Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(YouTube)   Al Qaeda spokesman to Muslims wanting to attack in the US: go to a gun show and buy an assault rifle. There are no background checks. Oh, and the video was uploaded in 2011 - well before Sandy Hook   (youtube.com) divider line 486
    More: Sick, al-Qaeda, Gadahn, Muslims, American Terrorist, Sandy Hook, exclamation points, assault rifles  
•       •       •

3365 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-24 10:36:33 AM  
i assumed this was fake, until i googled the guy. i guess he's the real deal. what a farking asshole.
 
2013-04-24 10:41:29 AM  
The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

You will need Bitcoins and some encryption software to buy class 3 weapons.
 
2013-04-24 10:41:54 AM  
Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?
 
2013-04-24 10:45:09 AM  

markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?


Yup, all they need to do is a 'private seller' transaction, no check required.
 
2013-04-24 10:46:49 AM  

markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?


Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.
 
2013-04-24 10:46:54 AM  
I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.
 
2013-04-24 10:48:43 AM  
Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.
 
2013-04-24 10:48:45 AM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?
 
2013-04-24 10:50:09 AM  
Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun showsrun elections would never in a million years provide a voter IDsell a gun to a guy  who looked muslim-y.
 
2013-04-24 10:50:18 AM  

Nabb1: You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?


Shocking, I know. I doubt the guy with all the Militia stuff would either.
 
2013-04-24 10:53:45 AM  
I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.
 
2013-04-24 10:57:26 AM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


Citation please.
 
2013-04-24 11:04:39 AM  

madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.


If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.
 
2013-04-24 11:04:52 AM  

nekom: Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.


i think it's because sandy hook spurred the current gun debate. prior to then, democrats were mostly silent on guns. in other words, it's not like this video was just uploaded to bolster the pro-background check side.
 
2013-04-24 11:08:08 AM  
Are they farking stupid? Do you REALLY want to be a muslim at a gunshow?!

Have you SEEN the type of people who show up at gunshows? It would be like making their dream come true
 
2013-04-24 11:11:54 AM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


A lot of gaps in there.

Where did the Tsarnaevs get theirs?
 
2013-04-24 11:13:29 AM  

smerfnablin: Are they farking stupid? Do you REALLY want to be a muslim at a gunshow?!

Have you SEEN the type of people who show up at gunshows? It would be like making their dream come true


are you saying that private gun sellers are racists?
 
2013-04-24 11:14:53 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

A lot of gaps in there.

Where did the Tsarnaevs get theirs?


Williams-Sonoma, next to the pressure cookers
 
2013-04-24 11:15:18 AM  
i've been to several gun shows (looking for a lee-enfield .303) and found them fascinating and terrifying. i saw more than a few few swastika tattoos each time.
 
2013-04-24 11:16:50 AM  
Few few few!
 
2013-04-24 11:17:40 AM  

Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.


And shouting fire in a crowded theater?
 
2013-04-24 11:24:55 AM  
Ive been to several gun shows in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) and they are all pretty much the same.

You walk into a large convention center with rows and rows of portable tables that have anywhere between 80 to 240 vendors.

1. As previously stated some of these vendors are licensed gun dealers who will make you fill out a NCIC form and phone it in right there on their cellphone. This would be the same type of transaction as walking into a gunstore and purchasing a firearm over the counter.

2. Some of these dealers are selling ammunition and accessories that do not require any of these forms.

3. There are a lot of arts and crafts vendors selling everything from knives made out of deer antlers to table lamps.

4. And then there are "private dealers" who will sell you a few used firearm face to face without a background check or any paperwork. The items are usually very over priced plus these types of individuals are few and far between. These are usually the guys that fly all the huge flags over their tables of objectionable message and have very interesting things to say about politics and religion.

Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?
 
2013-04-24 11:28:22 AM  

Bontesla: And shouting fire in a crowded theater?


20 minutes total but that bullshiat is laid to rest in  90 seconds (but take all 20)
 
2013-04-24 11:29:18 AM  
i377.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-24 11:29:25 AM  

doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.


Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.
 
2013-04-24 11:31:43 AM  

Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.


Next they'll tell you that based solely on allegation and without proof you can wind up on a list of people who have to register their address and warn their neighbors that they live there.
 
2013-04-24 11:32:23 AM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


That is a PS, right?
 
2013-04-24 11:33:16 AM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


boston, no less.
 
2013-04-24 11:38:00 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]

That is a PS, right?


No. It was put up by a pro-gun control group - kind of like trolling the general public.

Yes, it is inflammatory
Yes, it is technically accurate. Only FFLs are required to do anything when selling a firearm. If I sold one of my ARs to you I would have no duty to ask you for any ID or to have you pass a background check. A lot of guns are sold by non-licensed private sellers at gun shows.
 
2013-04-24 11:39:14 AM  

unlikely: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

Next they'll tell you that based solely on allegation and without proof you can wind up on a list of people who have to register their address and warn their neighbors that they live there.


Such as? I'm fairly certain you actually have to be convicted as a sex offender before you have to register as a sex offender.
 
2013-04-24 11:40:19 AM  

Bontesla: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?


Hasn't got a damn thing to do with this?
 
2013-04-24 11:42:27 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Bontesla: And shouting fire in a crowded theater?

20 minutes total but that bullshiat is laid to rest in  90 seconds (but take all 20)


At work and on my phone so the video won't play. Could you summarize? Thanks!
 
2013-04-24 11:43:37 AM  

Nabb1: Bontesla: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Hasn't got a damn thing to do with this?


Wait, what???
 
2013-04-24 11:54:31 AM  
i253.photobucket.comMy opinions are never respected so I will just post my thoughtfully created Paintshoop, which is even less respected.
 
2013-04-24 11:55:05 AM  
... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.
 
2013-04-24 11:55:57 AM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


I'm not having as much trouble as I used to imagining Wally the Green Monster shouldering an AR-15.
 
2013-04-24 11:56:13 AM  

Nabb1: unlikely: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Next they'll tell you that based solely on allegation and without proof you can wind up on a list of people who have to register their address and warn their neighbors that they live there.

Such as? I'm fairly certain you actually have to be convicted as a sex offender before you have to register as a sex offender.


You do know that being drunk and getting caught pissing on a dumpster is enough to go on that registry right? It's almost as easy as getting on a no-fly list.....
 
2013-04-24 12:00:25 PM  
Yes, because stealing a gun is the same as buying one at a gun show?
 
2013-04-24 12:00:32 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"
 
2013-04-24 12:01:52 PM  

madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

You will need Bitcoins and some encryption software to buy class 3 weapons.


Fortunately the NRA is working hard to change all that... for freedom!
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-24 12:02:41 PM  
Did they end the video with the advice to go shoot up a 'gun-free' zone?
 
2013-04-24 12:03:00 PM  

you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"


I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:18 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


You know that they aren't the only ones who know about this loophole, right? It's pretty much common knowledge.

A background check doesn't infringe an anyone's rights.

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:39 PM  
Clearly the answer is to arm... someone? I need some help here, guys.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:41 PM  
 
2013-04-24 12:03:44 PM  

2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.


I don't have a citation for that (not everything is wiki-able), but in my experience at gun shows he's exactly right. Mostly licensed dealers who do checks, a handful of private sellers with limited supply.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:51 PM  

nekom: Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.


She was a law-abiding gun owner. As was her son, until he stopped abiding.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:52 PM  

Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.


I doubt someone on the terrorist watch list would be accepted into a well regulated militia.
 
2013-04-24 12:04:01 PM  

vudutek: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Yup, all they need to do is a 'private seller' transaction, no check required.


Don't think of it as selling arms to terrorists (not that that is terribly wrong since, after all, Ronald Reagan did it). Think of it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of 6 and 7 year old children. Somehow that ennobles the cause.
 
2013-04-24 12:04:23 PM  

Nabb1: unlikely: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

Next they'll tell you that based solely on allegation and without proof you can wind up on a list of people who have to register their address and warn their neighbors that they live there.

Such as? I'm fairly certain you actually have to be convicted as a sex offender before you have to register as a sex offender.


The meaning of "sex offender" has become so overbroad as to be meaningless. Hang a leak behind a tree and a kid sees you? Streak at a baseball game? Elbow a woman in the boob on the subway? Under the bridge with you.
 
2013-04-24 12:04:25 PM  
There are BG checks in Florida gun shows.
I've been foiled trying to buy a gun before.
(No record of any kind)
 
2013-04-24 12:04:34 PM  

you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"


So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?
 
2013-04-24 12:05:38 PM  
They love Obama's immigration policies as well!
 
2013-04-24 12:05:40 PM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


Thats actually gone now, it was up for a long time but recently got replaced with...get this...and anti-gun ad!
 
2013-04-24 12:05:40 PM  
smerfnablin:

4. And then there are "private dealers" who will sell you a few used firearm face to face without a background check or any paperwork. The items are usually very over priced plus these types of individuals are few and far between. These are usually the guys that fly all the huge flags over their tables of objectionable message and have very interesting things to say about politics and religion.

Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?


"Their money's green & American and it's for a good cause."

Profit over prophet, y'know.
 
2013-04-24 12:05:42 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


Tats enjoys blood shed like most Israelis.

nigelparry.com
 
2013-04-24 12:05:45 PM  
Also of note is the fact that you don't have to be a citizen to buy a gun in most places. Hell you don't have to be a citizen to get a concealed carry permit. There's usually just a time limit on how long you have to live in the country. EVEN WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.

Until there is a "crackhead, insane person, nutjob watchlist" and you have to pass it in order to buy a crockpot or firecrackers people are always going to slip through the cracks. The best thing to do is protect YOURSELF. When seconds count police are just minutes away.
 
2013-04-24 12:06:12 PM  
I've wanted to exercise my second amendment rights on Adam Gadahn for several years now.
 
2013-04-24 12:06:46 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


Just out of curiosity - should an ex-spouse - or ex-spouse to be - with an impending hearing for a domestic violence charge be able to by any weapon completely unfettered? Should someone awaiting trial - but not convicted - of a violent crime have unfettered access to weaponry?
 
2013-04-24 12:06:50 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.
 
2013-04-24 12:06:59 PM  
Many of you are assuming that:
1) The prospective terrorist has a Muslim appearance; and / or
2) The prospective terrorist would approach the sellers directly rather than use a straw buyer.
 
2013-04-24 12:07:07 PM  
and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!
 
2013-04-24 12:08:17 PM  

Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?


How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?
 
2013-04-24 12:08:21 PM  

Terrydatroll: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.


Those words...

bbsimg.ngfiles.com

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_(sociology)

The only way a background check would change your "way of life" would be if you sold guns on a regular basis - in which case you're already supposed to have an FFL and do background checks.
 
2013-04-24 12:08:25 PM  
Money talks.
 
2013-04-24 12:08:36 PM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


In other words "Gun shows are some sort of arms exchange and some of them are not organized by any licensed gun dealers and are not required to do background checks. Private sellers are allowed and can sell anything they want to anyone they want."
 
2013-04-24 12:08:40 PM  

madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.


Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.
 
2013-04-24 12:09:30 PM  

legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!


We still going with that? That cop's family would like a word with you.
 
2013-04-24 12:10:09 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Terrydatroll: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.

Those words...

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 330x282]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_(sociology)

The only way a background check would change your "way of life" would be if you sold guns on a regular basis - in which case you're already supposed to have an FFL and do background checks.


When someone has a username that ends in troll and posts something extremely stupid, just let it go because man, it's gone.
 
2013-04-24 12:11:28 PM  

calm like a bomb: I've wanted to exercise my second amendment rights on Adam Gadahn for several years now.


wait - the second amendment gives you the right to kill somebody because you disagree with him?

/i disagree with him too
//wouldn't shed a single tear if he were killed
 
2013-04-24 12:12:01 PM  

Nabb1: Bontesla: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Hasn't got a damn thing to do with this?


I think his point is that enumerated Constitutional rights can be limited. Just like how automatic weapons and explosives are restricted, yet somehow the 2nd Amendment is still effective.
 
2013-04-24 12:12:19 PM  
Yep.  OK.  Muslim at a gun show.  That'll go over like a fart in church.
 
2013-04-24 12:12:36 PM  

special20: madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.


I caught sayof that too.  In some cases it's as easy as filing down the right component(s).  Therefore, fully automatic assault rifles should be legal since criminals have acces to hardware stores.
 
2013-04-24 12:12:44 PM  
I don't know where you get your actual and factual information, but from where I get mine, this idiot is wrong, most likely knows it and is (surprise) lying.
And that does not address the question of why would you believe anything this psychopath says?
 
2013-04-24 12:13:03 PM  
I don't mind background checks, but if the Feds require Punkbuster to shut down my aimbot, I'm marching right up those steps to the Supreme Court, Mister!
 
2013-04-24 12:13:17 PM  
Does this mean that the senators who are on the gun lobby's payroll that just shot down the effort for more stringent background checks should be prosecuted for conspiring with Al Qaeda?
 
2013-04-24 12:13:23 PM  
I did not speak for or against gun control. I said that Al Qaeda should play no part whatsoever in our decisions regarding this.

Two completely different things.
 
2013-04-24 12:13:28 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: Yep.  OK.  Muslim at a gun show.  That'll go over like a fart in church.


You've never been to a gun show, have you?
 
2013-04-24 12:13:56 PM  
The terrorist is probably right, buying a rifle at a gun show would probably give them a higher kill count than a bomb. But they'll have to really try to stand out, considering that colleges, theaters, congress critters and even children have all been shot up before.

For shootings in America, the bar is high, our skin is thick, and our memory is short.
 
2013-04-24 12:14:19 PM  

legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!


www.gannett-cdn.com

Murdered. Shot repeatedly in the head by a mentally ill person with a gun.

/Sensible gun control laws now!
 
2013-04-24 12:15:19 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


You don't really believe this do you?  If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"
 
2013-04-24 12:15:27 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Nana's Vibrator: Yep.  OK.  Muslim at a gun show.  That'll go over like a fart in church.

You've never been to a gun show, have you?


Or my church for that matter....
*PFFFFFFRT*
 
2013-04-24 12:15:35 PM  
What we need NOW is sensible Nanny Control.
 
2013-04-24 12:16:23 PM  
Nothing to worry about.  Those rednecks that sell guns at gun shows wouldn't sell to anyone who isn't a white full blooded American Christian.
 
2013-04-24 12:17:08 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


That is a very strange thing to say.  It makes...no sense whatsoever.
 
2013-04-24 12:17:28 PM  

Nabb1: Such as? I'm fairly certain you actually have to be convicted as a sex offender before you have to register as a sex offender.


And you can't be convicted based solely upon allegation, and without proof?
 
2013-04-24 12:18:08 PM  
Yes, the threat of terrorism is so great, all those muslims have been carrying out mass shootings every year in the US for the last decade and....

What's that?  Almost all those mass shootings were carried out by lonely white dudes?  Huh.
 
2013-04-24 12:18:12 PM  

FlashHarry: smerfnablin: Are they farking stupid? Do you REALLY want to be a muslim at a gunshow?!

Have you SEEN the type of people who show up at gunshows? It would be like making their dream come true

are you saying that private gun sellers are racists?


As I understand it, Islam is not a race.
 
2013-04-24 12:18:14 PM  

2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.


why dont you just go down to the convention center next time one passes through your city and see for yourself?  What he says is true based on my 10-ish gun shows from SE Florida to NW Oregon over 10 years.
 
2013-04-24 12:18:19 PM  

markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?


You are correct; outrageously, the United States government does not use the secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous "terror watch "list as a method for abridging Constitutionally protected liberties, despite such abridgment guaranteeing that those affected would be denied any due process and despite an inability to appeal being listed.
 
2013-04-24 12:18:36 PM  
Terrorists are always welcome at our gun club... as long as they are willing to hold the targets.
 
KIA
2013-04-24 12:18:55 PM  
There are restrictions on person-to-person transfers, usually by residency. There are also BATF agents patrolling gun shows and doing undercover stings all the time.

Basically, you can't sell to someone who isn't a resident of your state. This is usually verified by presenting a driver's license or spmethe other state-issued ID which is one of the reasons people are agitated about states which issue licenses to foreign nationals and voter ID cards to undocumented folks. It is a major security flaw.
 
2013-04-24 12:19:41 PM  

goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"


I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.
 
2013-04-24 12:19:57 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Nana's Vibrator: Yep.  OK.  Muslim at a gun show.  That'll go over like a fart in church.

You've never been to a gun show, have you?


Yeah, I think both groups would probably bond over the love of instruments of death.
It's not like they wouldn't sell a gun to someone they'd suspect of terrorist ties, anyway.
"Don't tread on me" and all that.
 
2013-04-24 12:20:32 PM  
"Uh, yes, my name is Sal'du... er, Mark. Yes, Mark. I wish to buy some kind of automatic weapon. Those are lovely swastika tattoos by the way."
 
2013-04-24 12:20:45 PM  

you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?


We make them get married.
 
2013-04-24 12:20:49 PM  

stampylives: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

I doubt someone on the terrorist watch list would be accepted into a well regulated militia.


You say that like there is a difference.
 
2013-04-24 12:20:54 PM  
i950.photobucket.com

What a Muslim at a gun show may look like.
 
2013-04-24 12:20:58 PM  

GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.


My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.
 
2013-04-24 12:21:03 PM  
So what I am seeing from the gun nuts in this thread is that there should not, in any way, be any firearm registry or background checks...because other gun nuts are so racist they would not sell to a brown person anyway.

Yeah...you're relying on "Bubba & Clay" to keep the country safe. They won't protect you from "Bill" at the post office who lost his shiat...but hey...no way he sells to "Mohamed"......unless he can dress and talk 'murican.

\real names changed to protect the nut jobs.
 
2013-04-24 12:21:17 PM  

Terrydatroll: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.


Living up to your Fark handle, I see...
 
2013-04-24 12:21:44 PM  

shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.


so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?
 
2013-04-24 12:22:01 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


Another way of looking at this is... there is no where else I'd prefer members of Al Qaeda/Al Qaeda supporters to go to than a gun show in the South.
 
2013-04-24 12:22:07 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


The TSA and their backscatter scanners disagree with you.  Now, take off your shoes and spread 'em.
 
2013-04-24 12:22:36 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?
 
2013-04-24 12:22:38 PM  

Treygreen13: So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?


The same way they enforce collecting sales tax in private face-to-face dealings, of course
 
2013-04-24 12:22:55 PM  
"Assault weapon": Any firearm which you can imagine Ahnold Swarzenegger firing more than three bullets from without tossing aside in favor of a more "manly" weapon.
 
2013-04-24 12:23:04 PM  

Cletus C.: Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?


What about pressure cookers?  Bags of fertilizer? Ammonia and bleach? If you buy drinks in glass bottles and a bunch of rags at the same time, should you be put on a watch list?

Sorry - we are guaranteed our rights to firepower to defend ourselves from an overreaching government. With every freedom infringing, misguided-yet-well-meaning intrusion on our freedoms that is ratified by overzealous legislatures, this right - and the accompanying need to prevent infringements of it - becomes *the* most important issue since... well... GAY MARRIAGE.

Anyway, I'm one of those who thinks we should be allowed rocket launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry for just that purpose, I'm sure many would object. I DON'T OWN ANY GUNS CURRENTLY AND ONLY BOUGHT ALL THOSE BOTTLES OF WATER FOR HURRICANE SEASON.
 
2013-04-24 12:23:32 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Another way of looking at this is... there is no where else I'd prefer members of Al Qaeda/Al Qaeda supporters to go to than a gun show in the South.


That's a lot of problem solved right there!
 
2013-04-24 12:24:52 PM  
Al Qaida guy says we should give up our freedom to protect us from him.
 
2013-04-24 12:25:56 PM  

Dimensio: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?


I think they're conflating assault weapon with assault rifle.  An assault weapon is semi-auto, an assault rifle is selective fire with full auto as an option.
 
2013-04-24 12:26:13 PM  

FlashHarry: i assumed this was fake, until i googled the guy. i guess he's the real deal. what a farking asshole.


I dont consider it real since most think Gadahn is dead

Probably dug up to give people more bullshiat to post about taking guns.
 
2013-04-24 12:27:43 PM  

Teufelaffe: Dimensio: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?

I think they're conflating assault weapon with assault rifle.  An assault weapon is semi-auto, an assault rifle is selective fire with full auto as an option.


"Assault weapon" lacks any standard technical definition. A firearm may be an "assault weapon" based upon an entirely arbitrary standard; my .45ACP caliber handgun is not an "assault weapon" as defined by the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban", but it is an "assault weapon" as defined by California law, because of the threaded barrel added to it.
 
2013-04-24 12:28:01 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Another way of looking at this is... there is no where else I'd prefer members of Al Qaeda/Al Qaeda supporters to go to than a gun show in the South.


Yeah, its amazing that people think these guys wouldnt stand out or that gun sellers would sell to them without apprehension, these guys arent stupid and will refuse to sell to sketchy individuals.
 
2013-04-24 12:28:30 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!

[www.gannett-cdn.com image 339x451]

Murdered. Shot repeatedly in the head by a mentally ill person with a gun.

/Sensible gun control laws now!


I believe I read he was shot for his firearm.
 
2013-04-24 12:28:37 PM  

you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?


i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?
 
2013-04-24 12:28:57 PM  

holdeestrufs: Cletus C.: Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

What about pressure cookers?  Bags of fertilizer? Ammonia and bleach? If you buy drinks in glass bottles and a bunch of rags at the same time, should you be put on a watch list?

Sorry - we are guaranteed our rights to firepower to defend ourselves from an overreaching government. With every freedom infringing, misguided-yet-well-meaning intrusion on our freedoms that is ratified by overzealous legislatures, this right - and the accompanying need to prevent infringements of it - becomes *the* most important issue since... well... GAY MARRIAGE.

Anyway, I'm one of those who thinks we should be allowed rocket launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry for just that purpose, I'm sure many would object. I DON'T OWN ANY GUNS CURRENTLY AND ONLY BOUGHT ALL THOSE BOTTLES OF WATER FOR HURRICANE SEASON.


Unfortunately, the development of nasty weapons capable of being used in unspeakable acts of mass horror has far outpaces any infringement on rights. I recently checked with my local militia and they say there have been no attempts to infringe on their musket-bearing.
 
2013-04-24 12:30:43 PM  

legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!


Shouldn't your argument be that "Bombs don't kill people, people kill people".  Legalize Explosives!

If you are going to make a false comparison then I get to also.
 
2013-04-24 12:31:09 PM  

Skyd1v: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

That is a very strange thing to say.  It makes...no sense whatsoever.


What caliber makes it an Assault Rifle?

An M-4 is a type of weapon that is commonly called an Assault rifle.    If I change the upper receiver and barrel, I can change it to a different caliber.  .22LR, 9mm,  7.62mm   and on and on.   The caliber doesn't change the rifle's appearance or function.   Just it's appearance.    Each of those rounds can be fired in weapons without the style or appearance of an assault rifle.   That doesn't make those weapons assault rifles either.

