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  
•       •       •

3829 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year 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 08:30:04 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?

That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?

Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.

Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.


He's going to argue in circles, and eventually you'll end up where you started with him claiming that he never said 'X', and you will have wasted a whole day, I'd quit now.
 
2013-03-29 08:34:00 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.


Actually I did, I just didn't reference your post.

Sorry about that.
 
2013-03-29 08:36:41 PM  

BayouOtter: BayouOtter: knife, rock and stick

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.


Stick-grabber.
 
2013-03-29 08:37:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: but obviously a single type of rifle is the cause of ALL evil

Who is saying that?


Every single mother-farker that starts the whole AR-15 aspect of the debate, and you know it. Just like you know that plenty of anti-gun people are calling for outright bans, yet you keep dropping the same line about that subject. "Who is calling for a ban on guns?" It's bullshiat, you know it is, and it makes me not even want to respond because I know that you know exactly WHO is saying it. You'll even pull this on a full Fark page that has 10 different people saying that, while commenting on a story about how someone wants a gun ban.

If you want to be taken seriously, quit trying this deflection bullshiat, you know it's being said. If you're serious about actual discussons on this, find a new tactic.
 
2013-03-29 08:39:43 PM  

whidbey: 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.


So you only care about people being shot when it's politically beneficial to you. More and more is being evealed about you. I guess it's actually a good thing that people keep responding to you.
 
2013-03-29 08:43:31 PM  

Mikey1969: a story about how someone wants a gun ban.


wat.
 
2013-03-29 08:47:27 PM  
Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

So, if you take a friend shooting, hand them your firearm without first conducting a Federal background check, you are committing a felony. And when that friend hands your own firearm back to you, without getting a background check, he would be committing a felony by handing you your own firearm. Would I be committing a felony by receiving my own firearm? Honestly, I'm not sure.
 
2013-03-29 08:50:12 PM  

whidbey: 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.


You call it mistrust - I would simply add that I cant find any legal basis for bestowing on doctors or health panels the sort of authority you are requesting they be given.  Oh, and not too long ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder.  You call it Paranoia - I call it understanding history.

Trust me. You arent as bright as you think you are.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?


Not gonna touch that one, are you Whidbey?  Your buddy called me out, you moved the goalposts and called me out. I affirmed my position. you said I moved the goalposts, someone else called you out.  You go silent.

Good lord, you are pathetic.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:33 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.


"Well, that's just crazy."

media.salon.com
 
2013-03-29 08:52:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: a story about how someone wants a gun ban.

wat.


I was speaking on the gun debate in general terms, sorry that I didn't clarify. Here it is: I will see the same bullshiat "question" presented even when the story being discussed is one where someone is specifically calling for some kind of gun ban, and multiple people on the same page have called for the same thing. It's an "I have no argument" tactic meant to produce a "gotcha" moment when you can't remember a specific name or names, to try and make it look like nobody is making that claim. I didn't mean that this specific story was one, but was addressing a tactic that is getting really tiresome.
 
2013-03-29 08:57:06 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

So, if you take a friend shooting, hand them your firearm without first conducting a Federal background check, you are committing a felony. And when that friend hands your own firearm back to you, without getting a background check, he would be committing a felony by handing you your own firearm. Would I be committing a felony by receiving my own firearm? Honestly, I'm not sure.


And therein lies the farking bullshiat. When friends go shooting, they lend guns to each other, compare one with another, and switch back. And this is exactly what I mean when I say that what gun owners truly fear are clueless people crafting these laws, people who know nothing about guns at all, yet consider themselves well-versed enough to write farking LAWS about them. If it really is written so poorly that you can't even be handed back your own gun, there are a million issues. What about when I go to the shop and m interested in buying a gun, and ask to look at some of the different models, would I need to do a background check there, and then do another just to hand the damn thing back? And people don't understand why we have an issue with stuff like this? Oh, that's right, they think that by owning guns, we immediately join the "Let's Slaughter Children" Club. I mean, I'd join, but the dues are just too much right now.
 
2013-03-29 08:57:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

"Well, that's just crazy."

[media.salon.com image 750x500]


www.supermotors.net
 
2013-03-29 09:00:28 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

"Well, that's just crazy."

