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.

(Washington Examiner)   Sen. Mike Lee (R-eal surprise) voted against a closed-door back room deal (bipartisan agreement) that would have created a gun owner registry (nope) and prohibited firearms sales between relatives (also not true)   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 53
    More: Dumbass, firearms, relatives, owners  
•       •       •

1658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 1:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-19 01:38:09 AM
I'm a little confused, subby. Are you saying that the facts presented in the article aren't true? Or that what Mike Lee is saying isn't true?
 
2013-04-19 01:41:30 AM

colithian: I'm a little confused, subby. Are you saying that the facts presented in the article aren't true? Or that what Mike Lee is saying isn't true?


Beats me.  But the link goes to the political version of Weekly World News.
 
2013-04-19 02:09:49 AM

Alphax: colithian: I'm a little confused, subby. Are you saying that the facts presented in the article aren't true? Or that what Mike Lee is saying isn't true?

Beats me.  But the link goes to the political version of Weekly World News.


You mean the political version of Weekly World News isn't WND?
 
2013-04-19 02:15:01 AM
The article only says he wants the full text of the bill.
 
2013-04-19 02:26:10 AM

colithian: Alphax: colithian: I'm a little confused, subby. Are you saying that the facts presented in the article aren't true? Or that what Mike Lee is saying isn't true?

Beats me.  But the link goes to the political version of Weekly World News.

You mean the political version of Weekly World News isn't WND?


Yeah, I thought about that after I posted.  There's a lot of competition for that spot.
 
2013-04-19 02:29:00 AM
Wait, don't they have to pass it first to read what's in it?

Oh wait, that's the House.

*snorf*
 
2013-04-19 02:30:32 AM
Subby probably forgot to unskew the bill before reading it

/study it out
 
2013-04-19 02:37:51 AM
April 11, 2013

I thought the vote was yesterday?
 
2013-04-19 02:40:19 AM
Is this the bill he's talking about?

S. 22: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013

If so I was able to find it quite easily.
 
2013-04-19 03:38:17 AM

fusillade762: Is this the bill he's talking about?

S. 22: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013

If so I was able to find it quite easily.


No it isn't.  I don't know for a fact if I'm right and neither do you.  Let's both talk out our asses.

If he was full retard it would have been challenged by other senators.  He has a point then and your wrong or your paid to spam things on fark.
 
2013-04-19 05:26:56 AM

bestie1: fusillade762: Is this the bill he's talking about?

S. 22: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013

If so I was able to find it quite easily.

No it isn't.  I don't know for a fact if I'm right and neither do you.  Let's both talk out our asses.

If he was full retard it would have been challenged by other senators.  He has a point then and your wrong or your paid to spam things on fark.


i412.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-19 05:30:58 AM

ReaverZ: The article only says he wants the full text of the bill.


Which would inevitably be "too long to read."

www.cityweekly.netcdn.allleftturns.com
 
2013-04-19 07:30:10 AM
Heaven forbid they're allowed to read the bill that they're voting on!

That's fascism!
 
2013-04-19 07:54:59 AM
He didn't vote against it.  He voted against debating an voting for or against it.  The bill never made it to a vote.
 
2013-04-19 08:00:58 AM

cabbyman: Heaven forbid they're allowed to read the bill that they're voting on!

That's fascism!


Heaven forbid they stay late to read it to be ready for the vote.
 
2013-04-19 08:31:39 AM

bestie1: If he was full retard it would have been challenged by other senators. He has a point then and your wrong or your paid to spam things on fark.


And if someone had said "The gentleman from Utah has a view of the bill that is not in any sense grounded in fact", they'd be accused of breaking the congeniality of the Senate and mocked on Fox News for the next three days.
 
2013-04-19 08:38:58 AM

CheatCommando: cabbyman: Heaven forbid they're allowed to read the bill that they're voting on!

That's fascism!

Heaven forbid they stay late to read it to be ready for the vote.


This. Every time an elected official says something like "It was too long to read" what they're really saying is "I'm too farking lazy to do my job"
 
2013-04-19 08:47:04 AM

Blathering Idjut: He didn't vote against it.  He voted against debating an voting for or against it.  The bill never made it to a vote.