Assault rifle was a term the military came up with to describe a basic infantry weapon that had a common collection of features.   Semi-automatic rifle with full-auto capability,  detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor.   Civilians, who liked the appearance of the military weapons, started buying weapons that looked like military rifles, but weren't, because they lacked the full-auto capability

The hysteria over Assault weapons is all about a class of weapons that look like military weapons.   They aren't, they are similar in appearance and function.   They look scary to the uninformed, so they must be scary.
 
2013-04-24 12:31:23 PM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


I often hear this so it makes me wonder if it is true, then why the objection to closing what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole".  Seriously.  From what I hear from the pro-gun side is that through similar reasoning as stated above, even at gun shows purchases have background checks by default.

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?
 
2013-04-24 12:31:40 PM  

FlashHarry: calm like a bomb: I've wanted to exercise my second amendment rights on Adam Gadahn for several years now.

wait - the second amendment gives you the right to kill somebody because you disagree with him?


Yes.
 
2013-04-24 12:32:07 PM  
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!
 
2013-04-24 12:32:28 PM  

FlashHarry: shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.

so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?


Bubba?
 
2013-04-24 12:33:33 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?


Never found a serial number.  The closest I've got is the "Over 1,000,000,000 served" tattoo on your mom's cooch.

/truly, I'm sorry
 
2013-04-24 12:34:20 PM  
The sooner we begin weapons training for all children from age 7, the sooner we can put this all fear behind us.
 
2013-04-24 12:34:25 PM  
Why would they bother going to a gunshow?  They can get full auto government "real" assault weapons from Eric Holder for free.
Or they can trade a few of their daughters on the black market for a couple stinger missiles.
Gunshows are overrated, overpriced, and still require background checks if buying from an FFL like they always have.
 
2013-04-24 12:34:57 PM  

FlashHarry: shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.

so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?


A Republican
 
2013-04-24 12:35:11 PM  
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!

The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?
 
2013-04-24 12:35:46 PM  
It's really telling/crazy that so many gun nuts think it's their right to sell their guns to their friends without any type of restriction. They don't see the glaringly obvious problem with this.

And how would we enforce it? Easily, with registration. We find a gun not registered to the person holding it, and if it wasn't stolen, the owner is liable for the actions just like the criminal. That will stop straw purchases and private transfers real quick.

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Bean bottle? You're racist.
 
2013-04-24 12:36:13 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-04-24 12:36:32 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.


They should not influence us in the sense that they are "Al "boogyman"-Qaeda". However, it should influence us in the sense that criminals in general have very clear and open loopholes to which they can get pseudo-military grade weapons without any mechanisms for tracking or accountability.

Kind of like you should patch your PC because it is good practice, and helps prevent "incidents". Not because the RBN is going to break in and turn your PC into a porn server.

/RBN = Russian business network
//Yes I consider Al Qaeda criminals
///A farkers PC is already a porn server, but it only hosts 127.0.0.1 =P
 
2013-04-24 12:36:39 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!

The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?


I use it to fill said pressure cooker.
 
2013-04-24 12:37:25 PM  

weiserfireman: An M-4 is a type of weapon that is commonly called an Assault rifle. If I change the upper receiver and barrel, I can change it to a different caliber. .22LR, 9mm, 7.62mm and on and on. The caliber doesn't change the rifle's appearance or function. Just it's appearance. Each of those rounds can be fired in weapons without the style or appearance of an assault rifle. That doesn't make those weapons assault rifles either.

Assault rifle was a term the military came up with to describe a basic infantry weapon that had a common collection of features. Semi-automatic rifle with full-auto capability, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. Civilians, who liked the appearance of the military weapons, started buying weapons that looked like military rifles, but weren't, because they lacked the full-auto capability


Sounds like you answered your own question. Any gun that has simply been converted from full auto capability (having that function turned off) is still an assault rifle.

Now where's the confusion?
 
2013-04-24 12:39:12 PM  

Cletus C.: legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!

We still going with that? That cop's family would like a word with you.


I didn't know Adam Lanza was a seekrit Muslin!

or, in the Boston thing, let's disenfranchise people based on nonexistent private medical records and free speech on the internet.
 
2013-04-24 12:40:52 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!

The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?


It's not a gun, it's a "projectile delivery system" and has many intended uses other than killing like, um...pretending to kill via target shooting and...uh...let me get back to you.
 
2013-04-24 12:41:15 PM  

macadamnut: [i950.photobucket.com image 850x480]

What a Muslim at a gun show may look like.


Ain't it the trooth. Ain't no white muslins in these parts...
 
2013-04-24 12:42:31 PM  

heavymetal: So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?


Accommodating idiots is a poor basis for public policy.
 
2013-04-24 12:42:53 PM  

steamingpile: I dont consider it real since most think Gadahn is dead

Probably dug up to give people more bullshiat to post about taking guns.


wikipedia doesn't think he's dead (plus the video is from 2011).
• background checks ≠ taking guns
 
2013-04-24 12:42:58 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?


Well, the whole thread was a pile of garrbl-shiat until I read that. :D
 
2013-04-24 12:43:08 PM  

Dimensio: GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.

My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.


Exactly, they would like to think those same rounds from a Ruger 10/22 are harmless.
 
2013-04-24 12:43:08 PM  
They're going to buy guns anyways. Might as well be from the winning team.

pharaohweb.com
 
2013-04-24 12:43:29 PM  
Pete and repeat opened fire on a crowd....
 
2013-04-24 12:43:41 PM  
s24.postimg.org

Reason #42 why Disco is bad.


 
2013-04-24 12:43:57 PM  
I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Muslim" or "Islam," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Muslims and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.
 
2013-04-24 12:44:38 PM  

justtray: It's really telling/crazy that so many gun nuts think it's their right to sell their guns to their friends without any type of restriction. They don't see the glaringly obvious problem with this.

And how would we enforce it? Easily, with registration. We find a gun not registered to the person holding it, and if it wasn't stolen, the owner is liable for the actions just like the criminal. That will stop straw purchases and private transfers real quick.

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Bean bottle? You're racist.


California did just that.  And.....I would not cry if the 21st amendment were repealed.
 
2013-04-24 12:44:38 PM  

heavymetal: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

I often hear this so it makes me wonder if it is true, then why the objection to closing what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole".  Seriously.  From what I hear from the pro-gun side is that through similar reasoning as stated above, even at gun shows purchases have background checks by default.

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?


The issue is that the "gun show loophole" doesn't refer exclusively to gun shows. It's a more general term for all private transfers of firearms, including gifts and inheritances. Requiring a background check before giving or trading a gun to an old friend or family member is a highly intrusive (and potentially very expensive) pain in the ass. Surely you can understand why people would not want to deal with this.
 
2013-04-24 12:44:42 PM  

2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.


This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.
 
2013-04-24 12:45:00 PM  

Terrydatroll: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.


You'll get over it. Man up, nancyboy.
 
2013-04-24 12:45:50 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?


A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.
 
2013-04-24 12:47:09 PM  

Tommy Moo: I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Muslim" or "Islam," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Muslims and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.


Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about Christianity?
 
2013-04-24 12:47:49 PM  

Hydra: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!


How about this, I will not infringe in your right to have pressure cookers, you can have as many as you want, but since you are obviously too stupid to own any weapons, we will take those. Deal?
 
2013-04-24 12:47:50 PM  

FlashHarry: shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.

so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?


Anti-Islam works. You can call me anti-Islam.
 
2013-04-24 12:47:50 PM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


therefore we shouldn't do anything about it!

right?
 
2013-04-24 12:47:51 PM  

Skyd1v: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


so my bolt action .223 is an assault rifle?

lolque.jpg
 
2013-04-24 12:48:32 PM  
Now if only they said which state.  A lot of the stated do have background checks in the gunshow.  Just not Tehnaysay
 
2013-04-24 12:49:12 PM  
*sigh*  It previewed as "States" and still said states until after I submitted
 
2013-04-24 12:50:05 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.


A pressure cooker can be used to cook...using pressure, I assume.
A gun can be used to...ummm...kill things...and umm...pretend to kill things....and ummm...open walnuts.

You see the difference there, Cletus?
 
2013-04-24 12:50:26 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


Would you say the older Tsarnaev brother looked too Muslim-y to buy a gun? The guy could pass for Italian or Greek. If he didn't even have to provide his name, there's no way anyone would know it wasn't Mike Mancini or Joe Kardapolis.
 
2013-04-24 12:51:11 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: A gun can be used to...ummm...kill things...and umm...pretend to kill things....and ummm...open walnuts.


I can use the blast from my .50 BMG to clear the table, too.  So cleaning goes on the list.
 
2013-04-24 12:51:13 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


Ha ha, that's a good one. Now pull the other one, please.

But seriously, I assume the solution is more guns. Carry on, you crazy bastards.
 
2013-04-24 12:51:28 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.


I'd also add that hurting or even killing people isn't inherently illegal or immoral. People tend to forget that part.

Target shooting is legal, hunting is legal, shooting a rapist is legal. Guns are good at all of these things.
 
2013-04-24 12:51:45 PM  

corn-bread: Many of you are assuming that:
1) The prospective terrorist has a Muslim appearance; and / or
2) The prospective terrorist would approach the sellers directly rather than use a straw buyer.


Which is already illegal and not a damned bit of knee-jerk gun control laws you pass can do anything about it.
 
2013-04-24 12:51:49 PM  

Treygreen13: So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?


I would say virtually impossible. The only way I can imagine is to have an enormous penalty if the firearm can be traced to you and you don't have record of having performed a check on the person to whom you sold it. Thus the onus is on the seller to be absolutely certain they've done due diligence and recorded the sale. If the firearm you sold is found used in a crime and it has not been formally transferred with a background check, you get a ass-whoopin'.

That will require a registry that will tie people to the serial numbers. Not sure that'll fly.
 
2013-04-24 12:52:49 PM  
Nabb1:
Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.

You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?


Fun fact, the Nazis got along okay (in the short term) with Muslim leaders who didn't like Jews either.  Of course, knowing that would require the ability to read words of more than one syllable, which I expect your average white supremacist is still struggling with.
 
2013-04-24 12:53:37 PM  

2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.


That notorious gun grabber Jeb Bush had me on a list of some sort at one point and I couldn't buy a gun from anyone. No one in the state of Florida at any level seem to be able to tell me why.
A helpful vendor at a gun show supplied me with the paperwork I needed to get .myself off this list.
To this day when I try to purchase try to purchase a gun my background check comes back as provisional. This means I can take the gun home with me with the proviso that the vendor can come to my house and take the gun away if my background check comes back negative.
 
2013-04-24 12:55:34 PM  

madgonad: CapeFearCadaver: jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]

That is a PS, right?

No. It was put up by a pro-gun control group - kind of like trolling the general public.

Yes, it is inflammatory
Yes, it is technically accurate. Only FFLs are required to do anything when selling a firearm. If I sold one of my ARs to you I would have no duty to ask you for any ID or to have you pass a background check. A lot of guns are sold by non-licensed private sellers at gun shows.



Not entirely true. You may still be required to see ID to prove that the individual is a resident of your state. See your own state laws just to be safe.
 
2013-04-24 12:55:38 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: 2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.

This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.


That is what craigslist is for.
I can't tell you how many times people have offered "things that go boom" in trade for the stuff I put up there.
 
2013-04-24 12:57:13 PM  

Nezorf: AngryJailhouseFistfark: 2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.

This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.

That is what craigslist is for.
I can't tell you how many times people have offered "things that go boom" in trade for the stuff I put up there.


I've heard you can purchase/trade all sorts of illegal items on craigslist, is this true?
 
2013-04-24 12:57:13 PM  

DrExplosion: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.

I'd also add that hurting or even killing people isn't inherently illegal or immoral. People tend to forget that part.

Target shooting is legal, hunting is legal, shooting a rapist is legal. Guns are good at all of these things.


OK, that's all well and good. But I still dont see why registering it is such a big deal. You are free to take part in those activities. But before doing so you should have to gain that priviledge by proving you're not crazy...and just to be sure we're going to record your serial #s so authorities can inquire if your gun is found at a crime scene.
Any for the record...you do NOT need a fully auto weapon to do any of the things you mentioned.
 
2013-04-24 12:58:11 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.


...and the guy with a few guns in his van outside that DIDN'T buy a table? He's not allowed to conduct private business in the parking lot, after meeting a few people inside?
 
2013-04-24 12:58:56 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Another way of looking at this is... there is no where else I'd prefer members of Al Qaeda/Al Qaeda supporters to go to than a gun show in the South.


Indeed, the last one I attended had whole big sections full of "Infidel" t-shirts and stuff that was blatantly intended to insult Moslems. You wonder if they'd have the discipline to smile and laugh as they walk past and not launch into a foaming Jihad rage
 
2013-04-24 12:59:00 PM  

heavymetal: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

I often hear this so it makes me wonder if it is true, then why the objection to closing what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole".  Seriously.  From what I hear from the pro-gun side is that through similar reasoning as stated above, even at gun shows purchases have background checks by default.

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?


That's because it was a poorly written POS that was a registry no matter how much the bill wanted to claim it wasn't.  The information about the sale should not be sent to the government where they will use an intern from the commerce department to store the list or some other BS to get around the rule that the ATF isn't allowed to.  And the check wasn't free either
 
2013-04-24 01:00:25 PM  

doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.


That's kind of like comparing a bull to a steer, they are essentially the same animal...sure one is missing some features, but they'll both make hamburger.

/ not against "sporting" rifles, just want more responsibility if one chooses to own one
 
2013-04-24 01:01:04 PM  

justtray: weiserfireman: An M-4 is a type of weapon that is commonly called an Assault rifle. If I change the upper receiver and barrel, I can change it to a different caliber. .22LR, 9mm, 7.62mm and on and on. The caliber doesn't change the rifle's appearance or function. Just it's appearance. Each of those rounds can be fired in weapons without the style or appearance of an assault rifle. That doesn't make those weapons assault rifles either.

Assault rifle was a term the military came up with to describe a basic infantry weapon that had a common collection of features. Semi-automatic rifle with full-auto capability, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. Civilians, who liked the appearance of the military weapons, started buying weapons that looked like military rifles, but weren't, because they lacked the full-auto capability

Sounds like you answered your own question. Any gun that has simply been converted from full auto capability (having that function turned off) is still an assault rifle.

Now where's the confusion?


An assault rifle has a selective fire switch.  It lets you turn the full auto on and off at will.

A civilian version of the same weapon is mechanically different.   It doesn't have the full auto capability at all.   It takes someone who knows what they are doing, and several mechanical parts to change the gun to selective fire capability.

Just possession or manufacturing of the parts, without appropriate licensing, is treated by the ATF, and Federal Law, as the same as having an unregistered machine gun.   Major prison terms are involved.    You can't go to a gun show and "buy a kit"
 
2013-04-24 01:01:11 PM  
The NRA loves videos like this - they convince those brave Americans that they need even more guns so those dastardly Muslims can't shoot them in the street. Maybe a gun for every room.

The NRA is happy to show America how much of a problem guns are, because the people who really matter to the NRA (the CEOS of the gun companies) are selling the solution.
 
2013-04-24 01:01:41 PM  

special20: madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.


It's illegal to even be in possesion of modified parts that could be put into a firearm to make it fully automatic.
 
2013-04-24 01:02:06 PM  

mizchief: You still have to get a background check if you buy it from a dealer that is actually part of the show, otherwise good luck getting some random redneck to sell you one if you look Middle eastern.


Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


She said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dressed in sweaters and jeans, fit in easily on campus and spoke English with hardly any accent.
You guys were saying?
 
2013-04-24 01:03:06 PM  

DrExplosion: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.

I'd also add that hurting or even killing people isn't inherently illegal or immoral. People tend to forget that part.

Target shooting is legal, hunting is legal, shooting a rapist is legal. Guns are good at all of these things.


You blew it when you added "inherently". Hurting people and killing people are both inherently illegal.

"Inherent" means "in and of itself" or "pertaining to the basic nature of" something. So just plain shooting someone or punching someone in the face is illegal.

It's only when you add extenuating conditions, such as, "My life was in imminent danger, so I shot the intruder", or "The state of Texas is executing you for the crime of murder", that the killing is not illegal.
 
2013-04-24 01:04:07 PM  
man, reading some of these comments from the derpsters makes me look forward to the Second American Revolution.
 
2013-04-24 01:04:41 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Nabb1: Such as? I'm fairly certain you actually have to be convicted as a sex offender before you have to register as a sex offender.

And you can't be convicted based solely upon allegation, and without proof?



You're really reaching here. There have been children who aren't even old enough to have learned how to walk ending up on the terrorist watch list. It's an abitrary list of names that has probably been pulled directly from the US census based on anyone who checked the "Muslim" box.
 
2013-04-24 01:05:13 PM  

mizchief: so why should I have to waste an hour of my time and govt. resources to get checked every time I want a new piece for my collection?


You shouldn't. We have the technology to make permit verification be accomplished over the Internet in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.
 
2013-04-24 01:05:23 PM  

smerfnablin: Ive been to several gun shows in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) and they are all pretty much the same.

You walk into a large convention center with rows and rows of portable tables that have anywhere between 80 to 240 vendors.

1. As previously stated some of these vendors are licensed gun dealers who will make you fill out a NCIC form and phone it in right there on their cellphone. This would be the same type of transaction as walking into a gunstore and purchasing a firearm over the counter.

2. Some of these dealers are selling ammunition and accessories that do not require any of these forms.

3. There are a lot of arts and crafts vendors selling everything from knives made out of deer antlers to table lamps.

4. And then there are "private dealers" who will sell you a few used firearm face to face without a background check or any paperwork. The items are usually very over priced plus these types of individuals are few and far between. These are usually the guys that fly all the huge flags over their tables of objectionable message and have very interesting things to say about politics and religion.

Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?


You forgot the fifty people walking around with signs around their neck listing what they have for sale, or the guys that rent a spot with a few buddies to raise a lot of fast cash, which works well since those used guns with no check will sell for more than the new price. Don't be dishonest just becuase you assume farkers haven't been to a gun show. You can find anything you want at the shows with no paperwork.
 
2013-04-24 01:07:11 PM  

youknowme: man, reading some of these comments from the derpsters makes me look forward to the Second American Revolution.


Are the goddamned Brits trying to tax us without proper representation again?
 
2013-04-24 01:07:43 PM  

Tommy Moo: I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam godbotherers of all stripes and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals sane people stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Baptist" or "Christianity," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Baptists and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals constitutional scholars who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.

 
2013-04-24 01:08:12 PM  

frankencj: Nezorf: AngryJailhouseFistfark: 2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.

This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.

That is what craigslist is for.
I can't tell you how many times people have offered "things that go boom" in trade for the stuff I put up there.

I've heard you can purchase/trade all sorts of illegal items on craigslist, is this true?


No, it isn't. Someone may offer you some Forbidden Item in trade for what you're selling, as the previous poster suggests, but then you're waiting for him to show up. Posting a chain saw for sale on the hope that of the buyers who contact you, one is offering a weapon instead of cash. CraigsList quit allowing the sale of firearms a long while ago. Sure, you can take one in payment, but you can't list your item for sale that way.
 
2013-04-24 01:09:20 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?



The serial number on a firearm is completely useless unless it is listed in a database along with the name of the owner. Contrary to what most Americans believe, a gun could be found at the scene of a crime with it's serial number intact and that means nothing. There isn't some hyper-advanced computer system like on CSI that holds all knowledge in the universe. There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.
 
2013-04-24 01:12:06 PM  
frankencj:I've heard you can purchase/trade all sorts of illegal items on craigslist, is this true?

Not guns.  The Craigslist community will flag ads selling guns very quickly and they will disappear.

/paintball guns included
 
2013-04-24 01:12:15 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: OK, that's all well and good. But I still dont see why registering it is such a big deal. You are free to take part in those activities. But before doing so you should have to gain that priviledge by proving you're not crazy...


Because it's an exercise in futility. Ted Bundy killed more than 30 women using little more than his bare hands or an iron rod. If supposed victim number 7 or 8 had a gun on her, history might've turned out a little differently, and only police investigators would know who he is as a two-bit serial killer who was killed by one of his would-be victims.

Some people are going to kill other people - there will never be enough laws you can pass that will ever prevent that from happening, and mass/serial murderers will find ever-more creative ways of getting around whatever laws you want to pass to try to stop them or limit their tools available to them. They don't care about the law - they'll break it anyway, and taking away tools from law-abiding people will make the murderers' jobs easier.
 
2013-04-24 01:12:29 PM  

weiserfireman: justtray: weiserfireman: An M-4 is a type of weapon that is commonly called an Assault rifle. If I change the upper receiver and barrel, I can change it to a different caliber. .22LR, 9mm, 7.62mm and on and on. The caliber doesn't change the rifle's appearance or function. Just it's appearance. Each of those rounds can be fired in weapons without the style or appearance of an assault rifle. That doesn't make those weapons assault rifles either.

Assault rifle was a term the military came up with to describe a basic infantry weapon that had a common collection of features. Semi-automatic rifle with full-auto capability, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. Civilians, who liked the appearance of the military weapons, started buying weapons that looked like military rifles, but weren't, because they lacked the full-auto capability

Sounds like you answered your own question. Any gun that has simply been converted from full auto capability (having that function turned off) is still an assault rifle.

Now where's the confusion?

An assault rifle has a selective fire switch.  It lets you turn the full auto on and off at will.

A civilian version of the same weapon is mechanically different.   It doesn't have the full auto capability at all.   It takes someone who knows what they are doing, and several mechanical parts to change the gun to selective fire capability.

Just possession or manufacturing of the parts, without appropriate licensing, is treated by the ATF, and Federal Law, as the same as having an unregistered machine gun.   Major prison terms are involved.    You can't go to a gun show and "buy a kit"


So, now, I've changed the definition from selective fire to any gun that previously had selective fire.

Again, I ask, where's the confusion?
 
2013-04-24 01:13:25 PM  

numbquil: Mimic_Octopus: you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?


The serial number on a firearm is completely useless unless it is listed in a database along with the name of the owner. Contrary to what most Americans believe, a gun could be found at the scene of a crime with it's serial number intact and that means nothing. There isn't some hyper-advanced computer system like on CSI that holds all knowledge in the universe. There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.


Really. So the fact that a law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer, who can name the distributor, who can name the dealer, who can look up the gun and purchaser info in their ATF bound book (or the ATF can do this themselves once the Dealer's records are turned over to the ATF upon closing), means that it's completely useless? Good to know.
 
2013-04-24 01:14:26 PM  

numbquil: There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.


While this is absolutely true, do you feel that it should be this way?
 
2013-04-24 01:15:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: AngryJailhouseFistfark: This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.