[media.salon.com image 750x500]


Nice, regardless off the message, it should be mandatory that that gets posted at least once on every page of comments here.... :-)
 
2013-03-29 09:03:44 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

"Well, that's just crazy."

[media.salon.com image 750x500]

[missingthepoint.jpg]


"Well, actually..."

www.independentsentinel.com
 
2013-03-29 09:05:00 PM  

Mikey1969: Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

So, if you take a friend shooting, hand them your firearm without first conducting a Federal background check, you are committing a felony. And when that friend hands your own firearm back to you, without getting a background check, he would be committing a felony by handing you your own firearm. Would I be committing a felony by receiving my own firearm? Honestly, I'm not sure.

And therein lies the farking bullshiat. When friends go shooting, they lend guns to each other, compare one with another, and switch back. And this is exactly what I mean when I say that what gun owners truly fear are clueless people crafting these laws, people who know nothing about guns at all, yet consider themselves well-versed enough to write farking LAWS about them. If it really is written so poorly that you can't even be handed back your own gun, there are a million issues. What about when I go to the shop and m interested in buying a gun, and ask to look at some of the different models, would I need to do a background check there, and then do another just to hand the damn thing back? And people don't understand why we have an issue with stuff like this? Oh, that's right, they think that by owning guns, we immediately join the "Let's Slaughter Children" Club. I mean, I'd join, but the dues are just too much right now.


The Colorado universal background check bill was written in a similar way. To their credit, I guess, the Dems decided to grant us a 72 hour window of "temporary transfer rights". So, in Colorado anyway, we can still take our friends and family shooting without going to prison.  Then again, we aren't idiots about firearms like most New Yawkers.
 
2013-03-29 09:12:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Finally finished reading Schumer's background check bill. It is very similar to the same bill Colorado tried to pass. It would be illegal to 'borrow' or 'pass' a firearm to a friend or whoever at the range. Seriously. Schumer's bill would make it a felony to take someone shooting if you didn't perform a background check on your family and friends beforehand. Not kidding.

"Well, that's just crazy."

[media.salon.com image 750x500]

[missingthepoint.jpg]

"Well, actually..."

[www.independentsentinel.com image 420x316]


What's your point, troll? My cousin left half a leg in Iraq, he's had some tough times since. I would trust him with anything and everything I own, certainly possession of one of my firearms. Not necessary, of course. Troll yourself somewhere else, fool.

Want to talk about someone who has ptsd and shouldn't be allowed around firearms....
www.moonbattery.com
 
2013-03-29 09:22:05 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: The Colorado universal background check bill was written in a similar way. To their credit, I guess, the Dems decided to grant us a 72 hour window of "temporary transfer rights". So, in Colorado anyway, we can still take our friends and family shooting without going to prison.  Then again, we aren't idiots about firearms like most New Yawkers.


I swear, every time these people get elected(Or re-elected), there should be a required 6-month training period where they actually lear an about HOW to write laws, HOW to anticipate repercussions of these laws, and HOW to write laws that don't start out immediately as unconstitutional piles of crap. I like the idea of your average Joe being able to get elected to any position in the land, but this crap has to stop. These 'destined to fail before they can even succeed' laws need to stop getting made.
 
2013-03-29 09:26:34 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I would trust him with anything and everything I own, certainly possession of one of my firearms.


Yeah, but you're a LOT smarter than Kyle.

Routh had been transported to a mental hospital - twice - in recent months. He was first taken to a mental hospital in September 2012 after he threatened to kill his family and himself.
 
2013-03-29 09:27:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: I would trust him with anything and everything I own, certainly possession of one of my firearms.

Yeah, but you're a LOT smarter than Kyle.

Routh had been transported to a mental hospital - twice - in recent months. He was first taken to a mental hospital in September 2012 after he threatened to kill his family and himself.


Link
 
2013-03-29 09:34:37 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.


Because we can.
Why do you need that collection of computer games? You can only play one at a time?
 
2013-03-29 09:35:34 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: I would trust him with anything and everything I own, certainly possession of one of my firearms.

Yeah, but you're a LOT smarter than Kyle.

Routh had been transported to a mental hospital - twice - in recent months. He was first taken to a mental hospital in September 2012 after he threatened to kill his family and himself.


Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments. I understand this is a no-prisoners issue in politics, so....ah... nevermind. Keep it up. I think your side should push this argument against Vet rights as much as possible. Go for it, America is counting on you. Don't let us down, keyboard hero!
 
2013-03-29 09:37:22 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.


Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.
 
2013-03-29 09:48:55 PM  

Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

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


Yes, I do, and yes, they are.

It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation on violence in society (just look at Fark) with those yahoos around.  Same goes for the rabid anti-gun nutters.  One side wants no restrictions on anything, ever, because any restriction is just the thin edge of the wedge.  The other side wants a total ban on everything, because nobody will ever be killed in a mass murder once all those scary bangsticks are smelted down for decorative fences.

The actual causes of violence, and the motives behind mass murders?  Fuhgeddaboudit.  Human motives and the solutions for them are just too damn hard.  Plus, who gets to decide who is crazy?  Amirite?

Ugh.
 
2013-03-29 09:49:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.


You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.
 
2013-03-29 09:52:02 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.

You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.


Not a prohibitionist.
Who said anything about vets?
 
2013-03-29 09:57:04 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.

You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.

Not a prohibitionist.
Who said anything about vets?


really? And you did by posting about Kyle. A clear insinuation about vets and firearms.
 
2013-03-29 10:10:08 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.

You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.

Not a prohibitionist.
Who said anything about vets?

really? And you did by posting about Kyle. A clear insinuation about vets and firearms.


In reply to a comment about gun ranges and background checks. You seriously don't see a connection?

The veteran thing is all you.
 
2013-03-29 10:15:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.

You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.

Not a prohibitionist.
Who said anything about vets?

really? And you did by posting about Kyle. A clear insinuation about vets and firearms.

In reply to a comment about gun ranges and background checks. You seriously don't see a connection?

The veteran thing is all you.


oh, I didn't take it that way at all, obviously. So, you are pushing background checks at gun ranges?
 
2013-03-29 10:16:39 PM  
We told them that banning "Assault Weapons" would have a meaningful effect on gun violence in the US

And they swallowed it!

media.salon.com

Sandy Hook, line and sinker!
 
2013-03-29 10:21:59 PM  

Amos Quito: We told them that banning "Assault Weapons" would have a meaningful effect on gun violence in the US

And they swallowed it!

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

Sandy Hook, line and sinker!


damn, dude.
0.tqn.com
 
2013-03-29 10:33:59 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Perhaps, but trying to make a political point off Kyle's death is not going to win you many political arguments.

Yeah, gun-fanciers hate hearing about dead people.

You should run for political office. Seriously, run on a platform that every vet is damaged and cannot be trusted. It is sure to be a winning platform in 2014. I can hear the chants of your breathless followers now...

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate!
Well, not your service you farking whacko!

//there is no bottom to how low a prohibitionist will go.

Not a prohibitionist.
Who said anything about vets?

really? And you did by posting about Kyle. A clear insinuation about vets and firearms.

In reply to a comment about gun ranges and background checks. You seriously don't see a connection?

The veteran thing is all you.

oh, I didn't take it that way at all, obviously. So, you are pushing background checks at gun ranges?


What good would that do?

l3.yimg.comcbsdallas.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-29 10:57:15 PM  

Curious: diane who? now as a Democrat i don't claim her either but she does caucus with them.


All caucus means anymore is that you get your cookie and juice before nap time.

See the tea party caucus for a good example of that
 
2013-03-29 11:13:48 PM  

Gavenger: I could be completely misreading what is being said, but im not sure anyone is against making the NCIS system better and easier to use for more people.  Its a pretty simple concept, if you have committed a qualifying crime and been convicted...you make the list (some misdemeanors disqualify you for gun ownership, not just felonies).  If your on the list, you do not get to purchase a firearm from a dealer.  I dont think anyone is against this.  *I live in California so I already have to visit an FFL to do private party transfers, and aside from being only the same pain in the ass as buying a new firearm, it does promote the firearms retailers and keeps them in business for when I want to buy ammo, reloading supplies or cleaning supplies.*


And Obama's appointed ATF director will make it even more of a punitive pain in the ass to obtain or renew an FFL.

Reducing the number of FFL holders will increase the price and reduce the rate at which guns are purchased by the lawful public.

By design. The cowardly way to get what you want.
 
