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 500
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 06:38:57 PM  

whidbey: That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.


You havent made any valid points, nor have you asked anything of me.  On the other hand...

 I've asked you 3 times what a firearm registry would do to prevent gun crime and you havent answered.
I've asked you how a better mental health system would have prevented the recent spree shootings and you havent answered.  Sure, you say that Lanza would be "Certified insane" but are you calling for a Federal Mental Health Evaluation as a precursor to gun ownership?  It is okay if you are, we can debate that, I'm just trying to figure out the means to your ends....


The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.
 
2013-03-29 06:40:53 PM  

Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?


How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.

Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 06:41:07 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.

So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help

Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

.whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?

Obviously, the only way we would find it didn't work is if someone didn't follow the rules and people got killed. And there would be severe penalties if that were the case. But yeah, if people are still going to be assholes about it, maybe there should have to be a provision where an inspector examines the safe and signs off on it.

It doesn't have to be that drastic.


I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.


So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.
 
2013-03-29 06:43:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.

Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?

I think we disagree on the definition of "secured."


Fair enough, my definition of secured is anyone, whom i deem is not authorized, cannot access the safe or container I use to store my firearms.  So i see the issue as this.  You disagree with the mother that Adam should not have been allowed access.  Well we can all unanimously and all together with a great big "DUH" now.  However hindsight is 20/20 and that was his mothers decision.  Just as it would be my decision of whether my children will have access to my safe (certainly not at all at a young age).  You, yourself,  do not get to make that decision for everyone, even though you really really want to.
 
2013-03-29 06:44:44 PM  

Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?


THIS.
 
2013-03-29 06:45:15 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

You havent made any valid points, nor have you asked anything of me.


lolwut

 On the other hand...

 I've asked you 3 times what a firearm registry would do to prevent gun crime and you havent answered.
I've asked you how a better mental health system would have prevented the recent spree shootings and you havent answered.  Sure, you say that Lanza would be "Certified insane" but are you calling for a Federal Mental Health Evaluation as a precursor to gun ownership?  It is okay if you are, we can debate that, I'm just trying to figure out the means to your ends....


Maybe you need to reread my posts. I have given a full response regarding each of your points. You just don't care for the answers.


The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.

The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.

No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.
 
2013-03-29 06:47:24 PM  

Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.


You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?
 
2013-03-29 06:48:27 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.

"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.


He was a legal adult.

If he hadn't been so mentally defective he would have been like every other 20 year old, out of the house, in college, starting his own life, etc. He was very, very crazy and everyone, including his delusional mother knew it. Maybe he should have been committed? Maybe his damn mother should have been too...

Please, again, in as much legalize as you can fake, tell me how to properly 'secure' my firearms to be legal with the law you want.  This, the damn details, is what your side is so farking terrible with and they are what my side only cares about.

What are the limits to police power in your 'secure storage law'? Will there be inspections? Do the cops need a warrant to search? How much of my fourth amendment rights will I need to sacrifice to comply with your law?
 
2013-03-29 06:48:45 PM  

whidbey: Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.


Okay, so you said it would "Benefit" law enforcement.  Explain how it would benefit law enforcement and how that would lead to a reduction in gun crime.
You're grandstanding that things are simply 'The right thing to do" and "Common sense" without actually explaining why.  As I've been saying all along - you have no argument.

Meanwhile upstream, I argued for a reform of federal drug law, which would lead in a reduction of drug-related gang violence.  No biters.

whidbey: How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?


OK, so let them "weigh in"  Who decides an individual must undergo a psych evaluation?  Would a successful eval be criteria for gun ownership? Would a federal gun permit be "shall issue" or "May issue?"  How often must an individual be evaluated? What is the cooling off period when an individual is deemed incompetent? Is there a fair review process?

you're denying someone either life, liberty or property not via due process of law but via the opinion of a doctor -
 
2013-03-29 06:49:41 PM  
\

phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.


So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:01 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?

How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.

Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.


No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.
 
2013-03-29 06:52:29 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


It's not a solution. It wouldn't change a thing.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:29 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?


When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:13 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

Okay, so you said it would "Benefit" law enforcement.  Explain how it would benefit law enforcement and how that would lead to a reduction in gun crime.
You're grandstanding that things are simply 'The right thing to do" and "Common sense" without actually explaining why.  As I've been saying all along - you have no argument.


I've explained several times that there is NO such system in place currently, and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data. I said nothing about statistics. I said it's time we stepped up our game as a society.

whidbey: How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

OK, so let them "weigh in"  Who decides an individual must undergo a psych evaluation?  Would a successful eval be criteria for gun ownership? Would a federal gun permit be "shall issue" or "May issue?"  How often must an individual be evaluated? What is the cooling off period when an individual is deemed incompetent? Is there a fair review process?