...and the guy with a few guns in his van outside that DIDN'T buy a table? He's not allowed to conduct private business in the parking lot, after meeting a few people inside?


I suppose that's all subject to the laws of whatever state where that's happening. I'm sure it would piss off the people running the show and they'd call the law on you, though again, not sure just what law may apply. But it's also what some might call TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion of the the gun shows. What if I meet a guy in the gun show who offers to meet me at his van and sell me meth, or a lemur, or a wet, sloppy, toothless blowjob from his grandma, again, all in the parking lot? Laws pertaining to sales at a gun show really have nothing to do with that either.
 
2013-04-24 01:15:33 PM  

numbquil: Mimic_Octopus: you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?



The classic film "The Diary of Anne Skank" comes to mind....
 
2013-04-24 01:16:16 PM  

FlashHarry: shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.

so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?


Well informed.

Why would an islamo-fascist try to buy a gun at a gun show when they can claim to be part of a Mexican cartel and buy them at a discount from the DOJ?
 
2013-04-24 01:16:31 PM  

frankencj: justtray: It's really telling/crazy that so many gun nuts think it's their right to sell their guns to their friends without any type of restriction. They don't see the glaringly obvious problem with this.

And how would we enforce it? Easily, with registration. We find a gun not registered to the person holding it, and if it wasn't stolen, the owner is liable for the actions just like the criminal. That will stop straw purchases and private transfers real quick.

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Bean bottle? You're racist.

California did just that.  And.....I would not cry if the 21st amendment were repealed.


You should actually research the SKS situation before you derp some lies.

Show me a source of even one person having their SKS confiscated. Not bought back, but actually confiscated.

The SKS ban only impacted one version of the gun, and only applied to weapons not registered before the ban went into effect in 1992.

This lie gets thrown out so much as an example that I haev this link favorited to clear up this BS.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.sht ml
 
2013-04-24 01:16:31 PM  

justtray: weiserfireman: justtray: weiserfireman: An M-4 is a type of weapon that is commonly called an Assault rifle. If I change the upper receiver and barrel, I can change it to a different caliber. .22LR, 9mm, 7.62mm and on and on. The caliber doesn't change the rifle's appearance or function. Just it's appearance. Each of those rounds can be fired in weapons without the style or appearance of an assault rifle. That doesn't make those weapons assault rifles either.

Assault rifle was a term the military came up with to describe a basic infantry weapon that had a common collection of features. Semi-automatic rifle with full-auto capability, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. Civilians, who liked the appearance of the military weapons, started buying weapons that looked like military rifles, but weren't, because they lacked the full-auto capability

Sounds like you answered your own question. Any gun that has simply been converted from full auto capability (having that function turned off) is still an assault rifle.

Now where's the confusion?

An assault rifle has a selective fire switch.  It lets you turn the full auto on and off at will.

A civilian version of the same weapon is mechanically different.   It doesn't have the full auto capability at all.   It takes someone who knows what they are doing, and several mechanical parts to change the gun to selective fire capability.

Just possession or manufacturing of the parts, without appropriate licensing, is treated by the ATF, and Federal Law, as the same as having an unregistered machine gun.   Major prison terms are involved.    You can't go to a gun show and "buy a kit"

So, now, I've changed the definition from selective fire to any gun that previously had selective fire.

Again, I ask, where's the confusion?


Uhm, civilian ARs never had select-fire. They were built with mechanical changes to prevent full auto. They just LOOK like the military version. So, let's stop playing word games and admit it. you are scared by the appearance of the weapon and want to ban the scary thing.
 
2013-04-24 01:17:13 PM  

vudutek: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Yup, all they need to do is a 'private seller' transaction, no check required.


He said WITH a background check....basically the background check won't stop a terrorist.
 
2013-04-24 01:18:27 PM  

holdeestrufs: What about pressure cookers?  Bags of fertilizer?


Hmm, terrorists should really just buy a fertilizer factory near a city and have a... "industrial accident."

/Oops, our bad. Well, maybe we can rebuild in the next town.
 
2013-04-24 01:18:51 PM  
With him basically just repeating all the usual gun grabber lies/talking points like that, this video just comes off as some kind of Brady Campain viral marketing stunt.

/Not saying that the Brady Campain/gun grabber types would give money to a Al Qaeda just to push their beliefs.
//Of course they would.
///Al Qaeda doesn't like armed victims either.
 
2013-04-24 01:19:19 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Treygreen13: So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

I would say virtually impossible. The only way I can imagine is to have an enormous penalty if the firearm can be traced to you and you don't have record of having performed a check on the person to whom you sold it. Thus the onus is on the seller to be absolutely certain they've done due diligence and recorded the sale. If the firearm you sold is found used in a crime and it has not been formally transferred with a background check, you get a ass-whoopin'.

That will require a registry that will tie people to the serial numbers. Not sure that'll fly.


Or a backdated, handwritten bill of sale. 'Of course I sold it before the law took effect... just look at this here paperwork.

/Don't actually have a problem with requiring background checks for private sales, as long as there's a reasonable exemption for transactions between family members (who presumptively know whether the buyer/receiver is eligible to own)
//Still don't think it's really enforceable
///See fifth amendment--we can't even prosecute criminals who fail to register illegal weapons because it would violate the 5th
 
2013-04-24 01:20:37 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Nabb1: Bontesla:

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Hasn't got a damn thing to do with this?

I think his point is that enumerated Constitutional rights can be limited. Just like how automatic weapons and explosives are restricted, yet somehow the 2nd Amendment is still effective.


There is still a significant difference. If you shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and cause a panic, you still have a right to face your accusers and get your day in court before suffering any consequences. That's far different than simply having your name put on a list by the government. Ted Kennedy ran into problems when these lists first started because he had met with Sinn Fein back in the 1980's.
 
2013-04-24 01:20:40 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: DrExplosion: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.

I'd also add that hurting or even killing people isn't inherently illegal or immoral. People tend to forget that part.

Target shooting is legal, hunting is legal, shooting a rapist is legal. Guns are good at all of these things.

OK, that's all well and good. But I still dont see why registering it is such a big deal. You are free to take part in those activities. But before doing so you should have to gain that priviledge by proving you're not crazy...and just to be sure we're going to record your serial #s so authorities can inquire if your gun is found at a crime scene.
Any for the record...you do NOT need a fully auto weapon to do any of the things you mentioned.


This has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons. No proposal has been made to changes laws in regard to fully automatic weapons. You already have to pay money to the ATF for a special tax stamp and have your fully automatic weapon registered. The registration includes the ATF keeping one of your fired casings so if your weapon is used in a crime they already have a fired casing to compare it to. This argument is about semi-automatic weapons that fire one (1) bullet each time you pull the trigger. The trigger must be fully released and then pulled again to fire each round.
 
2013-04-24 01:20:43 PM  

goodolboy71: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

You don't really believe this do you?  If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"


Skyd1v: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

That is a very strange thing to say.  It makes...no sense whatsoever.


Dimensio: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?


Assault weapons use an intermediate sized round and a detachable magazine. These weapons were developed during/after WW2 as a solution to replace the common battle rifle of that war. A smaller bullet is used, but the high velocity is maintained. This reduces the ammo and rifle weight considerably. The rifle weights dropped 30% (10lb M1 to 7lb M16) and the ammunition dropped by half. The detachable magazines made ammunition loading much simpler than loading clips and more rounds could be fired before having to reload. With the use of large magazines some assault weapons were made select-fire, allowing continued firing or burst firing. Despite what you saw in Rambo, it is difficult to control the barrel of a rifle when firing on full automatic (and it empties the magazine very quickly). Suppressing fire is best done by light machine guns fired from a mount or bipod. Actual combat rifles are almost NEVER used in full auto. There is no accuracy that way. Single shots or 3 round bursts are what actual soldiers use in battle.
The reason they are called assault weapons is because the weapon is lighter, but still very lethal due to velocity and the soldier can carry a lot more ammunition due to the lighter weight. People assuming that mean looking guns are fully automatic just shows how ignorant the population really is.
 
2013-04-24 01:21:29 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: I suppose that's all subject to the laws of whatever state where that's happening. I'm sure it would piss off the people running the show and they'd call the law on you, though again, not sure just what law may apply. But it's also what some might call TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion of the the gun shows. What if I meet a guy in the gun show who offers to meet me at his van and sell me meth, or a lemur, or a wet, sloppy, toothless blowjob from his grandma, again, all in the parking lot? Laws pertaining to sales at a gun show really have nothing to do with that either.


I understand your point, but the thing is, the sale of illegal drugs, endangered species, and services of a prostitute are illegal. Gun sales are not.

There is also nothing illegal about one of the "accessories" vendors selling an item or two (or six) in the parking lot instead of on the floor, and the gun show owners would have no reason to care since their vendor fee is paid.
 
2013-04-24 01:21:55 PM  

rrife: vudutek: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Yup, all they need to do is a 'private seller' transaction, no check required.

He said WITH a background check....basically the background check won't stop a terrorist.


And why would it? If they're citizens or have the proper non-resident alien paperwork, and have never committed a crime, then they're free to buy whatever they wish. They can even buy a farm as an excuse to buy Amonium Nitrate and so on.  Amazingly, in this country, we don't deny people their rights for looking funny or maybe being a terrorist or a bad guy until they have done something wrong, and been convicted of it.  Scary, I know.
 
2013-04-24 01:22:12 PM  

GanjSmokr: frankencj:I've heard you can purchase/trade all sorts of illegal items on craigslist, is this true?

Not guns.  The Craigslist community will flag ads selling guns very quickly and they will disappear.

/paintball guns included


You can use them as payment easily though.
Search for "things that go boom" on your local CL.
You can buy motorcycles, cars, tools, sports equipment all for the price of a boom.
Even if you don't list that you are looking for "things that go boom" people still offer them to you in trade.

An email i recently got to trade for a Yamaha Triple

any chance you would trade me for a month old Baby Desert Eagle 9mm with case, chamber lock, small cleaning kit, sift in belt holster and 4 magazines. I have shot 100 rounds through it but my son wants a bike. I paid $650 plus tax and $20 each for the 3 extra mags. She is all steel and is a very nice shooting pistol.
 
2013-04-24 01:25:03 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: DrExplosion: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker has a well-stated purpose outside of bomb-making.
Let me guess...you use your gun to crack open walnuts?

A gun can be used to intentionally hurt people.
A pressure cooker can be used to intentionally hurt people.

Would-be perpetrators of violence don't really care what an object's manufactured purpose is.

I'd also add that hurting or even killing people isn't inherently illegal or immoral. People tend to forget that part.

Target shooting is legal, hunting is legal, shooting a rapist is legal. Guns are good at all of these things.

OK, that's all well and good. But I still dont see why registering it is such a big deal. You are free to take part in those activities. But before doing so you should have to gain that priviledge by proving you're not crazy...and just to be sure we're going to record your serial #s so authorities can inquire if your gun is found at a crime scene.
Any for the record...you do NOT need a fully auto weapon to do any of the things you mentioned.


Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right. Having that right is the default state, and the government can only take away such a right through due process. Our entire system of government is based on this. "Innocent until proven guilty," "beyond a reasonable doubt," and so on. The burden is on the state to prove that you can't be trusted, and a reasonable person recognizes and accepts the fact that this will allow bad people to slip through the cracks. To a libertarian mindset, this should be considered an acceptable trade-off to ensure that innocent people don't have their rights infringed upon by the government.

Registration is a no-go because it's an invasion of my privacy and the first step to confiscation, and that there are plenty of legislators who want that confiscation.

And for the record, shooting full-auto is a hell of a lot of fun and a great way to convert ammunition into noise. I might not need a fully automatic weapon, but I sure as hell would like one just to go out shooting. As it stands, though, guns are too expensive a hobby for me to use them for fun. My only guns are heirlooms and a cheap, practical little number I keep in case I need to kill someone.
 
2013-04-24 01:26:17 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: ox45tallboy: AngryJailhouseFistfark: This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.

...and the guy with a few guns in his van outside that DIDN'T buy a table? He's not allowed to conduct private business in the parking lot, after meeting a few people inside?

I suppose that's all subject to the laws of whatever state where that's happening. I'm sure it would piss off the people running the show and they'd call the law on you, though again, not sure just what law may apply. But it's also what some might call TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion of the the gun shows. What if I meet a guy in the gun show who offers to meet me at his van and sell me meth, or a lemur, or a wet, sloppy, toothless blowjob from his grandma, again, all in the parking lot? Laws pertaining to sales at a gun show really have nothing to do with that either.


The guy with the van wears a sign advertising what he has for sale as he walks around the gun show. The gun shows in Arizona didn't have any problem with this type of sellIng, much less call the police. For those that have never been they are being described fairly accurately, but the ease of acquiring a weapon without any paperwork is being downplayed considerably. If you can't pass a background check you can get pretty much anything you want for a 100 to 750 dollar price premium. I'm guessing about 750 extra for a background check free AR, it could be less.
 
2013-04-24 01:27:19 PM  

ox45tallboy: AngryJailhouseFistfark: This has been my experience at The Nation's Gunshow in the Northern Virgina. Nearly all the real shootin' iron I've seen there is sold by dealers. Some exotic or relic firearms (like WWI or WWII firearms) is sold by private sellers, and as he said, most of the private sellers are peddling accessories and What Not. You have to rent a table to sell your stuff there. If you're just selling one or two common items, I can't imagine it's worth the expense to sell at a show.

...and the guy with a few guns in his van outside that DIDN'T buy a table? He's not allowed to conduct private business in the parking lot, after meeting a few people inside?


My friend got his Walther P38 sort of that way - the guns on the table were "just displays - not for sale", until you suggested maybe meeting up outside in row 13...
 
2013-04-24 01:28:12 PM  

ox45tallboy: AngryJailhouseFistfark: I suppose that's all subject to the laws of whatever state where that's happening. I'm sure it would piss off the people running the show and they'd call the law on you, though again, not sure just what law may apply. But it's also what some might call TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion of the the gun shows. What if I meet a guy in the gun show who offers to meet me at his van and sell me meth, or a lemur, or a wet, sloppy, toothless blowjob from his grandma, again, all in the parking lot? Laws pertaining to sales at a gun show really have nothing to do with that either.

I understand your point, but the thing is, the sale of illegal drugs, endangered species, and services of a prostitute are illegal. Gun sales are not.

There is also nothing illegal about one of the "accessories" vendors selling an item or two (or six) in the parking lot instead of on the floor, and the gun show owners would have no reason to care since their vendor fee is paid.


Most gun shows i've been to, there're police all over the place. Yes, you can buy privately, but sales usually are checked ont he way out by cops. Also, most places i've been don't like deals done in the parking lot.

Then again, I don't think universal background checks are bad, as long as they are done in such a way as to pose minimal inconvenience and allow the end seller to access the system directly to do it.
 
2013-04-24 01:28:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.

While this is absolutely true, do you feel that it should be this way?


I don't really care either way but I understand why some people don't one. There multiple arguments against it. Some claim that a database could be used to confiscate firearms in the future. Personally, I'm more worried about being framed for a crime. Especially if such a system included turning over a fired casing from your firearm. Someone who commited a crime could snatch some casings from a shooting range and at the very least slow down the investigation by sending police on a wild goose chase. And the way that people are tried by the media and the court of public opinion these days, a few casings from your gun may be enough to convict you when the public demands your head on a platter.
 
2013-04-24 01:29:43 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


I suspect that as long as their money is green, they are down with the brown.
 
2013-04-24 01:29:55 PM  
What if the bad guy looks white and speaks Chechen? What if the redneck dealer is a huge fan of Red Heat?
WHAT THEN???
 
2013-04-24 01:31:44 PM  

Theory Of Null: What if the bad guy looks white and speaks Chechen? What if the redneck dealer is a huge fan of Red Heat?
WHAT THEN???


A reality TV show called "Bubba and Hadji"?
 
2013-04-24 01:33:11 PM  
noitsnot: You blew it when you added "inherently". Hurting people and killing people are both inherently illegal.

"Inherent" means "in and of itself" or "pertaining to the basic nature of" something. So just plain shooting someone or punching someone in the face is illegal.

It's only when you add extenuating conditions, such as, "My life was in imminent danger, so I shot the intruder", or "The state of Texas is executing you for the crime of murder", that the killing is not illegal.


"Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" i.e. always, every time. If there are exceptions, any circumstances under which hurting or killing someone can be legal, then hurting or killing people is not inherently illegal.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here, but your argument against my use of the word "inherently" is weak at best.
 
2013-04-24 01:37:35 PM  

Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.


Don't go being factual.  The left has gone to a great deal of effort to portray gun shows as an open air market where everything short of a sub-launched ICBM is available no questions asked.

Pointing out that the overwhelming number of participants at gun shows are licensed dealers (even if they don't have a storefront) and thus must by law do background checks is going off message and that cannot be allowed.

Also, you can find fully automatic weapons at most gun shows.  All you need to purchase one is ATF approval, signature of your local LE chief, pass a background check, get fingerprinted and photographed, register the weapon, pay a tax, and have tens of thousands in cash.
 
2013-04-24 01:37:43 PM  

DrExplosion: Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.


So is my freedom of speech. However, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and I can't mislabel a product I'm selling. For that matter, I can't broadcast over the air until I jump through a lot of hoops to get a license and then follow a bunch of rules, including access to advertising by both political parties, as well as "decency standards". Failure to follow these rules and keep my license fees paid up means I can lose my First Amendment right.

And the First Amendment doesn't even have the word "regulated".
 
2013-04-24 01:40:02 PM  

Bravo Two: numbquil: Mimic_Octopus: you are a puppet: Treygreen13: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

So how are you going to enforce a background check for private face-to-face dealings?

How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?


The serial number on a firearm is completely useless unless it is listed in a database along with the name of the owner. Contrary to what most Americans believe, a gun could be found at the scene of a crime with it's serial number intact and that means nothing. There isn't some hyper-advanced computer system like on CSI that holds all knowledge in the universe. There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.

Really. So the fact that a law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer, who can name the distributor, who can name the dealer, who can look up the gun and purchaser info in their ATF bound book (or the ATF can do this themselves once the Dealer's records are turned over to the ATF upon closing), means that it's completely useless? Good to know.



And identfying the original purchaser proves nothing about who used the firearm to commit a crime. Only FFL holders are required to keep such a book. The firearm could have been transferred to various owners over several years. Requiring a background check in private sales wouldn't do anything to change this either because the serial number is not required for a background check and private sellers still wouldn't be required to keep a bound book.
 
2013-04-24 01:40:59 PM  

Hydra: JohnnyCanuck: OK, that's all well and good. But I still dont see why registering it is such a big deal. You are free to take part in those activities. But before doing so you should have to gain that priviledge by proving you're not crazy...

Because it's an exercise in futility. Ted Bundy killed more than 30 women using little more than his bare hands or an iron rod. If supposed victim number 7 or 8 had a gun on her, history might've turned out a little differently, and only police investigators would know who he is as a two-bit serial killer who was killed by one of his would-be victims.

Some people are going to kill other people - there will never be enough laws you can pass that will ever prevent that from happening, and mass/serial murderers will find ever-more creative ways of getting around whatever laws you want to pass to try to stop them or limit their tools available to them. They don't care about the law - they'll break it anyway, and taking away tools from law-abiding people will make the murderers' jobs easier.


No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.
 
2013-04-24 01:42:04 PM  

JustGetItRight: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Don't go being factual.  The left has gone to a great deal of effort to portray gun shows as an open air market where everything short of a sub-launched ICBM is available no questions asked.

Pointing out that the overwhelming number of participants at gun shows are licensed dealers (even if they don't have a storefront) and thus must by law do background checks is going off message and that cannot be allowed.

Also, you can find fully automatic weapons at most gun shows.  All you need to purchase one is ATF approval, signature of your local LE chief, pass a background check, get fingerprinted and photographed, register the weapon, pay a tax, and have tens of thousands in cash.


So I couldn't buy an AK 47 at my local gun show with no questions or background checks?
 
2013-04-24 01:42:09 PM  

macadamnut: What a Muslim at a gun show may look like.


Quite a few Muslims have a skin tone less like clevon little and more like the sheet
 
2013-04-24 01:42:21 PM  
So the guy made the statement in 2011 and inspired absolutely no one to actually go out and do it?

Color me scurred.
 
2013-04-24 01:43:35 PM  

kapaso: So I couldn't buy an AK 47 at my local gun show with no questions or background checks?


Nope.  You might be able to buy an AKM, though.  Probably be a WASR.
 
2013-04-24 01:44:41 PM  

Bravo Two: Most gun shows i've been to, there're police all over the place. Yes, you can buy privately, but sales usually are checked ont he way out by cops. Also, most places i've been don't like deals done in the parking lot.

Then again, I don't think universal background checks are bad, as long as they are done in such a way as to pose minimal inconvenience and allow the end seller to access the system directly to do it.


I could go on about just meeting up there and examining the merchandise and conducting the sale off site later that day, but you and I both know that ANY regulations put up where there are private transactions will likely be ignored, not just by those wishing to do illegal things with their guns, but honest, good people who wouldn't do bad things with guns but who distrust any kind of government involvement for fear that they might wind up on a registry and confiscation of their guns could be forced.

I don't know what the answer is. But I do believe we should focus on making people responsible to who they sell to. If a gun used in a crime can be traced back to a private seller that had the ability to perform a background check which would have negated the sale, but didn't, that person should be charged as an accessory to the crime. However, this means that somewhere there must be a record of the sale, or at least the background check, and many gun owners do not like that for the above stated reasons.

I just can't understand why so many people are willing to wash their hands of responsibility when they sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one, and he uses it to kill people.
 
2013-04-24 01:45:07 PM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


Odd thing about that billboard there is no gun show loophole in MA, person to person sales are all logged with paperwork and the seller has to check the license, there is also an assault weapons ban, mag limit and approved gun list. It's probably the second most restrictive state in the US. It has one of the lowest gun crime stats, but that is mostly due to not being next to Mexico, and educated population with good incomes and good social services; that makes crime in general lower.
Anyone brown and Muslim is not going to have much luck buying a gun anywhere in the US legally without a license.
 
2013-04-24 01:47:09 PM  
So I couldn't buy an AK 47 at my local gun show with no questions or background checks?

There would be questions...how many boxes of ammo do you want with that? How bout a silencer? Night vision scope?
 
2013-04-24 01:47:38 PM  

numbquil: Someone who commited a crime could snatch some casings from a shooting range and at the very least slow down the investigation by sending police on a wild goose chase. And the way that people are tried by the media and the court of public opinion these days, a few casings from your gun may be enough to convict you when the public demands your head on a platter.


That's definitely a good point. I would have hated to have been carrying a black backpack in Boston last Monday after the attacks - look at what happened to the poor high school kids on the cover of the NY Post, not to mention reddit and 4chan's well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong "investigations".

Shell casings are even harder evidence that "being one of a few million people that had the same color backpack".
 
2013-04-24 01:48:05 PM  

Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.