Either way, he's a cock and a liar and he should probably take one of his cherished firearms and give it a blowjob - for Democracy's sake.
 
2013-04-19 09:34:08 AM
There should be a national gun registry.

When a gun is used in a crime, the authorities, after obtaining the proper warrants, should be able to quickly obtain a detailed record of the gun's history.
 
2013-04-19 09:44:52 AM

balthan: There should be a national gun registry.



Negative.
 
2013-04-19 09:48:21 AM

cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.


Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.
 
2013-04-19 10:07:28 AM

Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.


The positive would be that investigating gun crimes would be easier and then less costly, the current paper-based state by state search is not efficient
The negative is it feeds the fear that it would provide the mechanism to take guns away
 
2013-04-19 10:08:51 AM
The article was dated 4/11.  Surely they must have given him the text of the bill by now.
 
2013-04-19 10:09:23 AM

Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.


All citizens should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample. As people are constantly leaving fingerprints in public and shedding  epithelial cells this would not infringe on anybody's rights againt unreasonable searches or seizures.
 
2013-04-19 10:11:15 AM

balthan: There should be a national gun registry.

When a gun is used in a crime, the authorities, after obtaining the proper warrants, should be able to quickly obtain a detailed record of the gun's history.


Canada already tried it, and found out it was pretty useless.
 
2013-04-19 10:14:32 AM
In what universe did anyone think that even one ounce of gun control was going to get passed in America during the reign of the Tea Party?

I mean, I keep hearing that this is "shocking" and a "surprise", but you had to be amazingly naive to think that any Republicans were going to let even something as universally popular as background checks pass.  Add to this all of the blue dog Democrats, and we never had a chance.
 
2013-04-19 10:14:35 AM

ReaverZ: The article only says he wants the full text of the bill.



So, he voted on it so he read it?
 
2013-04-19 10:18:27 AM

give me doughnuts: Canada already tried it, and found out it was pretty useless.


Excuse me, but you're distorting facts. It was massively expensive and pretty useless. Get it right.
 
2013-04-19 10:20:33 AM

MooseUpNorth: give me doughnuts: Canada already tried it, and found out it was pretty useless.

Excuse me, but you're distorting facts. It was massively expensive and pretty useless. Get it right.


It had a pretty low compliance rate too did it not?
 
2013-04-19 10:24:41 AM
Got this email this morning. When did Glen Beck stop pimping gold and start pimping AR-15s?

Cheaper Than Dirt   Buy Your AR-15 Before Lawmakers Outlaw Them!
 
2013-04-19 10:27:06 AM

Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.



Becuase in a conservative's world, the evil gubbmint can then take that list and confiscate all your guns!
 
2013-04-19 10:27:50 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Got this email this morning. When did Glen Beck stop pimping gold and start pimping AR-15s?


When gun manufacturers sent him a check.
 
2013-04-19 10:28:38 AM

redmid17: MooseUpNorth: give me doughnuts: Canada already tried it, and found out it was pretty useless.

Excuse me, but you're distorting facts. It was massively expensive and pretty useless. Get it right.

It had a pretty low compliance rate too did it not?


Yup. There were five or six years of amnesties, trying to coax people into actually registering them.
 
2013-04-19 10:32:35 AM
A senator.  Reading an entire bill?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-04-19 10:33:08 AM

give me doughnuts: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

All citizens should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample. As people are constantly leaving fingerprints in public and shedding  epithelial cells this would not infringe on anybody's rights againt unreasonable searches or seizures.



that's a rather poor analogy.
 
2013-04-19 10:35:38 AM

Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29
 
2013-04-19 10:36:57 AM

Cataholic: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29


People rarely buy cars in America because we're forced to register every change in ownership.
 
2013-04-19 10:39:59 AM

Lord_Baull: give me doughnuts: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

All citizens should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample. As people are constantly leaving fingerprints in public and shedding  epithelial cells this would not infringe on anybody's rights againt unreasonable searches or seizures.


that's a rather poor analogy.


That's because the only common factor is the Bill of Rights. I was gonna go with number 7, but there wasn't any way to stretch "trial by jury" to fit.
 