According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

you're denying someone either life, liberty or property not via due process of law but via the opinion of a doctor -

If someone wants to contest it in court, they're welcome to. I don't have the kind of disdain for doctors or apparently the whole mental health care system as you do.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:53 PM  

whidbey: You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?


So you want a law with no enforcement mechanism.

whidbey: Maybe you need to reread my posts. I have given a full response regarding each of your points. You just don't care for the answers.


No you havent.  You said  it would "Benefit law enforcement"  without explaining how, or how it would reduce crime.  I dont care for the answers because they arent actual answers.  You said that we need better mental health without explaining particulars.  You're a fountain of anti-gun talking points with no substance.

whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.


I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:58 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


LOL, I never said I was against that solution, or some variation of it.  I merely asked that we make sure that it is implemented properly.  One does not remove someones rights lightly.  And I dont think either side would argue that point.

This is the main issue the "pro-gun" side has.  Whether they can put it into words or not.  We want effective legislation, not zero legislation.  But everytime we say "now wait a sec, this wasnt thought through" the other side jumps up and throws a tantrum thinking we want it to be Escape from LA across the US.
 
2013-03-29 06:56:22 PM  

Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?


You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."

Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?
 
2013-03-29 06:56:23 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


www.wingtv.net
 
2013-03-29 06:58:07 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.


Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.
 
2013-03-29 06:59:14 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.

I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.


Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.
 
2013-03-29 07:00:24 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.


So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?
 
2013-03-29 07:00:50 PM  
Also:

whidbey: Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.


Or don't, in this case.
 
2013-03-29 07:01:04 PM  

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

Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner


Came here to say this.  Have two NFA items, a .22 suppressor, $200 stamp and damned if it didn't take three interviews with the county sheriff before he signed off on it figuring that I really am not a mobster, and a Serbu Super Shorty, ($5 "Any other weapon" stamp.)  Still had to see the sheriff again, but this time he signed off because he thought it was an interesting shotgun.  Both tax stamps took about 5 months to process each.
 
2013-03-29 07:02:26 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.

So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?


Ultimately, yes.
 
2013-03-29 07:03:17 PM  

whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.


HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.


You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.

whidbey: If someone wants to contest it in court, they're welcome to. I don't have the kind of disdain for doctors or apparently the whole mental health care system as you do.


What the hell?  Where have I announced any disdain for doctors or the mental health system?  Do you get off on being flat out dishonest or lying?  Does it hurt you not to be the smartest person in the room?  Please quote me....

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.
 
2013-03-29 07:04:51 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."


I think we are starting to respond to different portions of each others posts.  The system I was referring to was the mentally ill, being determined to be mentally ill and having their right to access the 2A infringed.  And was asking that any legislation enacted to make this come to pass be thought through and reasonable with checks and balances in place.


Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?


The first one has the most impact, though I still dont agree that the data on which firearms I own is necessary.  My criminal history should be all thats necessary to determine whether I am legally allowed to own a firearm.  What I own isnt anyones business.

#2 is a scientific study, who cares, all it will do is stir up the extreme left/right to scream and yell at each other that they are either right/wrong and will go no where.

#3 is to create commercials.  You know, those things you fast forward through on your DVR/TiVO?
 
2013-03-29 07:06:02 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.

I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.

Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.


This is what I read....

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]


Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


If you're on the correct side of the issue, why must you lie about every little thing, Whidbey?
 
2013-03-29 07:07:04 PM  

whidbey: Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.


You call it moving the goalposts...I call it what i said.

When you have no other argument, pounding your fists like a petulant child doesn't make you smart.
 
2013-03-29 07:07:24 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.

So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?

Ultimately, yes.


ultimately? Not sure what you mean there, but it is a more realistic and enforceable pov.
 
2013-03-29 07:09:25 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.

HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.


I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert, I merely believe it to be a good common sense idea.

All you're doing here is showing the thread your skepticism and negative opinions regarding the industry.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.


Regulation via stronger background checks, a national registry and funding a better mental health care program does not equal "curtailing the rights" of anyone.

And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?
 
2013-03-29 07:11:16 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.

You call it moving the goalposts...I call it what i said.

When you have no other argument, pounding your fists like a petulant child doesn't make you smart.


You didn't have an argument in the first place, and all your post served to do was show us how little sympathy you have for tragedies like Sandy Hook. It was a diversionary tactic, and you got called out on it.

I'm just going to assume the point has been dropped for the remainder of this discussion.
 
2013-03-29 07:13:20 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you're on the correct side of the issue, why must you lie about every little thing, Whidbey?


