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.

(NBC News)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

948 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 12:35:56 PM

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"


The NRA doesn't help foster that debate by insisting that absolutely no gun control legislation is Constitutional and fighting tooth and nail against any proposal, as a default.

The failure to establish a dialog is hardly unidirectional.
 
2013-04-03 12:36:20 PM

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


You mean the one that expired years ago, and all attempts to bring it back have stalled in committee? That ban?

For f*ck's sake, at least find another boogeyman than Dianne Feinstein.

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"

I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun.  It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible.


Oh, so then you wouldn't oppose an effort to make sure what some gun sellers do in your state becomes a uniform standard in all states for all sellers, then, right?

Saiga410: cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.

Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?

It all depends upon how it is set up.  To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry... none starter.  And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

On it's face I wouldnt mind seeing universal but I want some safeguards.


Qualify "safeguards."
 
2013-04-03 12:36:29 PM
And this is after some dust has settled. We're due another massacre pretty soon, check the numbers again after that.
 
2013-04-03 12:37:09 PM

Saiga410: I feel the expanded background support is a reverse of ACA support.  Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.


Yeah, you could definitely stack the deck on background checks.  Which of course is why if the NRA was intelligent they'd show support for the concept and thus ensure they were one of the people at the table when the rules were drafted.  At this point I feel it has to happen, we've had too many crazy farkers with guns shoot stuff up recently.  Some kind of background check/mental health check is going to come down the pipe from this Congress or the next one.  Sadly the NRA is still biatching about arming the entire staff of the school and adopting a position that ensures they'll be frozen out of such talks.  They should be at the table arguing that if the gun owners have gone through the burden of extra checks, they've proved their responsibility and deserve extra perks.
 
2013-04-03 12:38:02 PM

Bf+: Clearly, the only responsible thing to do is to make 60-round clips mandatory for the criminally insane.
/NRA


The excessive weight would throw off their aim and giant mags like that DO tend to be jammy pieces of crap.

You may be on to something....
 
2013-04-03 12:38:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.


What paranoia?

California is already doing it.
 
2013-04-03 12:38:46 PM

jaybeezey: I think most of us (gun owners) wouldn't have a problem with having access to a background check system for private gunsales. The use of the system would be passed on in the price of the gun.

The only down side to that is the possibility of gaining some cort of access or insight into someone's past by whether or not they are able to purchase a gun and whther the system could be abused for other reasons.

example: Employer runs a standard background screen on someone looking for criminal records and it comes back clean. He then runs a gun purchase background that denies the purchase. he might not know why, but it would indicate something troubling in the applicant's past and he doesn't get the job.


That's very hypothetical and only makes people wonder how an employer would have access to such a database in the first place.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:12 PM

Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.


I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:31 PM

Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.

"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.

So you got nothing?


No, I "got nothing" about why all Democrats and Gun Control advocates use a term you dislike, and how that means they all must believe that every single purchase at a Gun Show goes without any checks. I "got nothing" to respond to your fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:31 PM
And 60% of voting Californians were not okay with gay marriage.

Big deal.
 
2013-04-03 12:41:43 PM

HAMMERTOE: And 60% of voting Californians were not okay with gay marriage.

Big deal.


Which is now going to be constitutionally correct per SCOTUS.

What is your argument again?
 
2013-04-03 12:42:05 PM

justtray: An expanded background check could have never found that she had a mentally unstable son that she tried to commit. Good point.

I love these arguments based on the fiction that no gun laws could ever stop anything. Except that they do, everywhere else in the world, and even within the US based on gun ownership, statistically speaking. But clearly they couldn't work, because when I limit the scope of the scenario, and such as, reasons.


I think you missed where I was going. All I was suggesting is this smells a lot like the whole TSA debacle ,where we could have secured cockpit doors and problem of hijacking greatly reduced (bomb threat still in place)

ps there is nothing in the background check that suggests if you have a mentally unstable family member you could be denied the right to purchase.
 
2013-04-03 12:45:26 PM

sammyk: Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.

I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.