2013-04-19 10:41:08 AM

Cataholic: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29



Oooohhh, I'm scared! You pussies need to man up and stop being scared of what MIGHT happen one day. A national gun registry is quite clearly sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated milita."
 
2013-04-19 10:44:17 AM

balthan: Cataholic: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

People rarely buy cars in America because we're forced to register every change in ownership.


You can legally buy or sell a car without it being registered. What you can't do is drive it on any public roads.
 
2013-04-19 10:44:47 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Got this email this morning. When did Glen Beck stop pimping gold and start pimping AR-15s? Cheaper Than Dirt   Buy Your AR-15 Before Lawmakers Outlaw Them!


Just sent out an email

Buy Your AR-15 Pressure Cooker Before Lawmakers Outlaw Them!
//also a good selection of Fondue pots, Turkey fryers, and Bundt cake pans.
 
2013-04-19 10:47:09 AM

Lord_Baull: Cataholic: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29


Oooohhh, I'm scared! You pussies need to man up and stop being scared of what MIGHT happen one day. A national gun registry is quite clearly sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated milita."



You'll get plenty of bites with that. Short, to the point, with just enough invective to get kneejerk reactions.
8.5/10
 
2013-04-19 10:47:35 AM

BitwiseShift: Buy Your AR-15 Pressure Cooker Before Lawmakers Outlaw Them!
//also a good selection of Fondue pots, Turkey fryers, and Bundt cake pans.


Turkey Fryers can do some damage but mostly to the idiots that fire them up in their own garage
 
2013-04-19 11:09:53 AM

Quoting isn't working right now...


give me donuts


All citizens should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample. As people are constantly leaving fingerprints in public and shedding  epithelial cells this would not infringe on anybody's rights againt unreasonable searches or seizures.


I've heard suggestions for this a lot of times, actually, from both the left and the right.  Any bet that the people who are scared to death of gun registration/back ground checks would be FOR this?

 
2013-04-19 11:41:29 AM

Lord_Baull: A national gun registry is quite clearly sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated milita."


No, no, no. You see, for over two hundred years, activist judges sold the lie that "well-regulated" means "well-regulated." Those two centuries were America's dark ages, but thanks to the tireless efforts of noted linguistic analyst Antonin Scalia, we now know that "well-regulated" means "not regulated at all in any meaningful sense." Now, finally, America is free.
 
2013-04-19 11:54:58 AM

Lord_Baull: A national gun registry is quite clearly sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated milita."



C'mon everybody knows that when the framers wrote 'well-regulated militia' they meant unregulated guns for everybody.

Study it out.
 
2013-04-19 12:24:18 PM

give me doughnuts: balthan: Cataholic: Shvetz: cabbyman: balthan: There should be a national gun registry.


Negative.

Why not? A national gun registry wouldn't infringe on anybody's right to own a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

People rarely buy cars in America because we're forced to register every change in ownership.

You can legally buy or sell a car without it being registered. What you can't do is drive it on any public roads.


He means the title transfer, not the license registration.
 
2013-04-19 01:16:23 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Quoting isn't working right now...
give me donuts


All citizens should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample. As people are constantly leaving fingerprints in public and shedding  epithelial cells this would not infringe on anybody's rights againt unreasonable searches or seizures.
I've heard suggestions for this a lot of times, actually, from both the left and the right.  Any bet that the people who are scared to death of gun registration/back ground checks would be FOR this?


Nope. Unless you were only doing African Americans, or Latinos, or...[insert names of other marginalized groups]
Not honest GOD-ferrin' 'Merikins!!
 
2013-04-19 01:25:50 PM

room at the top: Lord_Baull: A national gun registry is quite clearly sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated milita."


C'mon everybody knows that when the framers wrote 'well-regulated militia' they meant unregulated guns for everybody.

Study it out.



No, no, no. DogNuts is correct.

See?

Return of the Militia.
X.  And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.


Those Founder guys were a bunch of gun-grabbers. They inspected and inventoried privately-owned weapons and ammunition and reported the inventory to da ebil gubmint. The bastards.
 
2013-04-19 05:43:09 PM
I was hoping he would Do the Right Thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report