Who is this "we" and "our" that you refer to, settler?
 
2013-04-24 01:48:55 PM  

numbquil: Requiring a background check in private sales wouldn't do anything to change this either because the serial number is not required for a background check and private sellers still wouldn't be required to keep a bound book.


Registration would take care of that, but registration is Bad.
 
2013-04-24 01:49:26 PM  

ox45tallboy: DrExplosion: Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.

So is my freedom of speech. However, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and I can't mislabel a product I'm selling. For that matter, I can't broadcast over the air until I jump through a lot of hoops to get a license and then follow a bunch of rules, including access to advertising by both political parties, as well as "decency standards". Failure to follow these rules and keep my license fees paid up means I can lose my First Amendment right.

And the First Amendment doesn't even have the word "regulated".


Yeah, you can. If there's a fire, you're fine. If there's not and people panic, you get to be punished for it.  You're restricted from inciting panic, not from the behavior itself.
 
2013-04-24 01:49:30 PM  

Molavian: kapaso: So I couldn't buy an AK 47 at my local gun show with no questions or background checks?

Nope.  You might be able to buy an AKM, though.  Probably be a WASR.


You might be surprised the prices are so high, that people are starting to sell off some of thier collections. I'm actually going to the local show to unload some of mine. Gun fever can't last forever.
 
2013-04-24 01:51:24 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.


Save for when registries have been used in NY, CA, and other states to confiscate guns...
 
2013-04-24 01:51:51 PM  

ox45tallboy: DrExplosion: Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.

So is my freedom of speech. However, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and I can't mislabel a product I'm selling. For that matter, I can't broadcast over the air until I jump through a lot of hoops to get a license and then follow a bunch of rules, including access to advertising by both political parties, as well as "decency standards". Failure to follow these rules and keep my license fees paid up means I can lose my First Amendment right.

And the First Amendment doesn't even have the word "regulated"


So you would be fine if those who were on the terrorist watch list lost all their rights under the constitution since there are common sense limits? It would be perfectly fine with you if everyone on that list including the four year olds and grannies were shipped to gitmo to be waterboarded? Is that what you are saying. The terrorist watch list has pretty much been deemed laughable by anyone with a brain. You either are a terrorist or you are not. So someone should be prevented from buying a gun from being on this list that the government won't even release statistics about or tell the American people what the criteria are for ending up on this list. It's a good idea for a loophole around the 2nd amendment. Just make it so that anyone on the list can't buy firearms, then add everyone to the list.

Unfortunately for anti-gunners like you, the constitution prevents the government from taking away the rights of American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime. You cannot even compare this to someone awaiting trial either. The people on this watch list aren't even charged with any crime.
 
2013-04-24 01:53:14 PM  

DrExplosion: JohnnyCanuck: DrExplosion: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: The problem with dumbass arguements like this is that a pressure cooker
...
Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.


A right that needs to go bye-bye, at least in it's current form. Half the Bill of Rights is bullshiat at this point - your freedom is being heinously violated in so many other ways that the Con+BoR doesn't cover (privacy / surveillance).

Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

Registration is a no-go because it's an invasion of my privacy and the first step to confiscation, and that there are plenty of legislators who want that confiscation.

That is retarded. Anything is "the first step" towards something else. Free speech is the first step towards anarchy.
 
2013-04-24 01:54:08 PM  

madgonad: goodolboy71: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

You don't really believe this do you?  If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

Skyd1v: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

That is a very strange thing to say.  It makes...no sense whatsoever.

Dimensio: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?

Assault weapons use an intermediate sized round and a detachable magazine. These weapons were developed during/after WW2 as a solution to replace the common battle rifle of that war. A smaller bullet is used, but the high velocity is maintained. This reduces the ammo and rifle weight considerably. The rifle weights dropped 30% (10lb M1 to 7lb M16) and the ammunition dropped by half. The detachable magazines made ammunition loading much simpler than loading clips and more rounds could be fired before having to reload. With the use of large magazines some assault weapons were made select-fire, allowing continued firing or burst firing. Despite wha ...


Nothing in that denotes that a certain round is considered an assault around.  It has nothing to due with Caliber. You can get a single shot break open action rifle that shoots .223/5.56. Would that be considered an assault weapon?

There are AR15 variants that shoot .22LR,9mm, 45 ACP, 308/7.62, 6.5, 6.8, 260, etc. You can also get bolt action or single shot rifles that shot the same bullet, as well as pistols for the 9mm and .45....bullet caliber does not  make rifle  an "assault weapon"
 
2013-04-24 01:55:03 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.


Manufacturers are already required to fire off a round from every gun they make for the ballistics record. Your point is moot.


Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.

Except that registrys are always the first logical step towards any form of confiscation (for the government to know what guns to take, it must know from whom to take them), so no straws there.
 
2013-04-24 01:55:17 PM  

Bravo Two: JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.

Save for when registries have been used in NY, CA, and other states to confiscate guns...


From whom? For what?

Citation please.

You make it sound like a guy registered his gun and as soon as he signed the last document the registry was all like, "Haha..we got you now! We're taking your guns, dummy!"
 
2013-04-24 01:55:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: DrExplosion: Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.

So is my freedom of speech. However, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and I can't mislabel a product I'm selling. For that matter, I can't broadcast over the air until I jump through a lot of hoops to get a license and then follow a bunch of rules, including access to advertising by both political parties, as well as "decency standards". Failure to follow these rules and keep my license fees paid up means I can lose my First Amendment right.

And the First Amendment doesn't even have the word "regulated".


I just wanted to add the fact that being on the terrorist watch list won't prevent you from buying a gun highlights the absurdity of the terrorist watch list. It's not effective as ammo for an argument against current gun laws.
 
2013-04-24 01:56:04 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


Wrong.
"military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." 
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle
 
2013-04-24 01:57:30 PM  

noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.


In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?
 
2013-04-24 01:57:44 PM  

goodolboy71: bullet caliber does not make rifle an "assault weapon"


We're talking about the derp surround "assault-looking" and "assault-like" weapons and how eliminating these will solve all the problems of the world. Logic has no place here.

You're thinking too clearly, goodolboy71, go home and drink.
 
2013-04-24 01:59:01 PM  

Hydra: JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Manufacturers are already required to fire off a round from every gun they make for the ballistics record. Your point is moot.


Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.

Except that registrys are always the first logical step towards any form of confiscation (for the government to know what guns to take, it must know from whom to take them), so no straws there.


"Always", eh? Sounds like it happens pretty often. Can you please give some examples?
 
2013-04-24 02:00:07 PM  

wambu: You're thinking too clearly, goodolboy71, go home and drink.


Its a slow day at the office, why not just start here at work.
 
2013-04-24 02:02:01 PM  

markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?


Unfortunately, it is still unlawful  in this country to deprive someone (specifically a citizen) of their rights without some sort of legal process. At least on paper anyway...
 
2013-04-24 02:02:30 PM  

Hydra: Manufacturers are already required to fire off a round from every gun they make for the ballistics record. Your point is moot.


What the heck good does that do if there is no reasonable or possible way to connect that gun to the owner who purchased it?

"Well cheif, we know the gun used to murder this family was made by S&W and was sold within the U.S. I think we have to interview all the citizens. I'll start in R.I. and you start in California...we'll meet in Texas."
 
2013-04-24 02:04:17 PM  
If it's that easy why hasn't it happened yet?

Could it be the threat from muslin terrorists is exaggerated?
 
2013-04-24 02:07:08 PM  

numbquil: So you would be fine if those who were on the terrorist watch list lost all their rights under the constitution since there are common sense limits? It would be perfectly fine with you if everyone on that list including the four year olds and grannies were shipped to gitmo to be waterboarded? Is that what you are saying. The terrorist watch list has pretty much been deemed laughable by anyone with a brain. You either are a terrorist or you are not. So someone should be prevented from buying a gun from being on this list that the government won't even release statistics about or tell the American people what the criteria are for ending up on this list. It's a good idea for a loophole around the 2nd amendment. Just make it so that anyone on the list can't buy firearms, then add everyone to the list.

Unfortunately for anti-gunners like you, the constitution prevents the government from taking away the rights of American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime. You cannot even compare this to someone awaiting trial either. The people on this watch list aren't even charged with any crime.


Invoking the "Terrorist Watch List" is a bit of deflection on your part, as is calling me an "anti-gunner".

I am actually a gun owner, and there are two other guns in the same house as I am - a .38 and a 12-guage (I think the .22 is in the trunk of the car, but I'm not sure).

I'm only suggesting that making weapons that are designed for the purpose of killing available to any and all comers with no regulation is perhaps not a good idea. I can pass a background check. So can my sister and brother-in-law. So can my other sister and her husband. So can my mother and father. Increasing the number of background checks will not affect me or my family at all. We'll still have our guns, thank you very much.
 
2013-04-24 02:10:28 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: A pressure cooker can be used to cook...using pressure, I assume.
A gun can be used to...ummm...kill things...and umm...pretend to kill things....and ummm...open walnuts.

You see the difference there, Cletus?


Not to someone who intends to use the pressure cooker to harm someone.  That's the point I just made.
 
2013-04-24 02:11:18 PM  

robbiex0r: If it's that easy why hasn't it happened yet?


How could anyone know it hasn't happened yet?!? There is no way of knowing. That's the issue.

Could it be the threat from muslin terrorists is exaggerated?

Agreed!
 
2013-04-24 02:12:11 PM  

GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?


I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.
 
2013-04-24 02:12:30 PM  

numbquil: I just wanted to add the fact that being on the terrorist watch list won't prevent you from buying a gun highlights the absurdity of the terrorist watch list. It's not effective as ammo for an argument against current gun laws.


Oh, I agree with this statement.

I think the best thing that can be said about the terrorist watch list is, "Hey, at least it's something, and it does catch a few people every now and again, even though it inconveniences far more."
 
2013-04-24 02:18:21 PM  

noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.


It's less a "pick apart the details" thing as it is a "try to determine unintended consequences" or "actually think about the details of a suggested solution before going further" thing.

If you aren't going to require complete registration, does partial registration really do any good?
 
2013-04-24 02:18:38 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: A pressure cooker can be used to cook...using pressure, I assume.
A gun can be used to...ummm...kill things...and umm...pretend to kill things....and ummm...open walnuts.

You see the difference there, Cletus?

Not to someone who intends to use the pressure cooker to harm someone.  That's the point I just made.


Ahh...ok, umm....moving on to points that are actually valid, or at least make sense.....

So if you were a white, christian american who had a momentary lapse of reason and decided to murder his wife....you think you would do so with a pressure bomb or with your gun?
What about a pipe bomb? We going to ban pipe? Car bombs? etc? You can make a bomb out of anything. All of those things, however, have an intended use and were manipulated. A gun's purpose is to shoot. Not to make stew.

\so you do open walnuts?
 
2013-04-24 02:18:48 PM  

Cletus C.: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.


Actually true assault weapons really aren't either high powered or crazy-assed.. Most assault weapons have rounds that range between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm the low end is a little bigger than a .22 around. powder charge is also reduced so they are a slower round than most. Not trying to invalidate your argument I just hate that certain types of guns get blamed for "gun violence" and they are actually in the extreme minority of the guns used to commit gun violence. A 12ga with 00 buck loads does a hell of a lot more damage.
5 rounds in a standard shotgun w/o a plug
00 buck contains 9 8.3mm pellets
Rem 1100 12ga can fire all 5 shells in about 2 sec maybe 3
Lets recap:
That's 45 8.3mm rounds going down range in 2-3 sec. Standard banana clip in an AR15 is 20 rounds so you have to reload twice. Ill stick with my 12ga thank you very much. There's a reason they call em street sweepers.
 
2013-04-24 02:19:27 PM  

noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.


Criminals are not required to register guns. See fifth amendment and Haynes v. US. To require a criminal to register their weapons violates his or her right against self-incrimination.
 
2013-04-24 02:20:24 PM  

DrExplosion: noitsnot: You blew it when you added "inherently". Hurting people and killing people are both inherently illegal.

"Inherent" means "in and of itself" or "pertaining to the basic nature of" something. So just plain shooting someone or punching someone in the face is illegal.

It's only when you add extenuating conditions, such as, "My life was in imminent danger, so I shot the intruder", or "The state of Texas is executing you for the crime of murder", that the killing is not illegal.

"Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" i.e. always, every time. If there are exceptions, any circumstances under which hurting or killing someone can be legal, then hurting or killing people is not inherently illegal.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here, but your argument against my use of the word "inherently" is weak at best.


I did not understand the definition of "inherent" properly. You are right, my bad!
 
2013-04-24 02:20:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
"Let that be a lesson to the rest of you...nuts!"
 
2013-04-24 02:22:31 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: So you would be fine if those who were on the terrorist watch list lost all their rights under the constitution since there are common sense limits? It would be perfectly fine with you if everyone on that list including the four year olds and grannies were shipped to gitmo to be waterboarded? Is that what you are saying. The terrorist watch list has pretty much been deemed laughable by anyone with a brain. You either are a terrorist or you are not. So someone should be prevented from buying a gun from being on this list that the government won't even release statistics about or tell the American people what the criteria are for ending up on this list. It's a good idea for a loophole around the 2nd amendment. Just make it so that anyone on the list can't buy firearms, then add everyone to the list.

Unfortunately for anti-gunners like you, the constitution prevents the government from taking away the rights of American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime. You cannot even compare this to someone awaiting trial either. The people on this watch list aren't even charged with any crime.

Invoking the "Terrorist Watch List" is a bit of deflection on your part, as is calling me an "anti-gunner".

I am actually a gun owner, and there are two other guns in the same house as I am - a .38 and a 12-guage (I think the .22 is in the trunk of the car, but I'm not sure).

I'm only suggesting that making weapons that are designed for the purpose of killing available to any and all comers with no regulation is perhaps not a good idea. I can pass a background check. So can my sister and brother-in-law. So can my other sister and her husband. So can my mother and father. Increasing the number of background checks will not affect me or my family at all. We'll still have our guns, thank you very much.


fark you, I've got mine?

Look, it's not the background checks that most people find at issue. it's that every time they propose it, what they throw into the bills as add-ons and amendments are so objectionable that the actual thing people WANT and see as logical and reasonable gets shot down along with all the crap that isn't.
 
2013-04-24 02:24:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: I just wanted to add the fact that being on the terrorist watch list won't prevent you from buying a gun highlights the absurdity of the terrorist watch list. It's not effective as ammo for an argument against current gun laws.

Oh, I agree with this statement.

I think the best thing that can be said about the terrorist watch list is, "Hey, at least it's something, and it does catch a few people every now and again, even though it inconveniences far more."


You say that, I say it's a useless waste of time that is both arbitrary and contrary to the right to due process with no way to know whether you're on it or not and no way to fight to get off of it.

It's nothing more than a government database of people they don't like.
 
2013-04-24 02:25:37 PM  

FlashHarry: shaken_not_stirred: As I understand it, Islam is not a race.

so... what do we call somebody who is virulently anti-islam?


Israeli
 
2013-04-24 02:26:36 PM  

ox45tallboy: DrExplosion: Except it isn't a privilege, it's a Constitutionally protected right.

So is my freedom of speech. However, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and I can't mislabel a product I'm selling. For that matter, I can't broadcast over the air until I jump through a lot of hoops to get a license and then follow a bunch of rules, including access to advertising by both political parties, as well as "decency standards". Failure to follow these rules and keep my license fees paid up means I can lose my First Amendment right.

And the First Amendment doesn't even have the word "regulated".


You have the right to free speech, but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

You have the right to bear arms, but you can't open fire in a crowded theater.

Carrying a gun in public would probably be the best analogy to your examples, and I have no problem with licensing and restrictions on who is allowed to do so. Once you leave the privacy of your home, there need to be rules so everything runs smoothly and safely.


(From another post)  I don't know what the answer is. But I do believe we should focus on making people responsible to who they sell to. If a gun used in a crime can be traced back to a private seller that had the ability to perform a background check which would have negated the sale, but didn't, that person should be charged as an accessory to the crime. However, this means that somewhere there must be a record of the sale, or at least the background check, and many gun owners do not like that for the above stated reasons.

I just can't understand why so many people are willing to wash their hands of responsibility when they sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one, and he uses it to kill people.


FWIW, I'm pretty sure the status quo in my state is that it's illegal to give a gun to someone who is prohibited from having one. Private sellers who care about legality are advised to handle their transactions through a FFL dealer who can run a background check on the recipient and make sure they aren't breaking any laws by giving them a gun.  Of course, I'm neither a lawyer nor someone in the business of regularly selling my guns to other people, so take this with a grain of salt.

Assuming my understanding is correct, I'd be all in favor of enforcing the current laws more harshly/at all.
 
2013-04-24 02:27:15 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Ahh...ok, umm....moving on to points that are actually valid, or at least make sense.....


You're the one trying to make a distinction absent a difference.

JohnnyCanuck: So if you were a white, christian american who had a momentary lapse of reason and decided to murder his wife....you think you would do so with a pressure bomb or with your gun?


I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making, since an impulsive murder is a very different act from a planned attack, wouldn't you agree?  If he brained her with a hammer, would that hammer be any less deadly a weapon than a gun, despite its manufactured intent of pounding nails into a board?
 
2013-04-24 02:27:39 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Murdered. Shot repeatedly in the head by a mentally ill person with a gun.

/Sensible gun control laws now!


You do realize the cops believe the reason the bombers ambushed this cop, was because they wanted to steal his guns, right?
 
2013-04-24 02:27:48 PM  

new_york_monty: noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.

Criminals are not required to register guns. See fifth amendment and Haynes v. US. To require a criminal to register their weapons violates his or her right against self-incrimination.


In fact, criminals are no longer subject to ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY by the legal system once they have been convicted, because that would violate their rights. Thanks for pointing that out - it sounds perfectly sane and accurate.
 
2013-04-24 02:29:10 PM  

Netrngr: Cletus C.: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.

Actually true assault weapons really aren't either high powered or crazy-assed.. Most assault weapons have rounds that range between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm the low end is a little bigger than a .22 around. powder charge is also reduced so they are a slower round than most. Not trying to invalidate your argument I just hate that certain types of guns get blamed for "gun violence" and they are actually in the extreme minority of the guns used to commit gun violence. A 12ga with 00 buck loads does a hell of a lot more damage.
5 rounds in a standard shotgun w/o a plug
00 buck contains 9 8.3mm pellets
Rem 1100 12ga can fire all 5 shells in about 2 sec maybe 3
Lets recap:
That's 45 8.3mm rounds going down range in 2-3 sec. Standard banana clip in an AR15 is 20 rounds so you have to reload twice. Ill stick with my 12ga thank you very much. There's a reason they call em street sweepers.


Sorry, I couldn't finish. I get all pissy when gun nuts start talking about their weapons like they're composing a farking Penthouse Forum letter.

But I'm sure your points were great.
 
2013-04-24 02:30:14 PM  
noitsnot: A right that needs to go bye-bye, at least in it's current form. Half the Bill of Rights is bullshiat at this point - your freedom is being heinously violated in so many other ways that the Con+BoR doesn't cover (privacy / surveillance).

I obviously disagree with your assessment that it needs to go bye-bye, and I disagree with the idea that just because the rest of the Bill of Rights has been disregarded by our government, we should allow them to disregard the rest of it.

Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

I actually completely agree with you on this. If a gun is fired within a populated area, or is being carried around loaded in public, that represents a clear source of potential danger and it should be regulated. Just as long as people are actually allowed to do so after demonstrating that they are capable of doing it safely, and the government doesn't try to tell them what they can or can't do on private property, I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it. (Bonus points to you for recognizing that you don't need a license to simply own a car.)

That is retarded. Anything is "the first step" towards something else. Free speech is the first step towards anarchy.

And someone who was dead-set on preventing anarchy would be against free speech. Likewise, someone who is dead-set against having their guns confiscated would be against gun registration.


(From another post)  I did not understand the definition of "inherent" properly. You are right, my bad!

Well, that wasn't the response I expected. Oh well, mistakes happen. No harm, no foul.
 
2013-04-24 02:30:18 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Bravo Two: JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.

Save for when registries have been used in NY, CA, and other states to confiscate guns...

From whom? For what?

Citation please.

You make it sound like a guy registered his gun and as soon as he signed the last document the registry was all like, "Haha..we got you now! We're taking your guns, dummy!"


The top of my head example of this is NYC whom passed a registration of certain types of weapons back in the 80s, and then after 10 years, passed a ban on the same, and used the registration database to confiscate the weapons.  Sadly, all that comes up under a google search right now for NYC Gun COnfiscation is the most recent cases of citizens who have had their guns confisacted because of medications they were taking or in one case, a statement his son made about shooting another kid with a water pistol.

Personally, I just don't want you, the government, or anyone else to know what guns I own. It's none of your business.
 
2013-04-24 02:30:27 PM  
Background checks are still required at gun shows.  I've bought pistols and rifles (that are technically assault rifles) and have always had a background check performed on me.  The loophole doesn't exist--do some research.  By research, I mean not asking other people who don't know what they're talking about.
 
2013-04-24 02:32:49 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: From whom? For what?

Citation please.

You make it sound like a guy registered his gun and as soon as he signed the last document the registry was all like, "Haha..we got you now! We're taking your guns, dummy!"


California:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksr if les.htm
 
2013-04-24 02:33:59 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: legion_of_doo: and the Boston dummies shot the hell out of that crowd with their assault pressure cooker.

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!

[www.gannett-cdn.com image 339x451]

Murdered. Shot repeatedly in the head by a mentally ill person with a gun.

/Sensible gun control laws now!


Funny He wasn't killed with an assault weapon. I agree as a law abiding gun owner that we should enforce the laws we have now and tweak them to eliminate loopholes but we need to be careful not to infringe upon rights I and many others served to protect. Something does need to be done about gun violence but we are really looking at the wrong end here. The criminals are generally the ones who are the problem. Yes every once and a while someone goes walkabout and guns someone down. Its terrible but we cant go disenfranchising a whole subset of our culture based on a relatively minute percentage of events.
Yeah it sounds cold but emotion isn't helpful in policy crafting.
 
2013-04-24 02:34:01 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

You know that they aren't the only ones who know about this loophole, right? It's pretty much common knowledge.

A background check doesn't infringe an anyone's rights.

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.


I sell all my guns to drug dealers for 200% profit as a private dealer. So is my transaction legal or do drug dealers acquire guns illegally?
 
2013-04-24 02:34:30 PM  

GoldSpider: I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making, since an impulsive murder is a very different act from a planned attack, wouldn't you agree? If he brained her with a hammer, would that hammer be any less deadly a weapon than a gun, despite its manufactured intent of pounding nails into a board?


You wouldn't own a hammer...you probably just use your gun to pound nails, right?

Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

Don't I have a right to go watch a movie in Colorado without having to dodge bullets? I mean...it's not in your constitution or anything, so maybe not.

