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 33
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3828 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-29 01:34:14 PM
3 votes:

PDid: http://www.guns.com/2013/03/16/guns-com-talks-gun-control-and-politic s -with-ucla-professor-mark-kleiman-video/

I agree with Kleiman.


"If you're Wayne LaPierre and you want to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun-owners, you make a deal that sacrifices the non-law-abiding: universal background checks, better record-keeping and data analysis, stronger gun-tracing, tough penalties for scofflaw gun dealers and straw purchasers who knowingly arm criminals. But if you're Wayne LaPierre and your job is making sure the dollars keep flowing from customers to your gun-manufacturer sponsors and from those sponsors to the NRA's bank account (and your own), then you mount a national scare campaign to stimulate gun sales. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which Wayne LaPierre is actually running the NRA. "

Indeed.
2013-03-29 12:28:52 PM
2 votes:

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.


There are an estimated 200,000,000 guns in the US. Some gun manufacturer profited from the original sale of each and every one of those guns. a portion of those guns, and a portion of the overall demand for those guns is from criminals. If not for the demand from criminals, there would be fewer gun sales. Fewer gun sales mean lower profits for the gun manufacturers.

Let's take two examples.

1.  Your stolen gun example: One of your guns is stolen. Do you do without that weapon or do you buy a new one? Probably you replace it with a new one. The gun manufacturer profits.
2. The more important example, straw purchases. A convicted felon wants a gun. He/she pays someone without a record to purchase the gun for them. The gun manufacturer profits.

Regulations which would effectively limit straw purchases are directly detrimental to gun manufacturers since they would limit demand and sales of their product. They, and their representatives in the NRA, will oppose any regulation which threatens to do so.
2013-03-29 11:41:25 AM
2 votes:

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


So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.
2013-03-29 11:39:27 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


Those bills then garner how much support? None? I'd say that's the definition of "marginalized".
2013-03-29 11:18:24 AM
2 votes:
You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.
2013-03-29 11:15:35 AM
2 votes:

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.


Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?
2013-03-29 07:06:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:14 PM
1 votes:

Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.


If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.
2013-03-29 04:03:53 PM
1 votes:
It's hilarious that the dems will ultimately lose several seats over this gun control fiasco and have accomplished virtually nothing in the process. Way to give a 2nd wind to your dying political adversary dems. Even Clinton warned you this was a bad idea.
2013-03-29 03:59:39 PM
1 votes:

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.


If you were a truly hardcore gamer you'd know why not all guns are the same. Do you snipe with a shotgun in battlefield?
2013-03-29 02:01:50 PM
1 votes:
libertyendanger.files.wordpress.com
2013-03-29 01:42:31 PM
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...
2013-03-29 01:32:50 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.
2013-03-29 01:29:25 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Yeah, but he was a trained shooter.

static2.businessinsider.com
2013-03-29 12:54:50 PM
1 votes:
Too many of you trust politicians too much.
2013-03-29 12:37:43 PM
1 votes:
Heypete

First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload. What the NRA is scared of (and in a lot of cases justly so) is that once they take that then they take 10 round Mags, then 6 and so on. Domino principle.
2013-03-29 11:58:51 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

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

Why?

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

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

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

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


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


Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.
2013-03-29 11:47:05 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


That's never going to happen. Ever. We have more guns than people in this country. You think that's in danger of going away? I personally think our country would be much better overall with no guns, but I know that's realistically (and Constitutionally) not possible. There have been no actual attempts to make that happen. People can talk about it all the time, but where's the legislation? There are CONSTANT legislative attempts to ban abortion all over the country, at the state and federal level. It's not an apt comparison.
2013-03-29 11:46:48 AM
1 votes:

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

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

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.

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


Does that include the brown ones?

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

No. I don't honestly delight in the deaths of anyone --be it over a lie or not. It's the death of honesty and honest debate that pisses me off the most.
2013-03-29 11:40:38 AM
1 votes:

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


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

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.
2013-03-29 11:39:37 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This.


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

The gun control lobby doesn't stand a chance against a multi-billion dollar industry.  And they never will.
2013-03-29 11:39:14 AM
1 votes:

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


Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.
2013-03-29 11:35:10 AM
1 votes:

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


I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.
2013-03-29 11:34:18 AM
1 votes:
Car_Ramrod:

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

Why?


Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?
2013-03-29 11:31:58 AM
1 votes:
Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

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

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

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

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

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.
2013-03-29 11:29:36 AM
1 votes:
Car_Ramrod: 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?

I have quite a collection, and I think guns should be treated exactly like automobiles.  Users licensed, guns registered, and insured against accidental harm or theft.

That would not violate the Second Amendment in any way.
2013-03-29 11:22:13 AM
1 votes:

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


I know right. It's like people who have different sized wrenches. Whats up with that? Can't get the job done with a 3/8th? You shouldn't be putting stuff together.
2013-03-29 11:22:04 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-03-29 11:18:56 AM
1 votes:
Where did the money for this come from?

I thought we were under strict across the board sequestor.
2013-03-29 11:17:44 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-03-29 11:12:11 AM
1 votes:

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


...which the NRA wing of the Republican party is trying to remove from the books.  Colorado Republicans don't think that a law-abiding domestic abuser should be stripped of his 2nd amendment God-given right to own a gun, nor do Louisiana justices think that a law-abiding convicted felon be unduly burdened with the confiscation of their firearms (though, to be fair, that would mean that you can get your guns taken away for pot possession, but still...)
2013-03-29 11:04:10 AM
1 votes:

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.


To wit

mediamatters.org


Give us a farking break.
2013-03-29 10:20:30 AM
1 votes:
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!
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report