penalty of law.

I don't think LGS should keep a list of names of who own what weapons either. Thats like how FB and Google and the telecoms cooperate with government by turning over information on people voluntarily and circumventing the 4th amendment.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:39 PM  
NRA argues we need to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

Obama signs executive orders to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

RIGHT WING SHIATSTORM YALL!
 
2013-03-29 12:16:44 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


Indeed. Unfortunately, the proposed "universal background check" bill proposed by Sen. Schumer (S.374) goes well beyond that into the realm of criminalizing common stuff by criminalizing a lot of "temporary transfer of possession" rather than "transfer of ownership": if my wife and I are shooting on private property or on BLM land (this is really common in Arizona, as you can shoot out in the desert) and I hand her one of my guns to shoot, that's a federal crime. If I go over to a buddy's house and he wants to see one of my guns and I hand it to him, that's a federal crime (I could own hand it to him in my own house, not his). If someone is traveling on business for more than a week and leaves their gun with their roommate, that's a federal crime. This lawyer discusses some of the issues with the law, as does this site.

People aren't necessarily opposed to requiring background checks on private transfers, they're opposed to flawed, overreaching bills like S.374.

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.


Considering that 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and have only been used in a handful of crimes (where they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable, as seen in Aurora), why should they be restricted?

When was the last time a legal full-auto weapon was used in a crime? Are the few that exist in private hands and are owned responsibly by collectors really a problem? Do you really think that someone's going to take their $10,000+ legal machine gun and go hold up a 7-Eleven? Why is that even an issue?

The 'really scary "military" style weapons', like the AR-15, are the most commonly-owned guns in the country and widely used for perfectly lawful purposes, including recreational shooting, sport, hunting (they're growing in popularity among hunters as they fire the same ammo, are lightweight, accurate, and modular), and competition (including the "world series" of competitive shooting, the National Matches). They're also some of the least-used in crime (using numbers provided by Sen. Feinstein, a proponent of banning such guns, and the FBI, "assault weapons" are used on ~0.6% of all firearm-related homicide). Banning them would do essentially nothing to reduce violent crime and overwhelmingly affect the law-abiding owners of such guns.

Many of the gun-control groups have indicated that their focus on so-called "assault weapons" is just a starting point to further restrictions. I'm not saying they're going for total bans/confiscations, but it's unlikely they'd stop with just scary-looking semi-autos.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.

Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!


They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:51 PM  
He needs to start taking guns away from his Chicago voter base.  That will lower the death numbers really quickly.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:05 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report