dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.
Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.
CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.Can I borrow your crystal ball?Actually, most suicides attempts occur with little planning during a crisis. About 90% of suicide attempters who survive never attempt it again
Uisce Beatha: Car_Ramrod: 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.Oh, I won't deny that at the forefront of the gun lobby is a bunch of intractable PITAs. But the thing is - if you are trying to proactively DO something, like pass a new law, the onus is on you to be deliberate and conscientious about it. Yes, the gun lobby is stubborn. But the legislators are the ones who are responsible for making sure new laws are logical, reasonable, and fair, not lobbyists.Yes, Washington doesn't actually work this way at the moment. It doesn't really work at all. But that is how it should, IMO.
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"
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.
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.
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?
Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.
monoski: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are deniedLooks like a registry to me.If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from. A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.
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.
Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.
Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.
doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are deniedLooks like a registry to me.
Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?
Uisce Beatha: 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.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 28 2017 11:59:20
Runtime: 0.540 sec (539 ms)