The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.  So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.  Unless I was sloppy and kept proof of the transaction the cops can find.  Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.
 
2013-04-03 12:46:36 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.


Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.
 
2013-04-03 12:46:47 PM

doglover: Rapmaster2000: It was in Red Dawn!

It wasn't actually, but you wouldn't know that because the idea of a moderate liberal is alien to you.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Here's your video evidence Mr. "Moderate" liberal.  John Milius knew all about what was coming when he wrote Red Dawn.  He wouldn't be fooled by "Moderate" liberals.

Neither will I.  Ever vigilant I will defend the perimeter of freedom from those who wish to penetrate its defenses and I will dispatch all enemies of that freedom with extreme prejudice!
 
2013-04-03 12:47:10 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.

What paranoia?

California is already doing it.


I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:24 PM

justtray: It's always a good deflection on an arugment to say it hurt your feelings, therefore invalid. I pointed out why your comment, and therefore you by association are stupid. Your response was "since that made me butthurt I'm going to ignore it."


The weapons ban, as it was implemented here, and as it is being championed again, does not keep the weapons most often used in crime out of the hands of criminals.  It also does not resemble weapons bans in other countries, therefor your analogy is disingenuous.

But you will ignore this, because you an asshole.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: Saiga410: And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

Or let anyone run a check for $10 (for a $500 handgun, which is cheaper than every handgun at my local shop, that's a 2% surcharge, less than local sales tax) - the dealer gets a "pass/fail" response, and no one's freedoms were sold to the Taliban for crack money.

// IIRC, it costs $10-$15 to run a single NICS check
// I wonder if people can get bulk rates, like 20 checks to be used within the calendar year for a lower rate? Would that be legal?


Gun dealers won't do it for cost.  They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:49 PM

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


This just happened a few months ago.  I couldn't tell if you were being facetious.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gu n- owners-names-and-addresses/
 
2013-04-03 12:47:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Well considering you can't find an example of a specific lie, I'm going to go with "truth"


The 40% number comes from a study done the year after the Brady Act mandated background checks. If you purchased your firearm 3 years before the study odds are you did not have to recieve a background check. The study is almost 20 years old, if a new study done with federal money showed that currently less than 5% of people purchased their firearm without a background check it would be ignored and not refferenced because it does not instill the fear the gun control crowd wants and needs from people in order to further their agenda.

This is almost front page news today since Obama is being called out over pushing that stat., but all those submitted links have been redlit....odd how even on Fark a certain pro gun control agenda, lies etc is being pushed....or is it?

You can google it yourself since you will object to any citation given as being detrimental to your senistive pro gun control worldview.
 
2013-04-03 12:48:26 PM
Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.
 
2013-04-03 12:50:25 PM

LasersHurt: No, I "got nothing"


I just reduced your carbon footprint from that post. You're welcome.
 
2013-04-03 12:52:06 PM

ha-ha-guy: The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.


They can already do this, they just have to make a few phone calls.

So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.

Yeah, this is why you do the responsible thing when you sell shiat, make a receipt and copy of their driver's license or something. I have documentation from a couch I sold three years ago on craigslist - just scan it all, bytes are cheap. Not that the cops can do anything about it, because presumably you aren't the killer and have an alibi, aren't connected to the crime, and all that shiat.

Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.

Sounds like a few billion dollars well spent to me. Oh wait, it doesn't. Oh, and in the case where  it did track to sammyk, scummy dealer, he'll have filed a report for it as being stolen or whatever, so you're not accomplishing anything there. The killer still gets a gun and people are still dead.
 
2013-04-03 12:53:25 PM
This thread reminds me of all the great republican, conservative, strict constitutionalistic comedians out there.
 
2013-04-03 12:54:48 PM

dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.


And I think it's the current gun laws that need to be enforced first.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

And that's the part that is pissing off most of the gun owners. The people who want to make things illegal don't even know what they are, and THEN they don't understand why we don't want them crafting the laws.
 
2013-04-03 12:55:43 PM
 
2013-04-03 12:55:55 PM

dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.