Hey...I just think a reg is a no brainer. But hey...I'm Canadian...so shoot me.

\I was kidding...don't shoot me...or anyone else, please.
 
2013-04-24 02:36:34 PM  

noitsnot: new_york_monty: noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.

Criminals are not required to register guns. See fifth amendment and Haynes v. US. To require a criminal to register their weapons violates his or her right against self-incrimination.

In fact, criminals are no longer subject to ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY by the legal system once they have been convicted, because that would violate their rights. Thanks for pointing that out - it sounds perfectly sane and accurate.


I'm not saying I agree with this. Just stating what the law says -- or rather how it's been interpreted. When writing new laws, it helps to understand what restrictions they will be subject to.

Understand, we can still prosecute the criminal with the gun, but cannot specifically punish him or her (or increase sentencing) for failing to register the gun. He or she can only be prosecuted for having/using the gun when they are banned from possessing it.

I do really appreciate your hyperbole, though. Awesome job with that!
 
2013-04-24 02:38:23 PM  

GanjSmokr: noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.

It's less a "pick apart the details" thing as it is a "try to determine unintended consequences" or "actually think about the details of a suggested solution before going further" thing.

If you aren't going to require complete registration, does partial registration really do any good?


Licensing drivers and registering cars seems to work. I love me some real world empirical evidence.
 
2013-04-24 02:39:28 PM  

Bravo Two: fark you, I've got mine?

Look, it's not the background checks that most people find at issue. it's that every time they propose it, what they throw into the bills as add-ons and amendments are so objectionable that the actual thing people WANT and see as logical and reasonable gets shot down along with all the crap that isn't.


Yes, basically. Fark everyone that's a criminal, or has mental health issues that have not been addressed, I've got mine.

And yes, you do have a point about amendments and stuff being added to any kind of common-sense legislation.
 
2013-04-24 02:42:51 PM  

Dimensio: GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.

My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.


Then you dont have an AR15 You have a replica .22
 
2013-04-24 02:42:57 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


Last month my roommate and I took our Iraqi pastor to a sportsmen's show and stopped at a small gun store in a rural town in Western NY.  My roommate is a stereotypical looking redneck with a 'Confederate States of America' tattoo.  I look like I work on a dairy farm.  The Iraqi looks like a Mexican.  He's had Hispanic people get mad at him for not speaking Spanish.

There was all kinds of Iraq war memorabilia and 'Obama secret Muslim' stuff on the walls.  When the Iraqi handed over his Green Card, the clerk got real nervous.

When they went back a few days later (after background check was approved), there were a bunch of guys in the store waiting to see what the Iraqi looked like.  They didn't know whether to shiat or go blind.  They weren't aggressive, just so unprepared for it that they didn't know what to do.
 
2013-04-24 02:43:05 PM  

new_york_monty: noitsnot: new_york_monty: noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.

Criminals are not required to register guns. See fifth amendment and Haynes v. US. To require a criminal to register their weapons violates his or her right against self-incrimination.

In fact, criminals are no longer subject to ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY by the legal system once they have been convicted, because that would violate their rights. Thanks for pointing that out - it sounds perfectly sane and accurate.

I'm not saying I agree with this. Just stating what the law says -- or rather how it's been interpreted. When writing new laws, it helps to understand what restrictions they will be subject to.

Understand, we can still prosecute the criminal with the gun, but cannot specifically punish him or her (or increase sentencing) for failing to register the gun. He or she can only be prosecuted for having/using the gun when they are banned from possessing it.

I do really appreciate your hyperbole, though. Awesome job with that!


You commented on the only non-serious part of my posting as if it was serious. For that you get some hyperbole.
 
2013-04-24 02:43:12 PM  

Bravo Two: ox45tallboy: numbquil: I just wanted to add the fact that being on the terrorist watch list won't prevent you from buying a gun highlights the absurdity of the terrorist watch list. It's not effective as ammo for an argument against current gun laws.

Oh, I agree with this statement.

I think the best thing that can be said about the terrorist watch list is, "Hey, at least it's something, and it does catch a few people every now and again, even though it inconveniences far more."

You say that, I say it's a useless waste of time that is both arbitrary and contrary to the right to due process with no way to know whether you're on it or not and no way to fight to get off of it.

It's nothing more than a government database of people they don't like.


I believe those statements are not mutually exclusive. Everything you said is true, while at the same time it does catch a few people. It kind of also is supposed to work as a deterrent, although seeing as how so many people have slipped right through, it doesn't appear to be much of one.

I am NOT defending the terrorist watch list, just saying it's not a total, complete, irredeemable failure. Just that it's ALMOST a complete and total failure. It could be redeemed, but it would take a LOT of work.
 
2013-04-24 02:43:16 PM  

Bontesla: Nabb1: markie_farkie: Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?

Do you mean to tell me that someone cannot be stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right by the government simply putting one's name on a list without any mechanism of notice or due process? This is unbelievable.

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?


So should we ban people on the Terror Watch List from theaters for fear they will shout fire? Should we ban them from owning anything capable of starting a fire for fear they will actually start said fire in said theater?  Should we also ban them from driving for fear they will ram a truck into a passenger train, derail it, and injure or kill hundreds of people? Should we ban them from riding buses for fear they will hijack one full of passengers with a knife and run it off a cliff? Should we ban them from kitchen knives for fear they will use it to hijack said bus full of passengers and run it off a cliff?...... I could literally go on like this all day long, but I think the point has been made. Now allow me to move onto the reason why your statement doesn't, and never will, mean what you seem to think it means.....

The thing about our constitutionally protected rights is that they end where other peoples rights begin. So the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a theater in exactly they same way that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to shoot a gun in a crowded theater. Both actions are illegal because they infringe on other peoples rights, and neither of them have anything to do with any enumerated right.
 
2013-04-24 02:44:09 PM  

Terrydatroll: you are a puppet: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"

I sell one of my guns from my collection to a friend. Way of life.
I have to do a background check on my friend before I can sell him a gun from my collection. Changed way of life.
I have to do the background checks because a terrorist found a loophole. Terrorists changed my way of life.

Yes, it does change my way of life.


What a damn shame you would have to be RESPONSIBLE and do things like that. It's really terrible that you would possibly think just owning a weapon is bereft of any type of responsible behavior in the first place.  ya doosh.
 
2013-04-24 02:44:18 PM  

The_Sponge: JohnnyCanuck: From whom? For what?

Citation please.

You make it sound like a guy registered his gun and as soon as he signed the last document the registry was all like, "Haha..we got you now! We're taking your guns, dummy!"

California:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksr if les.htm


So the biggest peoblem was people think that criminals will not turn their guns in thereby letting criminals have more guns than law-abiding folk? How many of those law-abiding folk used the buy back money to simply buy another, more legal gun?
If you need your gun for hunting, or killing rapists (as someone previously mentioned) does a legal gun not kill enough? You need to kill em real good?!?
 
2013-04-24 02:46:58 PM  

justtray: Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Beam bottle? You're racist.


U  M.A.D.D.?
 
2013-04-24 02:48:35 PM  

Bravo Two: Personally, I just don't want you, the government, or anyone else to know what guns I own. It's none of your business.


Personally, I just don't want anyone who is paranoid enough to feel the need to have a secret arsenal to have....well...a secret arsenal.

Why should your desires out-trump mine?
 
2013-04-24 02:49:02 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 2wolves: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

Citation please.

I don't have a citation for that (not everything is wiki-able), but in my experience at gun shows he's exactly right. Mostly licensed dealers who do checks, a handful of private sellers with limited supply.


Seconded. Its also been my observation that the police tend to chat up the "private sellers". That and outside the high end collectable hang em on the wall market.... private sale is apparently a tiny tiny fraction of sales.
 
2013-04-24 02:49:04 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.


I'm not entirely sure how you think a gun registry/background check would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing.  Perhaps you can elaborate on that for me.

JohnnyCanuck: You wouldn't own a hammer...you probably just use your gun to pound nails, right?


Now you're just being obtuse.  Or you actually can't imagine someone using an object for a purpose other than its intended manufactured use.
 
2013-04-24 02:49:21 PM  

DrExplosion: FWIW, I'm pretty sure the status quo in my state is that it's illegal to give a gun to someone who is prohibited from having one.


Really? You so sure about that?

Missouri repealed it's "permit to purchase" law in 2007, thereby absolving private sellers vof third-party liability for how the guns are used.
 
2013-04-24 02:49:55 PM  

numbquil: special20: madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.

It's illegal to even be in possesion of modified parts that could be put into a firearm to make it fully automatic.


Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout?
 
2013-04-24 02:50:36 PM  

noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: GanjSmokr: noitsnot: Guns can be just like driving. You can have a car and operate it on your private property, and the government doesn't care. If you want to take it out in public - you need to have it registered, and you need to be licensed to operate it. Same should be true of guns.

In this scenario, would I need to register it to transfer it between 2 pieces of private property?  In what situations would I be required to register?  If I wanted to use it at a firing range?  If I wanted to rob a store with it?

I get that you want to pick apart the details and argue about them. Having said that...

- Not ideally, but currently states have seen the need to track vehicles even if they are not being operated.

- Again, ideally, only if the gun will be used outside of private property.

- Hmmn, firing range... I suppose a public business would require registered weapons, but a club would not.

- If you want to rob a store with it, you would have one less criminal charge if the gun was registered. Up to you.

It's less a "pick apart the details" thing as it is a "try to determine unintended consequences" or "actually think about the details of a suggested solution before going further" thing.

If you aren't going to require complete registration, does partial registration really do any good?

Licensing drivers and registering cars seems to work. I love me some real world empirical evidence.


When you say "seems to work" what exactly do you mean by that?  What is the "goal" of licensing drivers and registering cars?  What would be the "goal" of only registering guns that are used in places other than private property?
 
2013-04-24 02:51:39 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

You know that they aren't the only ones who know about this loophole, right? It's pretty much common knowledge.

A background check doesn't infringe an anyone's rights.

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.


Background checks infringe on the rights of the poor buy making acquiring an inexpensive firearm for protection of their family more expensive. Paying another $30+ actually WILL stop some people who wish to own a firearm, and should own one, from being able to get one. Sad but true. Even worse when you consider that it also won't stop people intending to commit crimes from acquiring a firearm.
 
2013-04-24 02:52:44 PM  

heavymetal: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

I often hear this so it makes me wonder if it is true, then why the objection to closing what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole".  Seriously.  From what I hear from the pro-gun side is that through similar reasoning as stated above, even at gun shows purchases have background checks by default.

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?


Have you ever looked at a the process of enacting a bill into law. You start with something so obsurdly obvious that no-one can disagree with like: making it illegal for escaped felons to legally purchase a tactical nuke.

Its something no one can argue with. Then someone else in a secret committee slips something into the bill that's questionable. Some people call this adding a rider.  Like for instance they add in something to the no nukes for escaped felons bill that says the police can go door to door without a warrant and confiscate your lawnmower with zero compensation to the lawnmower owner.

Now when a lobby group that wants to protect the rights of lawnmower owners tries to block the bill everyone says that these people want to put nukes in the hands of escaped felons.

This is an absurd example but unfortunately not THAT absurd.

THIS IS WHY NEW LAWS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS BAD. They always come with strings attached. I dont know how people are so stupid they dont get this. The way laws are created is insane.

Most lawmakers try really hard to avoid fixing real problems because it will either A) make them unpopular or B) give them nothing to pretend to be doing later.

I dont think that more gun control will stop any of these things from happening. The real is classifying and monitoring people with dangerous mental health issues. Solving this problem would also address the issue of Muslim terrorists. I'm not muslim. Actually I'm agnostic but every person I talked to about this has said that Islam teaches peace and acceptance. Once person told me that Islam teaching that its ok to kill innocent people is about as reasonable as if it taught to have sex with farm animals.

So clearly then we could classify Muslim terrorists and crazy and off their meds as well. Its about as reasonable as someone immigrating to america intentionally and saying he hates america. Crazy right?
 
2013-04-24 02:53:18 PM  
special20: Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout? My argument failed me so I'm going to call you names now.

FTFY.
 
2013-04-24 02:53:45 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Bravo Two: JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking your guns away...they serve a purpose. But registering it to you, the owner, should not be a big deal. Also your registry should include one spent casing. If one of your guns is stolen, you better have it reported stolen ASAP. Part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping inventory. If you're not smart enough to count...you're not smart enough to own a gun.

Anyone argueing that a registry is step one in prying guns from your cold dead hands is grasping at straws.

Save for when registries have been used in NY, CA, and other states to confiscate guns...

From whom? For what?

Citation please.

You make it sound like a guy registered his gun and as soon as he signed the last document the registry was all like, "Haha..we got you now! We're taking your guns, dummy!"


You can't cite things that never happened.

SKS refers to a year 2000 effective date on guns that had already been banned effective 1992 but had a detachable mag. It was the specific, "sporter SKS" classification, which was a technical workaround. There was a buyback program, and zero guns, EVER confiscated from anyone.

Second time I've linked this in this thread.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.s htmlml
 
2013-04-24 02:54:06 PM  

doglover: It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy


I knew a drunken SOB that had lost his license for too many violations. he would often remind me that a person DOES not have to have a license to drive a car. A person only needs a license if he is stopped by the law driving a car.
His logic is the same as the gang-bangers. They will not do the background check anyhow anyway.
 
2013-04-24 02:55:51 PM  

ox45tallboy: DrExplosion: FWIW, I'm pretty sure the status quo in my state is that it's illegal to give a gun to someone who is prohibited from having one.

Really? You so sure about that?

Missouri repealed it's "permit to purchase" law in 2007, thereby absolving private sellers vof third-party liability for how the guns are used.


And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself.  Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.
 
2013-04-24 02:56:04 PM  

Cletus C.: Netrngr: Cletus C.: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.

Actually true assault weapons really aren't either high powered or crazy-assed.. Most assault weapons have rounds that range between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm the low end is a little bigger than a .22 around. powder charge is also reduced so they are a slower round than most. Not trying to invalidate your argument I just hate that certain types of guns get blamed for "gun violence" and they are actually in the extreme minority of the guns used to commit gun violence. A 12ga with 00 buck loads does a hell of a lot more damage.
5 rounds in a standard shotgun w/o a plug
00 buck contains 9 8.3mm pellets
Rem 1100 12ga can fire all 5 shells in about 2 sec maybe 3
Lets recap:
That's 45 8.3mm rounds going down range in 2-3 sec. Standard banana clip in an AR15 is 20 rounds so you have to reload twice. Ill stick with my 12ga thank you very much. There's a reason they call em street sweepers.

Sorry, I couldn't finish. I get all pissy when gun nuts start talking about their weapons like they're composing a farking Penthouse Forum letter.

But I'm sure your points were great.


You cant read it because it shows how uninformed you are. I was the unit armorer while I was in the Army so excuse me for knowing a little about the weapons you speak of. I can see you are someone who doesn't care about truthfulness or facts so I wont even attempt to check through your shell of willful ignorance.
FYI not a gun nut. Dont own any assault type weapons , a couple of 12ga shotguns, a .22 rifle and a 22 revolver. WOOOO big gun crazy here.
 
2013-04-24 02:56:50 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Bravo Two: Personally, I just don't want you, the government, or anyone else to know what guns I own. It's none of your business.

Personally, I just don't want anyone who is paranoid enough to feel the need to have a secret arsenal to have....well...a secret arsenal.

Why should your desires out-trump mine?


Our desires are to keep what we have.  You desire to take away what we have.  Until JohnyCanuck is crowned High King Poo-Bah, you don't get to dictate what things other people get to own.
 
2013-04-24 02:56:52 PM  
Bravo Two

Look, it's not the background checks that most people find at issue. it's that every time they propose it, what they throw into the bills as add-ons and amendments are so objectionable that the actual thing people WANT and see as logical and reasonable gets shot down along with all the crap that isn't.

This. A majority of Americans polled support universal background checks. A majority of Americans polled also believe a registry would be abused by the government.
 
2013-04-24 02:58:42 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Bravo Two

Look, it's not the background checks that most people find at issue. it's that every time they propose it, what they throw into the bills as add-ons and amendments are so objectionable that the actual thing people WANT and see as logical and reasonable gets shot down along with all the crap that isn't.

This. A majority of Americans polled support universal background checks. A majority of Americans polled also believe a registry would be abused by the government.


Considering that we're already abused by the government, that's less of a belief than it is a recognition of the blindingly obvious.
 
2013-04-24 03:00:57 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

I'm not entirely sure how you think a gun registry/background check would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing.  Perhaps you can elaborate on that for me.


I don't think that. Murder and violence will always be present. But minimizing the impact is a must. If someone had pulled up to the marathoners and whipped out an AK-47 a lot more than 3 people would be dead.

There are litterally millions of everyday objects that can be wrongfully used for violence. It would be impossible to ban them all. But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence? No one is taking them from you. Just attaching your name to it....so when you inevitably go stark raving mad....it's easier to prove you went stark raving mad.

Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.
 
2013-04-24 03:02:37 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.


He committed a crime.
he committed another crime when he KILLED the cop to STEAL his gun.
Criminals wont do a background check.
They are criminals, silly.
 
2013-04-24 03:04:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: So you would be fine if those who were on the terrorist watch list lost all their rights under the constitution since there are common sense limits? It would be perfectly fine with you if everyone on that list including the four year olds and grannies were shipped to gitmo to be waterboarded? Is that what you are saying. The terrorist watch list has pretty much been deemed laughable by anyone with a brain. You either are a terrorist or you are not. So someone should be prevented from buying a gun from being on this list that the government won't even release statistics about or tell the American people what the criteria are for ending up on this list. It's a good idea for a loophole around the 2nd amendment. Just make it so that anyone on the list can't buy firearms, then add everyone to the list.

Unfortunately for anti-gunners like you, the constitution prevents the government from taking away the rights of American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime. You cannot even compare this to someone awaiting trial either. The people on this watch list aren't even charged with any crime.

Invoking the "Terrorist Watch List" is a bit of deflection on your part, as is calling me an "anti-gunner".

I am actually a gun owner, and there are two other guns in the same house as I am - a .38 and a 12-guage (I think the .22 is in the trunk of the car, but I'm not sure).

I'm only suggesting that making weapons that are designed for the purpose of killing available to any and all comers with no regulation is perhaps not a good idea. I can pass a background check. So can my sister and brother-in-law. So can my other sister and her husband. So can my mother and father. Increasing the number of background checks will not affect me or my family at all. We'll still have our guns, thank you very much.


Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.
 
2013-04-24 03:04:46 PM  

arentol: Both actions are illegal because they infringe on other peoples rights, and neither of them have anything to do with any enumerated right.


So explain whose rights I'm infringing on by broadcasting nudity or one-sided political speech on commercial frequencies. Someone has to purchase special equipment and tune that equipment specifically in order to receive my broadcast, yet I am limited in what I can say.
 
2013-04-24 03:05:07 PM  

Skyd1v: JohnnyCanuck: Bravo Two: Personally, I just don't want you, the government, or anyone else to know what guns I own. It's none of your business.

Personally, I just don't want anyone who is paranoid enough to feel the need to have a secret arsenal to have....well...a secret arsenal.

Why should your desires out-trump mine?

Our desires are to keep what we have.  You desire to take away what we have.  Until JohnyCanuck is crowned High King Poo-Bah, you don't get to dictate what things other people get to own.


Not trying to dictate what you own....just that you're "man" enough to put your name on it.
My desire is to be alive after the movie. I have my life right now...don't try and take that away from me.
 
2013-04-24 03:05:09 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: rufus-t-firefly: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

You know that they aren't the only ones who know about this loophole, right? It's pretty much common knowledge.

A background check doesn't infringe an anyone's rights.

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.

I sell all my guns to drug dealers for 200% profit as a private dealer. So is my transaction legal or do drug dealers acquire guns illegally?


Depends on the state, in California (at least back when I sold a gun) you have to have a gun dealer act as intermediary and hold the gun for the 2 week holding period and do the background check. Costs $25-ish, as I recall.

Apparently (according to all the recent news pieces on the topic)
- Guns shows are not black market orgies of unrestricted gun sales
- Straw purchase is how most guns get into criminal hands
- Gun theft is a problem, but not a major source of guns for criminals

I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.
 
2013-04-24 03:06:58 PM  

arentol: Even worse when you consider that it also won't stop people intending to commit crimes from acquiring a firearm.


But it will stop people who have already shown behavior harmful to others from obtaining one.
 
2013-04-24 03:07:44 PM  

Netrngr: Dimensio: GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.

My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.

Then you dont have an AR15 You have a replica .22


The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.
 
2013-04-24 03:08:01 PM  

stampylives: into a well regulated militia.


the phraseology refers to "well equiped militia" if you do research such as the constitutions adopted by the States before and after the US constitution was ratified. Pass it along and educate all your peers. No I wont provide citations for you to do your homework. There are no cliff notes to your exercise of your rights.better yet. Let a liberal show me different circa 1780's definition.
 
2013-04-24 03:09:26 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?


To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking them from you.


Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

JohnnyCanuck: Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.


I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!
 
2013-04-24 03:09:32 PM  

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.


Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

I don't think your analogy is well thought out.
 
2013-04-24 03:09:52 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Not trying to dictate what you own....just that you're "man" enough to put your name on it.


I think I just inadvertantly came up with the perfect ad campaign for the registry....

In a deep manly voice...

"Only pussies don't register their guns. Are you a pussy? Man up nancy-boy...register your firearms. All the REAL MEN are doing it. Don't be a pussy!"
 
2013-04-24 03:10:29 PM  

Netrngr: Cletus C.: Netrngr: Cletus C.: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Your right to buy crazy-assed, high-powered people killers and your freedom to do so without any hassle or documentation?

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.

Actually true assault weapons really aren't either high powered or crazy-assed.. Most assault weapons have rounds that range between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm the low end is a little bigger than a .22 around. powder charge is also reduced so they are a slower round than most. Not trying to invalidate your argument I just hate that certain types of guns get blamed for "gun violence" and they are actually in the extreme minority of the guns used to commit gun violence. A 12ga with 00 buck loads does a hell of a lot more damage.
5 rounds in a standard shotgun w/o a plug
00 buck contains 9 8.3mm pellets
Rem 1100 12ga can fire all 5 shells in about 2 sec maybe 3
Lets recap:
That's 45 8.3mm rounds going down range in 2-3 sec. Standard banana clip in an AR15 is 20 rounds so you have to reload twice. Ill stick with my 12ga thank you very much. There's a reason they call em street sweepers.

Sorry, I couldn't finish. I get all pissy when gun nuts start talking about their weapons like they're composing a farking Penthouse Forum letter.

But I'm sure your points were great.

You cant read it because it shows how uninformed you are. I was the unit armorer while I was in the Army so excuse me for knowing a little about the weapons you speak of. I can see you are someone who doesn't care about truthfulness or facts so I wont even attempt to check through your shell of willful ignorance.
FYI not a gun nut. Dont own any assault type weapons , a couple of 12ga shotguns, a .22 rifle and a ...