2013-03-29 11:36:33 PM  

USP .45: Gavenger: I could be completely misreading what is being said, but im not sure anyone is against making the NCIS system better and easier to use for more people.  Its a pretty simple concept, if you have committed a qualifying crime and been convicted...you make the list (some misdemeanors disqualify you for gun ownership, not just felonies).  If your on the list, you do not get to purchase a firearm from a dealer.  I dont think anyone is against this.  *I live in California so I already have to visit an FFL to do private party transfers, and aside from being only the same pain in the ass as buying a new firearm, it does promote the firearms retailers and keeps them in business for when I want to buy ammo, reloading supplies or cleaning supplies.*

And Obama's appointed ATF director will make it even more of a punitive pain in the ass to obtain or renew an FFL.

Reducing the number of FFL holders will increase the price and reduce the rate at which guns are purchased by the lawful public.

By design. The cowardly way to get what you want.


California is already way ahead of that guy on that front. The CA DOJ is already conducting witchhunts against FFL holders. During the inspections they are counting against the FFL holder typographical errors on the paperwork. If the document asks you to write a "yes" or "no" and you write "y" or "n", that's a finding against the dealer. You can only get a few findings before you go on probation or straight up lose your license. There are 11 yes or no questions and chances are the customer is consistant in using the same form of y or n for an entire document. Instead of counting the whole document as one finding...each instance of incorrect answer is a finding. One document could cost an FFL holder his license. And they are tenacious about this right now.
 
2013-03-29 11:48:36 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Amos Quito: We told them that banning "Assault Weapons" would have a meaningful effect on gun violence in the US

And they swallowed it!

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

Sandy Hook, line and sinker!

damn, dude.
[0.tqn.com image 500x328]



LOL!

You may be the only Farker who is pretty sure I'm not Hitler.

/:-(
 
2013-03-30 12:08:49 AM  

Mikey1969: Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.

He's going to argue in circles, and eventually you'll end up where you started with him claiming that he never said 'X', and you will have wasted a whole day, I'd quit now.


Why are you agreeing with a troll that spewed some bullshiat about abortion a few posts ago? Is that the only company you're able to bond with in this thread?

Yeah, I'm really calling your credibility into question here.
 
2013-03-30 12:10:46 AM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: 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.

You call it mistrust - I would simply add that I cant find any legal basis for bestowing on doctors or health panels the sort of authority you are requesting they be given.  Oh, and not too long ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder.  You call it Paranoia - I call it understanding history.

Trust me. You arent as bright as you think you are.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Not gonna touch that one, are you Whidbey?  Your buddy called me out, you moved the goalposts and called me out. I affirmed my position. you said I moved the goalposts, someone else called you out.  You go silent.

Good lord, you are pathetic.


No I'm not going to touch that one. You, like Mikey have found that the only posters that agree with you are known trolls.

I swear I've given both of you way too many chances.
 
2013-03-30 12:40:03 AM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.

He's going to argue in circles, and eventually you'll end up where you started with him claiming that he never said 'X', and you will have wasted a whole day, I'd quit now.

Why are you agreeing with a troll that spewed some bullshiat about abortion a few posts ago? Is that the only company you're able to bond with in this thread?

Yeah, I'm really calling your credibility into question here.


To begin with, I have no idea what he posted upthread, just as big have no idea if you even know how to use the word "troll" correctly. I'm betting that you just apply it to anyone you disagree with.

Furthermore, I quit worrying about what you thought of me roughly a week before I even knew you existed.

Carry on...
 
2013-03-30 01:04:09 AM  
It's the end of the Republic.  It's time to stock up on ammo and canned goods and head for the hills.  All you American Patriots need to go off-grid before it's too late.  Don't forget your teabags!
 
2013-03-30 01:09:13 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.

Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?


through wall five miles away?  really?
 
2013-03-30 01:13:50 AM  

ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]


Shakespeare is annonymous?
 
2013-03-30 02:24:29 AM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: 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.

You call it mistrust - I would simply add that I cant find any legal basis for bestowing on doctors or health panels the sort of authority you are requesting they be given.  Oh, and not too long ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder.  You call it Paranoia - I call it understanding history.

Trust me. You arent as bright as you think you are.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Not gonna touch that one, are you Whidbey?  Your buddy called me out, you moved the goalposts and called me out. I affirmed my position. you said I moved the goalposts, someone else called you out.  You go silent.