Whidbey is pathetic.  I only argue with him to get him spinning in circles or trying to defend and explain his moronic arguments.  On the surface, it seems as though he wants a good mental health system and for people to be safe with their firearms.  Seems harmless.....

If you go deeper, you find out he actually wants mandatory mental health evaluations for all people, with decisions made by unelected doctors and those who are deemed incompetent can contest it in court.  guilty until proven innocent.  He cant tell you what sort of cooling off period there should be for people who flunk out.

He also thinks that if you sign a form at a country sheriff, that you promise pretty please to use your safe that it will solve gun crime problems.
 
2013-03-29 07:15:00 PM  

o5iiawah: personal attacks, delusional assumptions


Funny stuff there dude
 
2013-03-29 07:17:35 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.

HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.

I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert, I merely believe it to be a good common sense idea.

All you're doing here is showing the thread your skepticism and negative opinions regarding the industry.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Regulation via stronger background checks, a national registry and funding a better mental health care program does not equal "curtailing the rights" of anyone.

And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?


That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.
 
2013-03-29 07:18:30 PM  

Gavenger: whidbey: Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."

I think we are starting to respond to different portions of each others posts.  The system I was referring to was the mentally ill, being determined to be mentally ill and having their right to access the 2A infringed.  And was asking that any legislation enacted to make this come to pass be thought through and reasonable with checks and balances in place.


Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?

The first one has the most impact, though I still dont agree that the data on which firearms I own is necessary.  My criminal history should be all thats necessary to determine whether I am legally allowed to own a firearm.  What I own isnt anyones business.

#2 is a scientific study, who cares, all it will do is stir up the extreme left/right to scream and yell at each other that they are either right/wrong and will go no where.


So you don't believe that allowing peer-reviewed research would be a good idea?

#3 is to create commercials.  You know, those things you fast forward through on your DVR/TiVO?

I don't see anyone in the private sector stepping up. Do you?
 
2013-03-29 07:20:21 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?

That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.


So you're just going to tag all of Obama's legacy with the cynical "President Drone Strike?" As if there weren't a shiatload of other positive accomplishments this administration has produced?

That's a bit disingenuous.
 
2013-03-29 07:21:46 PM  

whidbey: I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert,


Ding Ding Ding.  We have a winner.

So you have some opinions but they arent founded on any basis of reality, experience or practicality - just that they seem like good ideas or the right things to do.  Meanwhile adults who know about firearms, law enforcement or who have experience in dealing with such things are having a discussion which involves facts, results, data...  Best to leave us alone and go read Mother Jones or something....

whidbey: You didn't have an argument in the first place, and all your post served to do was show us how little sympathy you have for tragedies like Sandy Hook. It was a diversionary tactic, and you got called out on it.


I do have sympathy for it.  I also have sympathy for the 400ish people that are killed in Chicago each year.  I want to bring both into the discussion.  Consider yourself called out on ignoring an ongoing tragedy.

My argument from the beginning is to change the national conversation on firearms that much like sex and drugs, "Just say no' doesn't work.  We need to reform drug laws to free up prisons and curtail drug violence and we need to lock up people who attempt to acquire a firearm who have no legal right to do so.

I can demonstrate how each will help the situation.  You cant.  Your answer is "I dont know - Im not an expert"
No shiat sherlock.
 
2013-03-29 07:21:49 PM  

vpb: i wonder what exactly is going on in someone's head to make them so obsessed with a weapons (or sporting goods if you listen to some gun nuts).

I remember when three wheel ATVs were banned.  there were people who were upset, but no one was threatening to start killing people.


What if your internet access was taken away due to a few isolated instances of mass shootings? Would you be mad?
 
2013-03-29 07:23:27 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: personal attacks, delusional assumptions

Funny stuff there dude


The laughter is all over here.....
 
2013-03-29 07:24:47 PM  
whidbey:
"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.


Yeah, actually. Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours. There isn't a safe you can open that can't be broken into.
 
2013-03-29 07:28:52 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?

That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.

So you're just going to tag all of Obama's legacy with the cynical "President Drone Strike?" As if there weren't a shiatload of other positive accomplishments this administration has produced?

That's a bit disingenuous.


Every POTUS has their Albatrosses, drone murders are one of Obamas. It doesn't undue his accomplishments, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think it doesn't hurt him. It will haunt his legacy, the Dems, and almost certainly this country.

accidental (really) threadjack over.
 
2013-03-29 07:30:01 PM  

BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.


Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?
 
2013-03-29 07:37:24 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.

Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?


It was his, I'm pretty sure. Then again, he killed her while she was sleeping, so unless every knife, rock and stick was in the safe too.....
 
2013-03-29 07:41:21 PM  

whidbey: So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?

Ultimately, yes.


Firearm liability is a tricky subject, here is an article on it.