The real tipping point into gooberville is when you start posting pictures of all your guns arranged on your bed like your dolly collection. That's when your family and friends should have a talk with you.
 
2013-04-24 03:11:16 PM  

Dimensio: The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.


Because .22LR rounds are far cheaper than .223, am I right?  Just curious.
 
2013-04-24 03:12:30 PM  

ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.


Whose stupid idea was that?
 
2013-04-24 03:12:48 PM  
background checks prevent nothing & are a burden to honest men buying firearms criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS!
 
2013-04-24 03:13:01 PM  

Teufelaffe: Dimensio: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?

I think they're conflating assault weapon with assault rifle.  An assault weapon is semi-auto, an assault rifle is selective fire with full auto as an option.


Now, after Boston, we have "assault gun powder".
Get on it.
 
2013-04-24 03:14:01 PM  

numbquil: Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.


I hate to say it, but citation needed. We've seen a few examples in this thread of those who say their name was mistakenly added, but each of them was able to actually to purchase a firearm - as in, they had a method to appeal their status, and it worked.

Please find an example of someone who should be legally allowed to purchase a firearm, but failed a background check and has no legal recourse.

And I'm not going to defend the silly TWL. We need to revamp that system as soon as humanly possible.
 
2013-04-24 03:14:36 PM  

noitsnot: HaywoodJablonski: rufus-t-firefly: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

You know that they aren't the only ones who know about this loophole, right? It's pretty much common knowledge.

A background check doesn't infringe an anyone's rights.

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.

I sell all my guns to drug dealers for 200% profit as a private dealer. So is my transaction legal or do drug dealers acquire guns illegally?

Depends on the state, in California (at least back when I sold a gun) you have to have a gun dealer act as intermediary and hold the gun for the 2 week holding period and do the background check. Costs $25-ish, as I recall.

Apparently (according to all the recent news pieces on the topic)
- Guns shows are not black market orgies of unrestricted gun sales
- Straw purchase is how most guns get into criminal hands
- Gun theft is a problem, but not a major source of guns for criminals

I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.


It's pretty much that easy right now.  I have done 3 this morning.  You just need to have someone like me on standby ready to provide their FFL information and a shipping address.

Once I actually get the gun, though, I still run the NICS on the purchaser and all information about the weapon/new owner goes into the bound book.  (and a spreadsheet stored on an external hard drive, for redundancy)
 
2013-04-24 03:14:37 PM  
mizchief

Which is why we should separate the two. Background checks should only include information on the person, not what guns the person is trying to buy. Get yourself a permit and then you only need to be checked every few years for renewal but allow hooks into the DB so when someone with a permit commits a crime, it gets flagged and the permit is revoked.

Completely agreed. Something like this has a much better chance of passing (IMO) than any of the more ridiculous proposals that have failed lately.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:09 PM  

GoldSpider: Dimensio: The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.

Because .22LR rounds are far cheaper than .223, am I right?  Just curious.


I will inform you when any supplier again has a stock of either caliber.

I purchased the kit so that I could use the rifle at an indoor range and so that I could use less expensive ammunition with the rifle.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:12 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?

To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.


No, but I believe that if you're using it lawfully then you should have no problem putting your name on it.

Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

Some people are paranoid delusional nut jobs.

I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!


The day is young...who knows what will happen on your drive home.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:42 PM  

doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.


Depends on the state you live in.

A semi-auto centerfire rifle with a detachable mag that holds more than 10 rounds is considered an assult rifle in Ca.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart_front.png
 
2013-04-24 03:16:40 PM  

smerfnablin: Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?


Do you think this is a reasonable and reliable control?
 
2013-04-24 03:17:11 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


I really hope you are kidding.
 
2013-04-24 03:19:36 PM  

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

Whose stupid idea was that?


I was responding to this:

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.

 
2013-04-24 03:19:51 PM  

boozehat: madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.

I really hope you are kidding.


These are the "reasonable" people we're supposed to be negotiating with to come up with "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.
 
2013-04-24 03:19:52 PM  
Fark...we will do there job for em.
We are doing a decent job of killing off our fellow American's on our own.
They probably realize that fact for themselves and are sitting back and waiting.
A mass killing, a couple of weeks of head shaking, some tears, some B/S from the politico's and liberals and it's back to the same old, same old.

They watch...they wait...and the world laughs at us....the most powerful nation on the planet. Killing our own daily.

We gots the guns and we gots the body count.....and we are the civilized ones?
But, we got the guns!  Yeah!!!!  ...out of my cold dead hands............

Going to get me one of them Bushmasters and do me some serious  duck hunting. It's the American way.


Oh, sorry we were talking about THOSE other terrorists, right? The one's that want to kill us American's, right? From some out of the way uncivilized place...Bad people..

Sorry...I got sidetracked......Terrorists BAD....Bad people BAD...NO GUNS or PRESSURE COOKERS for TERRORISTS.

We now need a ban on:

Pressure Cookers
Ball bearings
Wire
Batteries
Back Packs

The Internets
 
2013-04-24 03:19:54 PM  

fredsnake: background checks prevent nothing & are a burden to honest men buying firearms criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS!


You know what else is a "burden"...burying a loved one that was killed by the assault rifle that was purchased to hunt pheasant.

Sorry to put you out of your way. Do you biatch this much when you have to renew your drivers license?
 
2013-04-24 03:20:10 PM  

GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.


Also, an AR-15 is not an assult rifle....
 
2013-04-24 03:20:44 PM  

justtray: frankencj: justtray: It's really telling/crazy that so many gun nuts think it's their right to sell their guns to their friends without any type of restriction. They don't see the glaringly obvious problem with this.

And how would we enforce it? Easily, with registration. We find a gun not registered to the person holding it, and if it wasn't stolen, the owner is liable for the actions just like the criminal. That will stop straw purchases and private transfers real quick.

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Bean bottle? You're racist.

California did just that.  And.....I would not cry if the 21st amendment were repealed.

You should actually research the SKS situation before you derp some lies.

Show me a source of even one person having their SKS confiscated. Not bought back, but actually confiscated.

The SKS ban only impacted one version of the gun, and only applied to weapons not registered before the ban went into effect in 1992.

This lie gets thrown out so much as an example that I haev this link favorited to clear up this BS.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.sht ml


Confiscation does not equal forced selling...only because money is involved?  Money makes everything OK.
 
2013-04-24 03:21:13 PM  
Let's go all NYC on these gun shows and gun show traders and BB gun owners that scare the libs and supply the terrorists with killing machines !!!!!...Wait What?
 
2013-04-24 03:21:24 PM  
In the Closet of Fear for most of the inexperienced jackwagons so terrified of Gunz, "Assault" generally means anything scary looking enough to fulfill the "one shot, one kill, 40 per second" scenario championed by the likes of Piers Morgan.

Like some other areas, there is no consensus of fact, only opinion.
 
2013-04-24 03:22:16 PM  

boozehat: A semi-auto centerfire rifle with a detachable mag that holds more than 10 rounds is considered an assult rifle in Ca.


The flowchart is for an assault weapon.  Not an assault rifle.  There is a difference.
 
2013-04-24 03:22:58 PM  

GoldSpider: special20: Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout? My argument failed me so I'm going to call you names now.

FTFY.


No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so. Therefore, when someone points that out is as annoying to me as that damn kid who reminds the teacher about homework on a Friday... which makes me think about calling someone an eagle scout. I'd say that was better than calling someone an annoying farkhead... your choice now, idnit.
 
2013-04-24 03:25:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.

I hate to say it, but citation needed. We've seen a few examples in this thread of those who say their name was mistakenly added, but each of them was able to actually to purchase a firearm - as in, they had a method to appeal their status, and it worked.

Please find an example of someone who should be legally allowed to purchase a firearm, but failed a background check and has no legal recourse.

And I'm not going to defend the silly TWL. We need to revamp that system as soon as humanly possible.


Citation needed for what? I'm talking about a hypothetical situation. Currently, being on the terrorist watch list does not prevent you from purchasing a firearm. I noticed you were replying to some people who were having an argument about this and that is what confused me. I thought you were arguing that people on the TWL should not be able to purchase firearms. I didn't see anyone in the thread claim they were denied a firearm based on being on a terrorist watch list. I did see people say they were denied for other reasons which were later cleared up.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/government-watch-list.htm">http://pe ople.howstuffworks.com/government-watch-list.htm
If you want more information about watch lists including attempting to get off of one you can read this
 
2013-04-24 03:25:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: I was responding to this:


Fair enough, I just assumed you agreed with it as reasonable.

JohnnyCanuck: You know what else is a "burden"...burying a loved one that was killed by the assault rifle that was purchased to hunt pheasant.


Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?
 
2013-04-24 03:26:46 PM  

ox45tallboy: Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.

Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

I don't think your analogy is well thought out.


Ah, but if He is not drunk when I sell him the car, then I'm not liable. He can drive from where I sold it to him to the goddamn bar and get drunk, that's his business. He can drive afterwards. if he is clean and sober when buying the car, why do I care what he does afterwards, and why should I be liable for it?
 
2013-04-24 03:27:15 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?

To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking them from you.

Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

JohnnyCanuck: Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.

I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!


OK, I can't help but jump in one more time. Look at how that statement is like NINE WEASEL WORDS DEEP! I mean, is any position even being asserted at all - after you cut off it's balls, put it in a dress, give it a lollipop, curl it's hair, and bend it over a sofa like that?

1) "Some people" - Who are these people? Is your Canadian girlfriend one of them? (Sorry JohnnyCanuck - it's a US thing)
2) "Would make it easier" - Not cause to happen, just slightly raise the probability of it possibly happening...
3) "Should they ever decide" - Not saying they have or will, just posing a theoretical here...
4) "The greater public good" in quotes - To emphasize that it is a difficult concept to demonstrate or define

Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.
 
2013-04-24 03:28:48 PM  

special20: numbquil: special20: madgonad: The dipshiat is only partially correct. Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.

It's illegal to even be in possesion of modified parts that could be put into a firearm to make it fully automatic.

Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout?


Sorry but I don't understand the joke. I'm an atheist so no I didn't make it to eagle scout. I was just pointing out that "selling kits" to convert a weapon to full automatic fire would be illegal under federal law. Not to mention that implementing or even possessing such a kit would also be illegal under federal law. Unless you are implying that laws do not deter people from converting weapons to fully auto, I'm not sure what the sarcasm is all about.
 
2013-04-24 03:29:21 PM  

special20: No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so.


So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we should outlaw semi-automatic rifles (of whatever characteristics you choose) because some people willfully break the law to modify them?  Think about that for a moment...
 
2013-04-24 03:29:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

Whose stupid idea was that?

I was responding to this:

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.


You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"
 
2013-04-24 03:29:54 PM  

noitsnot: Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.


It provides them the means to that end, not that they 'will'.  Many of us don't want to fall that far down the slippery slope.  It is pretty much as simple as that.
 
2013-04-24 03:30:15 PM  

noitsnot: 1) "Some people" - Who are these people? Is your Canadian girlfriend one of them? (Sorry JohnnyCanuck - it's a US thing)


S'OK....my GF is Canadian too.

\but she actually exists...I think.
 
2013-04-24 03:31:59 PM  
numbquil:

The serial number on a firearm is completely useless unless it is listed in a database along with the name of the owner. Contrary to what most Americans believe, a gun could be found at the scene of a crime with it's serial number intact and that means nothing. There isn't some hyper-advanced computer system like on CSI that holds all knowledge in the universe. There are actually laws against creating a database that would allow law enforcement to instantly tie a firearm to the owner.

Still that data is still in a file somewhere.

i.imgur.com

/the FFL people I know logged the serial numbers of the guns they had possession of to show the ATF.
 
2013-04-24 03:32:01 PM  

GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?


No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.
 
2013-04-24 03:32:44 PM  

noitsnot: "The greater public good" in quotes - To emphasize that it is a difficult concept to demonstrate or define


No, I am pretty sure that it is to indicate that this talking point ironically ignores the limiting of our freedom enumerated in our Constitution.
 
2013-04-24 03:33:38 PM  

numbquil: I thought you were arguing that people on the TWL should not be able to purchase firearms.


I'm on the fence about this. The watch list is so much more failure than accomplishment that I don't think it would do any good, and yet how silly is it to let people that you are worried about even RIDING in an airplane to purchase a machine designed for killing?

I'm not convinced either way.
 
2013-04-24 03:34:40 PM  

noitsnot: Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.


I don't consider myself part the group I described, but I also haven't blinded myself to the steady erosion of our rights supposedly carried out in the name of the public good.  If our government had a better track record of protecting our individual liberty, I'd have a harder time believing the gun nuts.
 
2013-04-24 03:35:59 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.


Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:08 PM  
Anyway...its been fun. I'm heading home to eat some babies and rape some ol' ladies that don't own guns.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:10 PM  

Bravo Two: Ah, but if He is not drunk when I sell him the car, then I'm not liable. He can drive from where I sold it to him to the goddamn bar and get drunk, that's his business. He can drive afterwards. if he is clean and sober when buying the car, why do I care what he does afterwards, and why should I be liable for it?


Ah, but if he is a habitual drunkard, that was not only reeking of gin when you sold you him car, but he wasn't even able to produce a driver's license as ID so you could sign over the title, then you WOULD be liable.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:27 PM  
I really wonder where this whole "Gun Show Loophole" thing came from.  99% of the people selling firearms at a gunshow are licensed dealers.  WHICH MEANS THEY ARE REQUIRED, BY FEDERAL LAW, TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK!  There is no exception for the location or venue.

The only thing close is the "private sale" but again, 99% of firearm owners conduct a private transaction through a dealer to cover their butt in case the guy buying the weapon is a felon.  Guess what?  Background check.

The *only* time which I (and the vast majority of gun owners) would not follow this rule would be if I was best friends or family with the person I was selling/gifting it to.
 
2013-04-24 03:37:28 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.


Personally, I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year, but I suppose that's the difference between me and the people so bent on renewing the AWB.
 
2013-04-24 03:38:37 PM  

mizchief: The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.


frankencj: Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.


Hey, soda and alcohol aren't intended to kill anyone, so that doesn't count.
 
2013-04-24 03:38:59 PM  

GanjSmokr: You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"


The goalposts were already moved, and not buy me. Selling a car to a sober individual is not the same as selling a weapon to a career criminal who has hurt people with guns before. As I said above, the analogy is more like selling a car to a habitual drunkard with no license whose own car is in the impound.
 
2013-04-24 03:39:06 PM  

mizchief: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.


frankencj: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.


OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.
 
2013-04-24 03:40:10 PM  

justtray: So, now, I've changed the definition from selective fire to any gun that previously had selective fire.

Again, I ask, where's the confusion?


Look,M16s and M4s are auto.  You can get (with proper paperwork) auto AR-15 style weapons too.

But most of the weapons under discussion were built in the factory to be semi-auto.  There never was a 'previously'.  They were made that way day zero.

It seems like the legislative definition of 'assault weapon' basically boils down to 'scary'.  Appearance rather than functionality.  That's the legislative definition.  The military uses a different one.
 
2013-04-24 03:40:26 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: mizchief: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.

frankencj: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.

OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?
 
2013-04-24 03:40:51 PM  

GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year


I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:43 PM  

special20: GoldSpider: special20: Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout? My argument failed me so I'm going to call you names now.

FTFY.

No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so. Therefore, when someone points that out is as annoying to me as that damn kid who reminds the teacher about homework on a Friday... which makes me think about calling someone an eagle scout. I'd say that was better than calling someone an annoying farkhead... your choice now, idnit.


Sorry for the double reply. The window crashed the first time. I'm not the one claiming that passing new laws is going to prevent future crime. You are. What I can tell you is that no one is selling full auto conversion kits on the open market. It's not like you can go on ebay or amazon and buy a conversion for your AR-15. While it is possible to do it, it is completely insane. I believe the minimum sentence if convicted is 5 years in federal prison and you won't be able to own a gun legally again in your lifetime.

No one who wants to keep their 2nd amendment rights would even think of converting their weapon to fire full auto. You would never be able to fire it again. Anyone in the vicinity would instantly know that you were firing a machine gun and notify the authorities. Hell I have friends who were confronted by police simply because they were firing rapidly at the range and someone thought they had machine guns.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:58 PM  

ox45tallboy: GanjSmokr: You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"

The goalposts were already moved, and not buy me. Selling a car to a sober individual is not the same as selling a weapon to a career criminal who has hurt people with guns before. As I said above, the analogy is more like selling a car to a habitual drunkard with no license whose own car is in the impound.


You crafted your scenario fit the outcome you wanted to get.  Simple as that.
 
2013-04-24 03:42:24 PM  

swangoatman: stampylives: into a well regulated militia.

the phraseology refers to "well equiped properly functioning militia" if you do research such as the constitutions adopted by the States before and after the US constitution was ratified. Pass it along and educate all your peers. No I wont provide citations for you to do your homework. There are no cliff notes to your exercise of your rights.better yet. Let a liberal show me different circa 1780's definition.


FTFY

In the parlance of the time, a "well regulated militia" would be both properly equipped and trained.  It's pretty much impossible to keep people from training if they want to, but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia, thus the creation of the Second Amendment.  Of course, most of our modern batch of Second Amendment defenders fall a bit short on the training part, but by golly they're all over the equipped part.  I guess enthusiasm has to count for something, right?
 
2013-04-24 03:42:30 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


Depends.  Much of the killing by guns is suicide.
 
2013-04-24 03:42:50 PM  

HeadLever: noitsnot: "The greater public good" in quotes - To emphasize that it is a difficult concept to demonstrate or define

No, I am pretty sure that it is to indicate that this talking point ironically ignores the limiting of our freedom enumerated in our Constitution.


If the intent was to indicate irony, that also serves my point.
 
2013-04-24 03:45:01 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: mizchief: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.

frankencj: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.

OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


Drunk drivers kill how many a year...and...
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/17081716-418/22-in-niu-frat-char ge d-with-hazing-in-freshmans-alcohol-related-death.html
 
2013-04-24 03:45:12 PM  

GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?


What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.
 
2013-04-24 03:45:15 PM  

Sweaty Dynamite: corn-bread: Many of you are assuming that:
1) The prospective terrorist has a Muslim appearance; and / or
2) The prospective terrorist would approach the sellers directly rather than use a straw buyer.

Which is already illegal and not a damned bit of knee-jerk gun control laws you pass can do anything about it.



The current system has penalties on the books, but no enforcement or tracking mechanisms by which to enforce those laws.  This is by design of course so individuals such as yourself can then spout crap like the above.

You also happen to be dead wrong.  There *are* laws that can be passed that would mitigate these sales and make it possible to track these guns.  A simple three point starting plan includes:
1) Require registration of all firearms.
2) Require disclosure of *all* sales to a centralized system for tracking.
3) Make violations of both of the above as well as straw purchases a Federal felony with a mandatory min. of five years in jail.

The three above *would* change that.  The straw purchaser may not report his sale, but a FFL dealer would.
Now if the seller and straw purchaser both conspire to break the laws, then the transaction is made.  But you didn't propose that.  You merely said no laws could be passed that would change straw buyers.  And I submit to you that you're wrong.  Make the whole sales system accountable and the one or two who fail to report will be easier to spot in comparison.

Now whether or not the laws above go too far is a different discussion.  But the fact remains that laws *could* in fact be passed that would curtail the problem.
 
2013-04-24 03:45:49 PM  

Teufelaffe: but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia.


Actaully Heller held that the prefatory clause does not limit or bind, in any way, the operative clause of the Second Amendment.  So - not really.
 
2013-04-24 03:47:48 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.


Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.
 
2013-04-24 03:49:39 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


One of those necessarily endangers the public.  The other does not.  Can you guess which is which?
 
2013-04-24 03:50:09 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?


Yes.
 
2013-04-24 03:50:32 PM  

corn-bread: Many of you are assuming that:
1) The prospective terrorist has a Muslim appearance; and / or
2) The prospective terrorist would approach the sellers directly rather than use a straw buyer.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here, are you for or against more background checks, because those points could go either way.

Universal background checks (UBC) won't stop either of those scenarios. Someones appearance has nothing to do with their ability to pass a background check, so people who might have rejected a purchaser based on appearance a/o behavior will now accept them because they pass the UBC. And of course if the person uses a straw purchaser then the UBC system won't stop them either, because the straw purchaser will pass the check. This is why UBC won't work.
 
2013-04-24 03:52:00 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


What of it??  You're the one who implied (incorrectly) that alcohol only kills those who drink it.  That's "what of it".

That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.
 
2013-04-24 03:52:22 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


Getting behind the wheel of a car drunk is more analogous to standing outside your front door and firing your glock in random directions than driving with a glock in your pants. Carrying a glock in your pants really only puts your testicles at risk. I'm overlooking the fact that your statement is incorrect unless the person has a concealed carry permit.
 
2013-04-24 03:53:18 PM  

HeadLever: Teufelaffe: but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia.

Actaully Heller held that the prefatory clause does not limit or bind, in any way, the operative clause of the Second Amendment.  So - not really.


There I am talking about governments in general, not ours specifically.  That would be why I said "a government" not "our government".
 
2013-04-24 03:53:18 PM  

This text is now purple: Mimic_Octopus: How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

i shouldnt ask, but have you ever seen a serial number on a pussy?

Yes.


Although it was probably something like this: www.microscan.com
 
2013-04-24 03:54:56 PM  

Dimensio: Netrngr: Dimensio: GoldSpider: goodolboy71: You don't really believe this do you? If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"

I bet he doesn't know, also, that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber bullet.

My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.

Then you dont have an AR15 You have a replica .22

The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.


Sorry you didn't say you had the convo. kit for it. You get the Bushmaster or did you luck into an actual AR15?
 
2013-04-24 03:56:21 PM  

madgonad: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.



I'm sure it's been said repeatedly in this thread but your statement is a load of horseshiat.
 
2013-04-24 03:56:38 PM  

smerfnablin: Ive been to several gun shows in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) and they are all pretty much the same.

You walk into a large convention center with rows and rows of portable tables that have anywhere between 80 to 240 vendors.

1. As previously stated some of these vendors are licensed gun dealers who will make you fill out a NCIC form and phone it in right there on their cellphone. This would be the same type of transaction as walking into a gunstore and purchasing a firearm over the counter.

2. Some of these dealers are selling ammunition and accessories that do not require any of these forms.

3. There are a lot of arts and crafts vendors selling everything from knives made out of deer antlers to table lamps.

4. And then there are "private dealers" who will sell you a few used firearm face to face without a background check or any paperwork. The items are usually very over priced plus these types of individuals are few and far between. These are usually the guys that fly all the huge flags over their tables of objectionable message and have very interesting things to say about politics and religion.

Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?