Good lord, you are pathetic.

No I'm not going to touch that one. You, like Mikey have found that the only posters that agree with you are known trolls.

I swear I've given both of you way too many chances.


I know you probably think you've given a good account of yourself in this thread, but you have not. It's very enlightening to follow entire thread dominated largely by one person.
 
2013-03-30 05:17:51 AM  

Amos Quito: Ow! That was my feelings!: Amos Quito: We told them that banning "Assault Weapons" would have a meaningful effect on gun violence in the US

And they swallowed it!

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

Sandy Hook, line and sinker!

damn, dude.
[0.tqn.com image 500x328]


LOL!

You may be the only Farker who is pretty sure I'm not Hitler.

/:-(


Just for the record, you are now favorited as "Turned a national tragedy into a pun. Also, not Hitler."
 
2013-03-30 03:52:48 PM  

whidbey: You, like Mikey have found that the only posters that agree with you are known trolls.


The fark definition of troll is really nothing more than someone who has the audacity to disagree with members of the fark hive mind circle jerk.

Even if I was a troll, does that save you from the fact that you were caught deliberately lying?
 
2013-03-30 06:09:57 PM  

RINO: Amos Quito: Ow! That was my feelings!: Amos Quito: We told them that banning "Assault Weapons" would have a meaningful effect on gun violence in the US

And they swallowed it!

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

Sandy Hook, line and sinker!

damn, dude.
[0.tqn.com image 500x328]


LOL!

You may be the only Farker who is pretty sure I'm not Hitler.

/:-(

Just for the record, you are now favorited as "Turned a national tragedy into a pun. Also, not Hitler."



Thanks!

I guess?
 
2013-03-30 09:07:19 PM  
Seriously these gun nuts are out of control...How dare someone want to exercise their rights like that. It's disgusting.  Don't these people know that the government has their best interest at heart? People who own guns should all be rounded up and put in FEMA camps. I hope Obama signs an executive order...
 
2013-03-31 11:41:50 AM  

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.


Why do people need a new cell phone every one or two years? Why do people need more than one car? Why people need more than one pair of dress shoes? I have only one of each of these and if these phone, car, and shoe freaks really examined the impetus behind their hobbies, they might find they have a problem.
Your argument is basically "I am happy with only one computer, so therefore you don't need to have more than one gun."

I own many different types of guns because I like variety. A shotgun isn't a handgun isn't a rifle. A semi auto benelli shotgun isn't the same as a 1930 pump action, and a 7.62x51mm FAL isn't the same as a Finnish M39 bolt action rifle that saw action during WWII. But at the end of the day, because fark you, that's why.

And check this out:http://thehill.com/video/senate/288141-panel-approves-assault-we apons- ban-amid-cruz-feinstein-fireworks

Some republicans were actually for moving the ban forward - provided Feinstein was willing to provide exemptions for three groups:
- victims of domestic violence
- citizens living on the border with mexico
- veterans

Feinsteins group refused.
 
2013-03-31 11:49:51 AM  

Giltric: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.

Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?


Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?


The 2A final check in our system of checks & balances wasn't meant to be an easy or painless one. It was installed fully understanding that if it were ever to be used it would be costly and not to be undertaken lightly at all.
That said, I can't believe that people still say stuff like this after seeing the Arab spring revolts. All those dictators thought exactly the same thing - who would dare revolt if we have such overwhelmingly superior force? And yet, if you stomp on people enough, they will do anything to fight back...

To be clear, I don't ever want to see that kind of thing happening here. I am very glad that we have a democratic-ish system with lots of non violent checks & balances. But that doesn't mean we should pull our fangs off because we discovered animal husbandry.
 
2013-03-31 04:40:58 PM  

whidbey: No I'm not going to touch that one. You, like Mikey have found that the only posters that agree with you are known trolls.


It really is okay to admit that you are wrong.
 
2013-03-31 07:31:31 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.


People don't need more than a couple of cars at most either. Some need a truck, a suv/family mobile and maybe a business mobile.  Most of us get by with only one car or in some larger cities none. I am one of those as I only own a single car.  Doesn't give me the right to insist everyone only owns one car.
 
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 »
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