25.media.tumblr.com

I'll relinquish one bullet, where do you want it?
 
2013-04-03 12:56:08 PM

Gonz: Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.


Yeah, all those abused wives are a bunch of pussies, or handicapped folks in wheelchairs or convenience store owners, or ranchers with an eye on coyodogs, or people in high-crime areas. All those top sports shooters? Weak, frightened pants-pissers. I know someplace just full of what you would consider the biggest cowards - they don't just have guns, but tanks! Their dicks are probably concave, right?

Real men are all seven feet tall MMA masters that can protect an entire orphanage with only their hands and foot-long cocks. They abhor guns.
 
2013-04-03 12:56:57 PM

BayouOtter: ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.

Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.


Bad argument.  Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.  Freedom of the press is not absolute in terms of if the WSJ published 10 pages of child porn tomorrow, freedom of the press is not going to save their asses.  Not to mention journalists do occasionally get nailed for libel/slander.

Really DC vs Heller in 2008 made it pretty clear how the Supreme Court sees gun rights currently, namely that the right is not unlimited with regards to keeping and carrying the gun.  Arguing the 2nd as some kind of absolute is not legally defensible and a path to suicide via failure to evolve.

/beside taunting the dynamite monkey and getting another US vs Cruikshank ruling is not a good path
//namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state
 
2013-04-03 12:57:31 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.

What paranoia?

California is already doing it.


CA is only enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Felons and the mentally ill cannot own guns. This is what the gun lobby was asking for "enforce the laws that are already on the books don't just add more"
 
2013-04-03 12:57:50 PM

ha-ha-guy: sammyk: Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.

I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.

The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.  So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.  Unless I was sloppy and kept proof of the transaction the cops can find.  Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.


Thats streching it a bit. First off when sammyk buys a gun from a FFL and it goes through NICS the record is destroyed withing 24 hours of the successful sale. Second if there is any chance the sale of the gun is going to come back to me you bet your ass I'm taking a pic of the guy buying it holding the CCW.
 
2013-04-03 12:57:53 PM

ha-ha-guy: You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun." Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."


The people I know who have done private gun sales always have a bill of sale listing the item, price, and signatures of both parties.  Frankly I would probably do that for any private sale over $100.
 
2013-04-03 12:57:55 PM

verbaltoxin: Oh, so then you wouldn't oppose an effort to make sure what some gun sellers do in your state becomes a uniform standard in all states for all sellers, then, right?


I've said as much.  In this thread, even.  As long as the implementation isn't too onerous, it is a logical thing to do.

sammyk: Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.


If they can keep the costs reasonable, that is workable.  Before I had my CCW, that is how I bought, even in state.  My buddy, who has his FFL, would run the check for the seller.

dittybopper: Dr Dreidel: Saiga410:

Gun dealers won't do it for cost.  They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15.


I agree with you on almost everything.  However, there are FFLs (generally small gun store owners and the like) that will handle transfers for ~$15.  I have a couple like that that are my go-tos.  The cost of maintaining their FFL isn't too high, and the extra transactions helps justify their renewals.
 
2013-04-03 12:58:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.


I'm more concerned with the central registry.

It's one thing to have felons who've used guns in crime denied access to firearms.

It's another thing entirely to have a record of everyone who owns a gun. Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


Far better to just not have a central registry.
 
2013-04-03 01:02:10 PM

Gonz: Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.


Weak is a comparative argument.

You're weak compared to something.
 
2013-04-03 01:02:42 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.

I'm more concerned with the central registry.

It's one thing to have felons who've used guns in crime denied access to firearms.

It's another thing entirely to have a record of everyone who owns a gun. Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


Far better to just not have a central registry.


So you ignore my replies that completly destroy your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry and move on to someone else with the same ol B.S.

You are a piece of work man.
 
2013-04-03 01:03:01 PM

ha-ha-guy: BayouOtter: ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.

Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.

Bad argument.  Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.  Freedom of the press is not absolute in terms of if the WSJ published 10 pages of child porn tomorrow, freedom of the press is not going to save their asses.  Not to mention journalists do occasionally get nailed for libel/slander.