No, dude, you got it all wrong. Gunshows are where people use loopholes to buy semi-auto (that's like *half* auto!) black assault rifles that have 500 round clips that are loaded with teflon coated, armor piercing, exploding cop killer bullets. The place is so full of nutjobs and psychos who love guns that it's a wonder a full scale fire-fight doesn't break out every 10 minutes. Plus you can buy bullets in boxes of **50**!! Who needs that many  Goddamn bullets at one time? For $200 you can get a sniper rifle specially designed to kill children from over 5 miles away, as well as night vision equipment that auto targets cops in total darkness and super powerful handheld lasers that will bring down police helicopters. If the government had any damn sense, it would host the country's largest gunshow, fill it to capacity, chain the doors shut, and burn it down, thus ending all of our problems forever.

/Actualy most of the private sales I bought have been quite reasonable. Got a '41 military luger for $900, a 1900 Mauser flatside C96 for $850, and a hi-standard model 10 shotgun for $300. (I don't think the lady knew what she had. They are worth at least twice that.)
 
2013-04-24 03:56:48 PM  

GanjSmokr: JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.

What of it??  You're the one who implied (incorrectly) that alcohol only kills those who drink it.  That's "what of it".

That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.


If it was about saving lives he would be spending his time and resources fighting private ownership of swimming pools. No one needs a swimming pool in their backyard. If you own both a swimming pool and a firearm, your child is many times more likely to drown in the swimming pool than be shot by the firearm.
 
2013-04-24 03:57:12 PM  

Evil High Priest: Tommy Moo: I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam godbotherers of all stripes and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals sane people stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Baptist" or "Christianity," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Baptists and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals constitutional scholars who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.


I'm not a Christian. Why does everyone always assume that I'm a Christian when I criticize Muslims?
 
2013-04-24 03:59:12 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Tommy Moo: I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Muslim" or "Islam," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Muslims and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about Christianity?


Yes. I'm a progressive left-leaning moderate who is frustrated with the fact that liberals in my own party will rage against Christians but give Muslims a pass, probably out of white guilt or something. I don't know. It's "ignorant" when white people are conservative, but it's "cultural, and we should respect that" when brown people are fanatically right winged.
 
2013-04-24 03:59:13 PM  

numbquil: If it was about saving lives he would be spending his time and resources fighting private ownership of swimming pools. No one needs a swimming pool in their backyard. If you own both a swimming pool and a firearm, your child is many times more likely to drown in the swimming pool than be shot by the firearm.


Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with facts.
 
2013-04-24 03:59:20 PM  

ox45tallboy: Bravo Two: Ah, but if He is not drunk when I sell him the car, then I'm not liable. He can drive from where I sold it to him to the goddamn bar and get drunk, that's his business. He can drive afterwards. if he is clean and sober when buying the car, why do I care what he does afterwards, and why should I be liable for it?

Ah, but if he is a habitual drunkard, that was not only reeking of gin when you sold you him car, but he wasn't even able to produce a driver's license as ID so you could sign over the title, then you WOULD be liable.


Ah, but if he was reeking of gin and hadn't produced a driver's license, I wouldn't've sold it to him.

Likewise, anyone that can't provide a driver's license and CCW permit when buying a gun from me, I don't sell it to them.  personal policy.

What they do from there, is their business.
 
2013-04-24 04:00:28 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year

I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.


My concealed weapon is not, and has not ever been a problem with anyone. It has only served as a belt weight until I really really need it.
 
2013-04-24 04:00:44 PM  

GoldSpider: Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here. The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form. If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.


I like you...you state good cases and don't get all out of gear when I try to get you all out of gear. Good job.

GanjSmokr: That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.


Statements like this are just..well...come on!

Later, peeps!
 
2013-04-24 04:02:49 PM  

madgonad: Yes it is. The term 'assault rifle' is all about the caliber and not the presence of select-fire.


No, it isn't.

This weapon
t3.gstatic.com

This weapon
timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com
and this weapon
www.shotgunnews.com

Are built by the same manufacturer and fire the same caliber round.  Only one is a legitimate assault rifle.
 
2013-04-24 04:02:56 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.

Statements like this are just..well...come on!

Later, peeps!


Statements like that are... a logical conclusion if you don't give people a reason to think they aren't.

Have a great one!
 
2013-04-24 04:03:54 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.

Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.


Firstly, I would point out that the great many of the so-called 20,000 deaths are suicides.

Secondly, I would point out that we have a plethora of laws on the books that Prohibit felons from owning firearms, and basically make being around a gun and using it in a crime illegal.

How would a ban now do anything to people who already break the law?

Also, I would fight tooth and nail against any effort that limited or restricted me from owning handguns, because for as much as a long gun works well at home for self defense, not so much if I'm out and about and need a handgun. Plus, trying to maneuver a rifle while on horseback to kill a coyote or similar is a huge pain in the ass.
 
2013-04-24 04:08:40 PM  

Bravo Two: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.

Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.

Firstly, I would point out that the great many of the so-called 20,000 deaths are suicides.

Secondly, I would point out that we have a plethora of laws on the books that Prohibit felons from owning firearms, and basically make being around a gun and using it in a crime illegal.

How would a ban now do anything to people who already break the law?

Also, I would fight tooth and nail against any effort that limited or restricted me from owning handguns, because for as much as a long gun works well at home for self defense, not so much if I'm out and about and need a handgun. Plus, trying to maneuver a rifle while on horseback to kill a coyote or similar is a huge pain in the ass.


Unfortunately, most of the people in this country live in cities and probably don't have the damnedest clue what you are talking about being on horseback or killing a coyote. Due to this the practical utility of firearms has been lost somewhere between the mass shooters and those who claim they need them to protect freedom from the communist Obama regime.
 
2013-04-24 04:08:45 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year

I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.


You mean the ones that the cops and state law enforcement people issue you a permit for because you took tests and passed live fire exercises to prove you could responsibly handle a gun. Those concealed weapons?
 
2013-04-24 04:11:37 PM  

fisker: They're going to buy guns anyways. Might as well be from the winning team.

[pharaohweb.com image 340x432]


I do not NOT want to see the "A"
 
2013-04-24 04:22:10 PM  
The drug cartels buy loads of guns from dealers here in the Phoenix area.  They then smuggle them back to Mexico.  The same thing is probably happening at gun shows here in AZ, NM, CA, and TX.
 
2013-04-24 04:22:12 PM  

Sniper061: I really wonder where this whole "Gun Show Loophole" thing came from.


Politics.
Government can't pretend to fix something without first declaring it to be broken.

Gun control is becoming a victim of its own success.  By sorting gun owners into two piles (The law abiding VS criminals) its shown us the blatantly obvious: A handful of people cause most of the problem and those people won't be prevented from owning technology by a few words from politicians.

In order to remove the blame from themselves for not noticing this oversight sooner, politicians claim there are big holes in the fence (which they aren't responsible for, obviously) that keep it from working.
They are hoping no one realizes the whole concept was poorly thought out.

/Almost as poorly thought out as the idea of sending Muslim extremists to a gun show to interact with the locals.
/Who ever came up with that idea, you must wonder did he ever 'Merica?
 
2013-04-24 04:26:37 PM  

GanjSmokr: You crafted your scenario fit the outcome you wanted to get. Simple as that.


I didn't craft the scenario. I wasn't the one who first compared buying a weapon to buying a car.
 
2013-04-24 04:27:08 PM  
bruce4bruce

The drug cartels buy loads of guns from dealers here in the Phoenix area. They then smuggle them back to Mexico. The same thing is probably happening at gun shows here in AZ, NM, CA, and TX.

This is so incredibly stupid. Why on earth would these people buy semi-automatic rifles from the United States when they can get cheaper automatic weapons from the rest of Latin America?

Unless you're speaking of the guns the American government arranges to sell them...
 
2013-04-24 04:29:01 PM  

Bravo Two: Ah, but if he was reeking of gin and hadn't produced a driver's license, I wouldn't've sold it to him.

Likewise, anyone that can't provide a driver's license and CCW permit when buying a gun from me, I don't sell it to them. personal policy.

What they do from there, is their business.


Great! So, any regulation stating that you must do these things or risk being responsible for what the purchaser does with the gun won't affect you in the least!

So, does that mean you are in favor of it?
 
2013-04-24 04:34:30 PM  

Bontesla: At work and on my phone so the video won't play. Could you summarize? Thanks!


Nope. Watch it at home. Best 20 minute break you'll take all day.
 
2013-04-24 04:39:16 PM  
 
2013-04-24 04:44:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Bravo Two: Ah, but if he was reeking of gin and hadn't produced a driver's license, I wouldn't've sold it to him.

Likewise, anyone that can't provide a driver's license and CCW permit when buying a gun from me, I don't sell it to them. personal policy.

What they do from there, is their business.

Great! So, any regulation stating that you must do these things or risk being responsible for what the purchaser does with the gun won't affect you in the least!

So, does that mean you are in favor of it?


Nope because as a rule I'm not in favor of passing laws that are poorly thought out and don't do much to help. I make a good effort but that's it.
 
2013-04-24 05:30:34 PM  

Teufelaffe: swangoatman: stampylives: into a well regulated militia.

the phraseology refers to "well equiped properly functioning militia" if you do research such as the constitutions adopted by the States before and after the US constitution was ratified. Pass it along and educate all your peers. No I wont provide citations for you to do your homework. There are no cliff notes to your exercise of your rights.better yet. Let a liberal show me different circa 1780's definition.

FTFY

In the parlance of the time, a "well regulated militia" would be both properly equipped and trained.  It's pretty much impossible to keep people from training if they want to, but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia, thus the creation of the Second Amendment.  Of course, most of our modern batch of Second Amendment defenders fall a bit short on the training part, but by golly they're all over the equipped part.  I guess enthusiasm has to count for something, right?


You must be one of those who never bother to be trained in the use of arms. Well firearm training is difficult and does take regular participation. Are you a Weekend Warrior? Are you a member of your local neighborhood watch? Do you willingly take time for Disaster Relief Training? Also you must be forgetting that the vast majority of humankind RUN from trouble while the VAST majority of brave men and women will face the trouble head on. Did you see the first responders running toward the bombs? I did. Did you also see the NON-PAID volunteers? I did.
 If he people of Boston were allowed by their parents to have weapons I am sure there would have been less LOOTING in Boston after the bombs too, as the cops were rather busy with other things.This accounts for the few, the brave, the willing as opposed to the many, the cowards, the sheep. If you really took things as they should be taken you would be sure that you are a trained person for the militia,either by gun or medical or by logistical support. Those who openly mock the 2nd amendment do not understand it's importance in protecting the other rights. How are you a part of the right and responsibility of being in the militia?
 
2013-04-24 05:42:13 PM  

bruce4bruce: The drug cartels buy loads of guns from dealers here in the Phoenix area.  They then smuggle them back to Mexico.  The same thing is probably happening at gun shows here in AZ, NM, CA, and TX.


Almost all gun sales to people who shouldn't be getting them are using straw purchases not the "gun-show loophole".
 
2013-04-24 05:53:57 PM  

swangoatman: You must be one of those who never bother to be trained in the use of arms.


That's a pretty odd assumption to make there.  I grew up in a household with handguns, learned proper gun safety at 4, first started shooting at 8.  I go target shooting when I can, and know the basics of handling rifles and shotguns.

swangoatman: Are you a Weekend Warrior? Are you a member of your local neighborhood watch? Do you willingly take time for Disaster Relief Training? Also you must be forgetting that the vast majority of humankind RUN from trouble while the VAST majority of brave men and women will face the trouble head on. Did you see the first responders running toward the bombs? I did. Did you also see the NON-PAID volunteers? I did.
 If he people of Boston were allowed by their parents to have weapons I am sure there would have been less LOOTING in Boston after the bombs too, as the cops were rather busy with other things.This accounts for the few, the brave, the willing as opposed to the many, the cowards, the sheep. If you really took things as they should be taken you would be sure that you are a trained person for the militia,either by gun or medical or by logistical support. Those who openly mock the 2nd amendment do not understand it's importance in protecting the other rights. How are you a part of the right and responsibility of being in the militia?


I live in rural Vermont; there is no neighborhood watch.  I know CPR, basic first aid and survival techniques, I know where the town evac routes are, and I have my anti-radiation dosages for me and my daughter in case of an accident at the Vermont Yankee plant.  I've never been near a true life endangering emergency like a bombing or natural disaster, so I honestly couldn't say if I'd run or not.  I'd like to think I'd be one of the people heading to help, but you never really know whether you'll pick fight or flight until the moment arrives (and anyone who claims they know which choice they'd make the first time they face an emergency is a farking liar).

As for the rest of your...ahem, screed, you can take your "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!" crap and stuff it in your paranoid keister.  The 2nd amendment was crafted because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that we would have a standing army.  The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed, not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

I don't mock the 2nd amendment, but I sure as hell mock those who hold in higher esteem than every other part of the Constitution and its amendments.
 
2013-04-24 06:12:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Shorter, scarier and funnier.


You mean out gun laws haven't changed in 200 years?

That had to be about the dumbest talking point video that I have seen today - and that is saying something.
 
2013-04-24 06:28:47 PM  

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]


People should realize that this picture is fake.
 
2013-04-24 07:02:54 PM  
Teufelaffe:As for the rest of your...ahem, screed, you can take your "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!" crap and stuff it in your paranoid keister.   The 2nd amendment was crafted because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that we would have a standing army.  The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed, not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

What kind of silly thinking is this? Are you seriously suggesting that the founders never thought that the USA would ever have or need a standing army? That they would somehow just be able to rely on their ragtag rebel army (which was substantially reinforced & supplied by the French, incidentally, which did have plenty of standing army) into perpetuity? That they were so shortsighted and blithely naive (in spite of the still-recent independence war) that they would never need to establish a military? That in spite of their education, travels abroad into Europe, and knowledge of history they figured the USA would just never have to deal with organized war?

There was no standing army, yes - but don't confuse "could not yet establish a standing army"  with "never envisioned we'd have one". They knew darn well that we'd eventually need one. They also knew darn well that standing armies help tyrants immensely. Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

I should also point out that the standing army was established in 1784, with most of the founders till alive and well. Where's the record of their outrage at this impossibility?
 
2013-04-24 07:17:51 PM  
img132.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-24 07:21:48 PM  
If the left was able to be as reactionary and dumb-down as the right, they would have proclaimed any politician who was against background checks and ammo limits as being pro-terrorism.

/perhaps the next mass shooting will be done by a brown guy, THEN we will be able to have a meaningful discussion about gun control...
 
2013-04-24 07:43:49 PM  

Teufelaffe: swangoatman:?

I live in rural Vermont; there is no neighborhood watch..

 Say your from Vermont huh? then:
Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Article 17. [Martial law restricted]

That no person in this state can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any penalties or pains by virtue of that law except those employed in the army, and the militia in actual service.

 And if that State should be dissolved  then it would be dissolved by peaceful vote is what the constitution says,right?

Article 18. [Regard to fundamental principles and virtues necessary to preserve liberty]

That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, in making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State.


But what happens when a disaster happens or the Government ,local,state, or federal goes Rogue?? as in the war of 1860-65? How was that handled in the USA? it is best if you review your history and see that the vast majority of foot soldiers on both sides were citizen soldiers who then placed themselves under military control---not conscripted "volunteers".

Right now our country,. our Federal government, many States and locals and an increasing number of citizens ARE NOT to use the words above "just, moderate, restrained, industrious, or frugal".

Expand your neighborhood.Did you see what happened in Watertown in the search for one killer?
 
2013-04-24 07:45:37 PM  

duenor: Teufelaffe:As for the rest of your...ahem, screed, you can take your "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!" crap and stuff it in your paranoid keister.   The 2nd amendment was crafted because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that we would have a standing army.  The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed, not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

What kind of silly thinking is this? Are you seriously suggesting that the founders never thought that the USA would ever have or need a standing army? That they would somehow just be able to rely on their ragtag rebel army (which was substantially reinforced & supplied by the French, incidentally, which did have plenty of standing army) into perpetuity? That they were so shortsighted and blithely naive (in spite of the still-recent independence war) that they would never need to establish a military? That in spite of their education, travels abroad into Europe, and knowledge of history they figured the USA would just never have to deal with organized war?

There was no standing army, yes - but don't confuse "could not yet establish a standing army"  with "never envisioned we'd have one". They knew darn well that we'd eventually need one. They also knew darn well that standing armies help tyrants immensely. Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

I should also point out that the standing army was established in 1784, with most of the founders till alive and well. Where's the record of their outrage at this impossibility?



"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"A standing army not only diminshes the population of a country, but even the size and breed of the human species; for an army is the flower of the nation; all the most vigorous, stout, and well-made men in a kingdon are to be found in the army, and these men in general never marry." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"He who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, will lose both and deserve neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin in reference to the idea of a standing army

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." ~ Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment

"Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~ Patrick Henry

Yeah, they farking loved the idea of a standing army.
 
2013-04-24 07:46:19 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: So the biggest peoblem was people think that criminals will not turn their guns in thereby letting criminals have more guns than law-abiding folk? How many of those law-abiding folk used the buy back money to simply buy another, more legal gun?
If you need your gun for hunting, or killing rapists (as someone previously mentioned) does a legal gun not kill enough? You need to kill em real good?!?



"More legal" as defined by The People's Republic of California?  No thanks.

/Live in a blue state (WA).
//But I am glad we are bright red when it comes to firearms.
 
2013-04-24 07:58:25 PM  

Teufelaffe: not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

FROM the Vermont Constitution 
VII. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or set of men, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter [or abolish] government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal. 
and reaffirmed"
Article 7. [Government for the people; they may change it]

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.
 
2013-04-24 07:58:42 PM  

Netrngr: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year

I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.

You mean the ones that the cops and state law enforcement people issue you a permit for because you took tests and passed live fire exercises to prove you could responsibly handle a gun. Those concealed weapons?


So now we trust the cops when they say you can have a gun.  Seems like just the other day the threads were all over the cops for how they handled the manhunt.
 
2013-04-24 08:00:15 PM  

ShadowKamui: Almost all gun sales to people who shouldn't be getting them are using straw purchases not the "gun-show loophole".


yep like Holder ,right on Fast and Furious !!!
 
2013-04-24 08:06:36 PM  

Teufelaffe: The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed,


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-04-24 08:11:06 PM  

duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.


i am in love.
 
2013-04-24 08:11:42 PM  

duenor: jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]

People should realize that this picture is fake.


It's not a fake, it's just that I cut off the right side of the billboard which explains the facetiousness contained in the rest of the billboard.
 
2013-04-24 08:14:37 PM  

swangoatman: Teufelaffe: swangoatman: stampylives: into a well regulated militia.

the phraseology refers to "well equiped properly functioning militia" if you do research such as the constitutions adopted by the States before and after the US constitution was ratified. Pass it along and educate all your peers. No I wont provide citations for you to do your homework. There are no cliff notes to your exercise of your rights.better yet. Let a liberal show me different circa 1780's definition.

FTFY

In the parlance of the time, a "well regulated militia" would be both properly equipped and trained.  It's pretty much impossible to keep people from training if they want to, but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia, thus the creation of the Second Amendment.  Of course, most of our modern batch of Second Amendment defenders fall a bit short on the training part, but by golly they're all over the equipped part.  I guess enthusiasm has to count for something, right?

You must be one of those who never bother to be trained in the use of arms. Well firearm training is difficult and does take regular participation. Are you a Weekend Warrior? Are you a member of your local neighborhood watch? Do you willingly take time for Disaster Relief Training? Also you must be forgetting that the vast majority of humankind RUN from trouble while the VAST majority of brave men and women will face the trouble head on. Did you see the first responders running toward the bombs? I did. Did you also see the NON-PAID volunteers? I did.
 If he people of Boston were allowed by their parents to have weapons I am sure there would have been less LOOTING in Boston after the bombs too, as the cops were rather busy with other things.This accounts for the few, the brave, the willing as opposed to the many, the cowards, the sheep. If you really took things as they should be taken you would be sure that you are a trained person for the militia,either by gun or medical or by logistical su ...


Wow man.  Talk about living in a fantasy world.  Please tell me what personal story you have about all the looting that nobody reported on.  What are you training for?  Do you really think the Government is coming for you one day.  If you have to believe someone is coming for you then try Jesus instead.  Oh, please tell me of one example where people who share this philosophy had a successful country/republic/anything anywhere in the world.

Beating your chest and saying how responsible you are with your gun while you are preparing for the end of the world doesn't really make the rest of us view you as sane.  Unless you are ex-military, a cop or other first responder then you are EXACTLY a weekend warrior.  You just happen to be a well trained weekend warrior who seems to worry a lot about disasters and being attacked or getting to be the hero.

If your a cop or something like that then then I'm wrong and sorry.  If your just a guy with a gun with a ton of survivalist and weapons training then well, you need a new hobby because that one there is crazy.
 
2013-04-24 08:20:15 PM  

GoldSpider: special20: No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we should outlaw semi-automatic rifles (of whatever characteristics you choose) because some people willfully break the law to modify them?  Think about that for a moment...


I am not arguing anything. All I did was state a fact: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean people won't still have whatever they want to get their grubby hands on. Now excuse me while I smoke a doob, and take a nice pull on some moonshine. You should just go ahead and start a fight on the internet with someone else.
 
2013-04-24 08:31:05 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.


Yeah, because the Boston bombers looked so "Muslim-y"
 
2013-04-24 08:32:04 PM  

swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.


Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.
 
2013-04-24 08:43:01 PM  
At a gun show I went to in Texas recently, all the dealers guns I talked to all required having a CHL for gun purchases, which requires a background check and fingerprinting to obtain. Maybe it's different in other states.
 
2013-04-24 08:44:33 PM  

luxup: Wow man.  Talk about living in a fantasy world.


looting in boston  --google  it. I am not your slave yet.

I never said >preparing for the end of the world YOU Luxup said that
I never said >the Government is coming for you one day .YOU  Luxup said that.
Maybe Red Cross Quick Response Unit Volunteer ? >>  Unless you are ex-military, a cop or other first responder > I am none of these.
YOU Luxup  ask :survivalist and weapons training  > two different things. I am not a survivalist.
YOU Luxup  appear to have a chip on your shoulder against guns,free speech, and freedom. You maybe are in the crowd that needs a nanny.
 
2013-04-24 08:45:32 PM  

Loadmaster: At a gun show I went to in Texas recently, all the dealers guns I talked to all required having a CHL for gun purchases, which requires a background check and fingerprinting to obtain. Maybe it's different in other states.


Or, maybe that is what they all say at the gun shows.  If the people who buy illegal guns don't follow the rules then why should the sellers?  But wait, people who sell guns would never lie right, just the criminals who buy them.
 
2013-04-24 08:59:01 PM  

Cletus C.: nekom: Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.

She was a law-abiding gun owner. As was her son, until he stopped abiding.


So?    EVERY criminal is a law-abiding person until they're not.