A portion:
The second largest subset of gun deaths and injuries are deliberately inflicted on another person; along with suicide, this accounts for all but a handful of annual gun deaths.   In the case of homicide/assault with a deadly weapon, however, we're now talking about a lot of shooters who cannot legally own their guns, either because they are too young, because they are felons, or because they live in a city which has historically made it very difficult to own handguns.  Those people are not going to acquire liability insurance just because you pass a law saying they have to, and given that they are also probably not going to register their guns, there's no way to force them to do so.  Moreover, insurance usually excludes criminal acts committed by the policyholder, because of course, there's a huge adverse selection problem.

Which leaves accidents.  Accidental death and injury rate from guns is fairly low, compared to both other gun incidents, and other categories of accident: 14,000 injuries and 600 deaths in 2011.  This sounds like a lot, but in a population of 300 million, a lot of people die each year from almost anything: dozens of kids a year drown in buckets. The rate of accidental firearm death or injury is much lower than something like drowning, much less a really common cause like motor vehicle accidents or medical mistakes.  And the damage is already often covered by other forms of insurance.

There would be some benefit to requiring insurance, but overall, we're talking about helping a pretty small number of people compared to the status quo.  There might be some kind of justice argument--shift the cost to gun owners rather than your and my health and homeowner's insurance--but we're talking about pennies a year.  It might be symbolically meaningful, but probably not financially.
 
2013-03-29 07:44:14 PM  

BayouOtter: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.

Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?

It was his, I'm pretty sure.\


You're pretty wrong.

BayouOtter: knife, rock and stick


Keep up the good work.
 
2013-03-29 07:54:36 PM  
Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
Keep up the good work.

Pointing out how obviously easy it is for a homicidal maniac to kill a woman in her bed while she slumbers?

Just saying what you refuse to understand.
 
2013-03-29 08:20:56 PM  

NightOwl2255: Amos Quito: Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA

You mean truths like we have a hell of a lot of people killed with firearms each year?

And I noticed they ignored the other guns or type not stated category in their comparisons. Just saying.


The point is that AR-15s are NOT the boogey-man you've been told they are. Once again, people don't want laws passed based on lies, omissions and misinformation. More people were beat to death than killed by rifles, but obviously a single type of rifle is the cause of ALL evil, that kind of bullshiat.
 
2013-03-29 08:23:07 PM  

Mikey1969: but obviously a single type of rifle is the cause of ALL evil


Who is saying that?
 
2013-03-29 08:26:35 PM  

o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.


whidbey: It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.

Whats being discussed is how can we limit the cosmetic features of rifles which are responsible for 1% of gun crime in the USA.
Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons
Not how do we address gang and drug related gun crime
Not how do we address handgun crime in inner cities - which accounts for 70% of all gun crime.

We are discussing how do we ban cosmetic features. Of rifles. Which account for less than 1% of gun crime.  Say it a few times and let it sink in.

Mikey1969: Which "full auto weapons" are you talking about?

There's apparently a bunch of $25,000+ select-fire AK's and Thompsons that are showing up everywhere in street crimes.


That's ok, someone asked earlier why, if the Mini-14 and the AR-15 were so similar, wasn't the Mini-14 used around the world by military forces. I pointed out that NEITHER gun was a military gun, and was greeted with crickets for my trouble.
 
2013-03-29 08:28:32 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert,

Ding Ding Ding.  We have a winner.

So you have some opinions but they arent founded on any basis of reality, experience or practicality - just that they seem like good ideas or the right things to do.  Meanwhile adults who know about firearms, law enforcement or who have experience in dealing with such things are having a discussion which involves facts, results, data...  Best to leave us alone and go read Mother Jones or something....

whidbey: You didn't have an argument in the first place, and all your post served to do was show us how little sympathy you have for tragedies like Sandy Hook. It was a diversionary tactic, and you got called out on it.

I do have sympathy for it.  I also have sympathy for the 400ish people that are killed in Chicago each year.  I want to bring both into the discussion.  Consider yourself called out on ignoring an ongoing tragedy.

My argument from the beginning is to change the national conversation on firearms that much like sex and drugs, "Just say no' doesn't work.  We need to reform drug laws to free up prisons and curtail drug violence and we need to lock up people who attempt to acquire a firearm who have no legal right to do so.

I can demonstrate how each will help the situation.  You cant.  Your answer is "I dont know - Im not an expert"
No shiat sherlock.


Actually, no. My suggestion still trumps your total lack of commitment to the idea. You can't bully me by stating I come up with some sort of detailed plan while we're merely discussing general ideas. I'll just assume that you have a blatant mistrust for "unelected doctors" (lol how Palinesque) or whatever paranoid sentiment you have regarding health care professionals. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Better luck next time.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report