Not an equitable comparison, you can still yell "fire" in a theater. If there isn't one, you will, however, have to answer for doing something that may cause harm to others. It's called "consequences to actions". Your free speech is not being violated, but you are being held accountable for the consequences of choosing to exercise it. I'd just like to see the same standard applied to gun ownership, don't take away my rights, and enforce consequences to those who actually commit crimes, rather than punishing those of us who have not. Now, if we surgically muted you to prevent the possibility that you might yell fire in a theater, then you'd have a accurate analogy to what you want to do to my rights to own firearms.

//namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state

Not since it was incorporated to the states in McDonald.
 
2013-04-03 01:05:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: What's more, the Morning Joe/Marist poll finds that 87 percent of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows,

That's a large percentage.


It is, but what percentage of people fifteen years ago believed marriage is between one man and one woman?    What percentage of Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act(s)?    That's not a real question.  Just saying people are farked in the head and Democracy is far from perfect, particularly when it concerns what people perceive to be the rights of "not me".  "If xxxxxxx was an intelligent choice, then I would already xxxxxxx.  Eveyone else is ignorant and needs my direction"
 
2013-04-03 01:05:55 PM

ha-ha-guy: Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.


When used improperly, yes.  If there is an actual fire in a theater are the patrons supposed to stay silent?  This "fire in a theater" argument does not work because people are not gagged in an effort to prevent this limitation of speech before entering the theater.

/been covered a billion times in these threads and someone still brings it up.  Amazing.
 
2013-04-03 01:12:44 PM

Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,


Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/
 
2013-04-03 01:12:47 PM
So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?
 
2013-04-03 01:14:22 PM

doglover: Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


It doesn not even have to be a majority vote.  See my link above
 
2013-04-03 01:15:43 PM

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"


Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.
 
2013-04-03 01:16:08 PM

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


A clip is cooler and more actiony
 
2013-04-03 01:16:08 PM

BayouOtter: Yeah, all those abused wives are a bunch of pussies,


Weak, scared. Justifiably so, but both weak and scared.

or handicapped folks in wheelchairs

Weak

or convenience store owners,

Scared

or ranchers with an eye on coyodogs,

Hunting. Also, in a relative sense, weak against coyotes. This might be an exception to my rule, though.

or people in high-crime areas.

Scared.

All those top sports shooters? Weak, frightened pants-pissers.

They're shooting paper. It's not even something that can bite back. A deer could at leash rush you. Hell, so could a squirrel for that matter.

I know someplace just full of what you would consider the biggest cowards - they don't just have guns, but tanks! Their dicks are probably concave, right?

You said it, not me. But going to combat with 60 tons of steel around you, rather than some body armor...

"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."
 
2013-04-03 01:18:50 PM

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


The proper term is clip.  Whenever someone says magazine then you know that this is not a real gun owner so then you can just ignore whatever they say about guns.  Would you care what someone thought about cars if they said "gas pedal"?  No, you would not.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:00 PM

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


Seriously?

A clip is a thin metal band that holds shells and nothing more.

A magazine is a box that contains the shells and feeds them into the weapon.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:00 PM
Handguns, not handuns. Firearms, not a snacky relative of a Funyon.

Also, the deer can at LEAST rush you, not as leash. Most people don't keep deer on a leash, unless they're Santa Claus and have reindeer.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:14 PM

sammyk: your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry


The 'paranoid fantasies' agrument itself is destroyed when this type of registry was just recently use by the state of NY in order to confiscate the guns and revolk the license of someone who did nothing unlawful.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:27 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: t is, but what percentage of people fifteen years ago believed marriage is between one man and one woman?    What percentage of Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act(s)?    That's not a real question.  Just saying people are farked in the head and Democracy is far from perfect, particularly when it concerns what people perceive to be the rights of "not me".  "If xxxxxxx was an intelligent choice, then I would already xxxxxxx.  Eveyone else is ignorant and needs my direction"


87% of the public agrees on something so they're farked in the head?
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report