I reject out of hand this bullshiat notion that everyone is a potential criminal.  It's what you call a literally-true lie.  Most people never even have a significant brush with criminality, because they have inculcated social and ethical mores that prevent them from turning to a life of crime.
 
2013-04-24 09:00:27 PM  

luxup: moving forward


Well, your liberal ,mocking arrogance is indeed LEANING FORWARD like your Communist ideology. I never said I had an arsenal .Liberal bigoted minds always runs to  extremism.
Denial of reality is also a mental illness.  Your fear of self defense is irrational.Your fear of duty to community defense is indefensible.
So is being a lying sociopath that manipulates others to the point of their being vulnerable and dependent on the perpetrator. Sounds like your ideology,buddy.
You have not stated HOW my ideal are "old" or out dated. You just say they are. You have not SHOWN that the idea of people having the right to have arms is not in keeping with the Republic form of government.
IT has however been proven that Tyrants, Communists and Theocrats love to control the weapons.
 
2013-04-24 09:02:24 PM  

luxup: criminals who buy them


most criminals, similar to liberals, just take things instead of buying them on the free market.
 
2013-04-24 09:05:14 PM  
Probably already mentioned but just in case...

Who is going to sell a gun at a gun show to a brown person?
 
2013-04-24 09:12:15 PM  

swangoatman: luxup: Wow man.  Talk about living in a fantasy world.

You: looting in boston  --google  it. I am not your slave yet.


Me: Looting, did YOU google it?  Man, this is EXACTLY the problem with this type of thinking and those who follow it.  You just show that you don't care about reality, you just want something to help to justify your rational.  The following is what I found when I googled 'looting in boston".  Is this what all that training is for?  Really?

"Instead of going to hospital to donate blood, looters were stealing marathon jackets while people were laying on the ground critically injured. Some may argue that the jackets were being used as pillows, blankets or even tourniquets for those in shock while others disagree. There was a growing number of eBay listings for Boston Marathon-related items by people who seemed to be capitalizing on a tragedy."

So, In your brain 'Need to be prepared in case of looters.'  What really happened is that some people stole marathon jackets and tried to sell them on ebay.  Ok cowboy, maybe let the police handle that case of societal breakdown.  I've lived through 3 blackouts.  One in the 70s during New York City's most violent period and you want a gun to deal with the people who stole jackets.

You: I never said >preparing for the end of the world YOU Luxup said that

Me: True, you called someone out as a 'weekend warrior' and then said "
Are you a member of your local neighborhood watch? Do you willingly take time for Disaster Relief Training?" so you are certainly giving the impression that you do these things.  I'm sorry, do you have to actually take a course called 'End of the word training' to be called out on it.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then guess what it is?  There is being prepared and there is going Nuts.  N-V-T-S nuts.

You: I never said >the Government is coming for you one day .YOU  Luxup said that.

Me: No, but based on your comment I'm guessing you have a bit of a libertarian bent.  Sorry if I'm wrong but those guys are always saying stuff like that.

You: Maybe Red Cross Quick Response Unit Volunteer ? >>  Unless you are ex-military, a cop or other first responder > I am none of these.


Me:

Hughes, who is now CEO of the American Red Cross of Southeastern PA, spoke to the Tribune in her capacity as a former judge with the Court of Common Pleas, and a law professor who teaches at Drexel University and Villanova Law School. "I think putting Commissioner Ramsey on the panel is a brilliant decision by President Obama and I am so grateful that he's taking decisive action on this," said Hughes who was appointed to the bench in 1995. "I have witnessed the devastation caused by assault weapons.

I'm sure they love your gun views.  Don't get me wrong, kudos for volunteering, don't think you need a gun for that.  Maybe I misunderstand how the Red Cross works.

YOU: Luxup  ask :survivalist and weapons training  > two different things. I am not a survivalist.

Me: Of course not.  Nobody is nowadays.  You are just very very passionate and enthusiastic about your freedoms and guns.

YOU: Luxup  appear to have a chip on your shoulder against guns,free speech, and freedom. You maybe are in the crowd that needs a nanny.

Me: Yes I do have a chip on my shoulder.  Seeing 20 kids get shot was the final straw that put it there.  You can yell, I can yell louder.  You can say I need a nanny and I can point out to you the folly of your thinking.  I have ammo, you have fairy tails and boogymen.
 
2013-04-24 09:14:03 PM  

Farkomatic: Tatsuma: ... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.

Just out of curiosity - should an ex-spouse - or ex-spouse to be - with an impending hearing for a domestic violence charge be able to by any weapon completely unfettered? Should someone awaiting trial - but not convicted - of a violent crime have unfettered access to weaponry?


As people awaiting trial are restricted from weapons as condition of bail, this has already been considered. If they are caught with a weapon they get thrown back in jail and other charges get filed along with the original ones.

Is your state government different? Do they allow folks out on bail their weapons? DV charges = immediate confiscation of firearms and maybe you can get them back if you are innocent and they haven't lost or destroyed them in the interim.
 
2013-04-24 09:22:17 PM  

luxup: swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.

Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.


when should a person's private medical information be used to take away their rights?

you need a trial for that, I think. a computer search isn't going to cut it.
 
2013-04-24 10:00:57 PM  

doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.


Uhm, according to the facts, it is... (From Wikipedia's definition of "assault weapon")

Attributes previously defined in Federal assault weapon legislation and their purposes:
- Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading
- Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter's preference.
- Folding stocks reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport. Critics maintain that it makes the weapon more concealable.
- Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when the rifle is shouldered.
- Bayonet mounts allow the mounting of a bayonet
- Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user
- Threaded barrels allow for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake
- Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades
- A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.
- Magazines greater than 10 rounds
- Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.

Any ONE of these characteristics, and you have an "assault weapon."
 
2013-04-24 10:02:29 PM  

swangoatman: luxup: moving forward

Well, your liberal ,mocking arrogance is indeed LEANING FORWARD like your Communist ideology. I never said I had an arsenal .Liberal bigoted minds always runs to  extremism.
Denial of reality is also a mental illness.  Your fear of self defense is irrational.Your fear of duty to community defense is indefensible.
So is being a lying sociopath that manipulates others to the point of their being vulnerable and dependent on the perpetrator. Sounds like your ideology,buddy.
You have not stated HOW my ideal are "old" or out dated. You just say they are. You have not SHOWN that the idea of people having the right to have arms is not in keeping with the Republic form of government.
IT has however been proven that Tyrants, Communists and Theocrats love to control the weapons.


Wow, that is a lot of insults.  The mark of a true orator or one who does not have actual facts to back them up?  Do you think the United States is in danger of being overrun by tyrants, communists and Theocrats?  What's taking them so long?  Wait for Jesus instead, the message is better.

You see, when the founders came up with that it was a different time.  Sure, keep your pistols and shotguns, what on earth do you need an assault rifle for?  For the perceived threat that will never come?  Your ideas are out or date because they were based on a world as it functioned over 200 years ago and you somehow think (despite history) that if everyone had a gun and all their personal freedoms then all the problems would go away.  What would happen is organized crime would take over and they will always have more guns than you.

It's not liberal mocking, it's common sense observations based in reality.

I never said YOU had an arsenal.  I did post on hording now being defined as a mental illness, thereby giving a bases to possibly classify someone who had an arsenal of guns as mentally incompetent.  I said that it would be a good way of separating those who have a pistol or shotgun for self defense from those who keep an arsenal.  You took that to mean I accused you of having an arsenal.  Again, no bases in reality but shows your irrational fear.  You took words and either didn't understand them or twisted them to cement YOUR fear of possibly loosing YOUR guns.  There is nothing that makes me believe you care about anyone else's freedoms.

I don't deny reality.  I don't deny that putting tougher gun controls would help prevent future kids being killed.  I don't deny that it is a matter of time before the next one and you and your guns will not stop it.  You deny it.

"So is being a lying sociopath that manipulates others to the point of their being vulnerable and dependent on the perpetrator."

That is indefensible.  It's how I feel about LaPierre, the gun lobby and you, the people that let the big gun companies dictate how you think.  It's how I feel about the politicians that looked at those families in the eyes and said that they felt their pain but then voted no represent you, not me.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:06 PM  

swangoatman: Teufelaffe: The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed,

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


Will Thomas Jefferson do?

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."
 
2013-04-24 10:39:43 PM  

swangoatman: luxup: criminals who buy them

most criminals, similar to liberals, just take things instead of buying them on the free market.


img717.imageshack.us
If you're trying to not come off like a paranoid nutjob, you're doing a really shiatty job.
 
2013-04-24 10:45:51 PM  

swangoatman: luxup: criminals who buy them

most criminals, similar to liberals, just take things instead of buying them on the free market.


And the extreme right nudged on by the libertarian nuts (who vote republican) make it easier for the criminals to get the guns to do the stealing.

Here are a couple of excerpt from an article I'm sure you won't read...

The Founders didn't anticipate the New Deal-- there was no need for them to-- but they were as quick to resort to the resources of the state as any modern liberal. Ben Franklin, for instance, played the Pennsylvania legislature like a violin-- using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish, for instance. Obviously he had no qualms about using state power to do good social works.

and this one...

The process of giving life to our constitutional rights has largely been the work of liberals. On the greatest fight of all, to treat blacks as human beings, libertarians supported the other side.

History shows that your ideology does not protect the constitution or it's amendments, all it does is make it easier for businesses to abuse it and tell you what to think.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
 
2013-04-24 11:00:52 PM  

legion_of_doo: luxup: swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.

Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.

when should a person's private medical information be used to take away their rights?

you need a trial for that, I think. a computer search isn't going to cut it.


When a mental health review is a component of gun ownership, that's when.  When a psychiatrist needs to perform a court ordered mental health review because someone refuses to comply because the 'jack booted oppressors are coming for my guns.' That's when.

We can force a mental patient to take meds.  We can take away children from bad parents.  It's just a matter of time before we work out a way to take the guns away from the crazy people.

The sane ones can have shotguns and pistols.

Of course it just takes a bit longer when the crazy people block common sense measures.  You don't have to like it and I'm not saying it will be quick and easy.  I'm saying the rest of us are getting fed up with BS.  Just think about how much your guns and love of freedom is helping the next people that get killed in the next school shooting.

THAT, unlike the oppression of the American people by a tyrannical leader will actually happen in your lifetime, probably a few times.  So thanks for getting in the way of trying to stop those.
 
2013-04-24 11:07:20 PM  
doglover: ...assault rifle...

People_are_Idiots: Uhm, according to the facts, it is... (From Wikipedia's definition of "assault weapon")

Lol.
 
2013-04-24 11:40:03 PM  
i'm lovin it

conservative bullshiate
shoveled back into their fat faces
 
2013-04-25 12:19:18 AM  

luxup: The sane ones can have shotguns and pistols.


But can I keep my rifle too? or am I supposed to shoot the dear I eat with a pistol? How many bullets you gonna let me have to hunt with ?
Mom, can I please have another bullet as the one I shot missed.
Your lack of knowledge proves you really do not know the topic past your indoctrination..
Oh yea. the best for last.I fixed your PC speech for ya.
You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP>
We can force a mental patient  a child in school to take meds.
 We can take away children from WHO WE FEEL are unfit bad parents who refuse to accept our communist ideals..
 It's just a matter of time before we work out a way to take the guns away from those we can't control through propaganda and fear.the crazy people.
 
2013-04-25 12:38:53 AM  
Liberals doing their gun thing to kids now:

An NYU psychology student  was arrested on illegal weapons possession raps Monday,

Bernard Goal, 20, was busted after a startled maintenance crew spotted a pair of realistic looking rifles on his bed while he was out and alerted campus security.

Public safety officers swept the Texas native's room and found four more Airsoft weapons that closely resembled AK-47s and a black Colt carbine rifles, sources said.

NYPD cops arrested Goal at 2:30 p.m. Monday and hit him with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles and replica firearms, according to a law enforcement source.

The weapons fire pellets through compressed air and are routinely mistaken for actual firearms. They have a range of about 140 to 300 feet and can cause flesh wounds at a close range, sources said.

"It's very scary to know there were guns one floor below me. I had no idea," said one of Goal's co-workers, who described him as pleasant and a hard worker. "But knowing Bernard I'm not scared."

Are you still scared of the kids little liberal mommy? You still gonna let me keep the scary shotgun,pistols and BB GUNS??

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyu_student_busted_fo r_bu ilding_1lZqVHYj47McYLAtcHKAWP
 
2013-04-25 12:50:45 AM  
And finally to put it all to rest:
The police rescue the families on a street in Boston. Listen . That is how this is actually stated by the newscaster.
 
2013-04-25 01:34:33 AM  
Flaumig: "Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~ Patrick Henry

Yeah, they farkingloved the idea of a standing army.

I never said they wanted and loved the idea of a standing army. But they certainly were able to see it as possible (the earlier post said they never envisioned it). As I wrote, they clearly felt that a standing army could aid the rise of tyrants.

Therefore, the founding fathers deliberately wrote the 2A so that every citizen had the right (and even responsibility) to be well armed. All your quotes support this.

Ergo, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms today should not be infringed upon. If anything, the founding fathers would probably be very worried that today we have

- standing army
- secret military forces
- suspension of habeas corpus
- stripping of citizen's rights to bear arms

and would demand that every able bodied citizen go out, buy an AR15, and practice with it.
 
2013-04-25 01:41:28 AM  

Nabb1: Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.

You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?


So all Muslims are brown?
 
2013-04-25 01:41:55 AM  

luxup: swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.

Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.


I'm all for mental health checks. as long as it isn't done by people like you who would take one look at my 120 guns, 50,000 rounds of assorted ammunition, multiple sets of BDUs, and call me a "nut" and a "hoarder" who is (point at random page in DSM) - clearly mentally ill!

Of course, if I am Jay Leno and have a fleet of 300 cars including one built from an M1 tank engine, I'm a  collectoror  connoisseur ....

There's nothing I despise more than people who don't like what others like and then start labeling them as mentally ill (and therefore no longer a person and perfectly ok to take away their rights and possessions)
 
2013-04-25 01:51:15 AM  

swangoatman: luxup: The sane ones can have shotguns and pistols.

But can I keep my rifle too? or am I supposed to shoot the dear I eat with a pistol? How many bullets you gonna let me have to hunt with ?
Mom, can I please have another bullet as the one I shot missed.
Your lack of knowledge proves you really do not know the topic past your indoctrination..



Sure, hunt all you want.  You need an assault rifle for that?  I didn't know that those were designed for hunting deer.Also, I know enough to know that if you need 10 shots to kill a deer they you should just give up hunting.  Raise chickens instead.

Oh yea. the best for last.I fixed your PC speech for ya.
You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP>
We can force a mental patient  a child in school to take meds.
 We can take away children from WHO WE FEEL are unfit bad parents who refuse to accept our communist ideals..
 It's just a matter of time before we work out a way to take the guns away from those we can't control through propaganda and fear.the crazy people.


Yeah, you keep thinking that.  There is no dignity in your stance.  There is no honor in your convictions.  Any coward can call someone names and change words to justify their own fears.  You are not standing up for what is right, you are blocking progress because you are afraid.  Just look at your retorts or whatever you like to call it.  You throw around words like communist, propaganda and fear because you don't have facts and a sound argument.  All you can do is try to justify your emotions on the subject and that is always messy.  You don't look at history, you ignore it.

You are deluded in your thinking.  I don't need to cry communist because I don't agree with you, I just have to point out your own behavior.  You are disingenuous because you wrap your irrational fear in so called patriotism.  Well, it's time you were shouted down.

But nope, you, the vocal minority have no interest in reality.  You don't want to make sure we do whatever we can to protect kids from getting shot up.  Nope, you are more concerned that you have enough bullets to kill a deer.
 
2013-04-25 02:00:06 AM  

swangoatman: Liberals doing their gun thing to kids now:

An NYU psychology student  was arrested on illegal weapons possession raps Monday,

Bernard Goal, 20, was busted after a startled maintenance crew spotted a pair of realistic looking rifles on his bed while he was out and alerted campus security.

Public safety officers swept the Texas native's room and found four more Airsoft weapons that closely resembled AK-47s and a black Colt carbine rifles, sources said.

NYPD cops arrested Goal at 2:30 p.m. Monday and hit him with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles and replica firearms, according to a law enforcement source.

The weapons fire pellets through compressed air and are routinely mistaken for actual firearms. They have a range of about 140 to 300 feet and can cause flesh wounds at a close range, sources said.

"It's very scary to know there were guns one floor below me. I had no idea," said one of Goal's co-workers, who described him as pleasant and a hard worker. "But knowing Bernard I'm not scared."

Are you still scared of the kids little liberal mommy? You still gonna let me keep the scary shotgun,pistols and BB GUNS??

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x364]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyu_student_busted_fo r_bu ilding_1lZqVHYj47McYLAtcHKAWP


Funny, it's not the liberals who want to arm themselves because a college kid is making air rifles.  Who is the more scared, the one who says (like me) what is your point?  The cops got him.

Or the guy that says this is why they need to have a gun, so I can protect myself from the tyrannical rule that is imminent because a college kid made a pellet gun.  This one is up there with the guy who used looting on Boston as a reason.  The looting that turned out to be people stealing running jackets.

I sure as heck know which one sounds more paranoid, and I'm pretty sure who is more afraid.
 
2013-04-25 02:12:27 AM  

duenor: I'm all for mental health checks. as long as it isn't done by people like you who would take one look at my 120 guns, 50,000 rounds of assorted ammunition, multiple sets of BDUs, and call me a "nut" and a "hoarder" who is (point at random page in DSM) - clearly mentally ill!


No, just selfishly irrational.  If a woman has 120 pairs of shoes then she has a problem, she just doesn't love shoes.  Maybe there is a reason for you to have that much firepower but I'm guessing it's just personal preference.

I know that people who like to play cop or soldier are more dangerous than the actual thing.
 
2013-04-25 02:23:25 AM  

People_are_Idiots: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Uhm, according to the facts, it is... (From Wikipedia's definition of "assault weapon")

Attributes previously defined in Federal assault weapon legislation and their purposes:
- Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading
- Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter's preference.
- Folding stocks reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport. Critics maintain that it makes the weapon more concealable.
- Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when the rifle is shouldered.
- Bayonet mounts allow the mounting of a bayonet
- Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user
- Threaded barrels allow for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake
- Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades
- A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.
- Magazines greater than 10 rounds
- Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.

Any ONE of these characteristics, and you have an "assault weapon."


Look at the definition you posted and look at the words they were using.
 
2013-04-25 02:32:41 AM  
And yet it hasn't happened.
 
2013-04-25 02:51:04 AM  

nekom: Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.


She obtained the guns via her divorce.  Let's deport Muslims and make the country a better place.
 
2013-04-25 03:43:41 AM  

heavymetal: Nabb1: I know there's this idea that gun shows are some sort of arms exchange free-for-all, but a lot of them are organized and run by licensed gun dealers, who actually do background checks. Private sellers are usually in the minority and even then they sell more accessories and other stuff than actual guns, especially assault rifles and the like.

I often hear this so it makes me wonder if it is true, then why the objection to closing what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole".  Seriously.  From what I hear from the pro-gun side is that through similar reasoning as stated above, even at gun shows purchases have background checks by default.

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?


I think the idea of an instant background/ID check to get in the doors is more reasonable and enforcable, whereas trying to force Joe Blow with his air guns to do background checks will either force him out (and possibly to some nefarious airsoft ring), or cost him too much, whereas the Cheaper Than Dirt camp (CTD is a big company around here) would like less compitition.

I can understand thinking background checks are the "common sense" approach, but does anyone have the facts on how many guns used in crime were legally obtained weapons? Last I heard, 90% of the guns used in crime are illegally obtained.
 
2013-04-25 04:28:43 AM  

Bucky Katt: Nabb1: Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.

You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?

So all Muslims are brown?


That's why it's so funny : the Tsarnaev brothers were litteral caucasians.
 
2013-04-25 04:58:21 AM  

redmid17: People_are_Idiots: doglover: madgonad: Buy an assault rifle without ID - yes. Fully automatic - no.

If it's not fully automatic, it's not an assault rifle.

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.

Uhm, according to the facts, it is... (From Wikipedia's definition of "assault weapon")

Attributes previously defined in Federal assault weapon legislation and their purposes:
- Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading
- Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter's preference.
- Folding stocks reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport. Critics maintain that it makes the weapon more concealable.
- Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when the rifle is shouldered.
- Bayonet mounts allow the mounting of a bayonet
- Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user
- Threaded barrels allow for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake
- Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades
- A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.
- Magazines greater than 10 rounds
- Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.

Any ONE of these characteristics, and you have an "assault weapon."

Look at the definition you posted and look at the words they were using.


Sorry. ;) Just wanted to pull it out. To think quite a few 9mm would be deemed "assault weapons" if their magazines carry more than 10 rounds. Funny huh?
 
2013-04-25 08:00:57 AM  

luxup: swangoatman: Liberals doing their gun thing to kids now:

An NYU psychology student  was arrested on illegal weapons possession raps Monday,

Bernard Goal, 20, was busted after a startled maintenance crew spotted a pair of realistic looking rifles on his bed while he was out and alerted campus security.

Public safety officers swept the Texas native's room and found four more Airsoft weapons that closely resembled AK-47s and a black Colt carbine rifles, sources said.

NYPD cops arrested Goal at 2:30 p.m. Monday and hit him with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles and replica firearms, according to a law enforcement source.

The weapons fire pellets through compressed air and are routinely mistaken for actual firearms. They have a range of about 140 to 300 feet and can cause flesh wounds at a close range, sources said.

"It's very scary to know there were guns one floor below me. I had no idea," said one of Goal's co-workers, who described him as pleasant and a hard worker. "But knowing Bernard I'm not scared."


Are you still scared of the kids little liberal mommy? You still gonna let me keep the scary shotgun,pistols and BB GUNS??


Funny, it's not the liberals who want to arm themselves because a college kid is making air rifles.  Who is the more scared, the one who says (like me) what is your point?  The cops got him.


The POINT was that they took his BB guns. They took his TOYS. A full grown man and his friends pictured are enjoying a day of play with BB guns and Pellet gun (the pellet guns are single shot load) and because a scared no person called the cops , the cops had to take this kids TOYS away so the other kids wont be afraid. If your an adult try not to be afraid of TOYS. If your an adult try and be grown up enough to understand that the AR in AR-15 is a brand name and does not mean Assault Rifle just like a Bowie Knife does not mean David Bowie..
Aside from that. Who are you to determine what I need to defend my person,my possessions,my community and my State? It was not to long ago that people where sent to school in some places until they had all the knowledge that the elite thought they needed for the life they were going to be given. The reason was that knowledge can be a dangerous weapon to those that are in need to be kept in check. Read the History of South Africa. You will see that as soon as the Majority were on equal footing with the powerful Minority in both knowledge and arms that a transition was made possible.
You continue to try and denigrate my words as the words of ignorance and fear. They are actually the words of cautious optimism that Arms will not ever have to be used as long as the knowledge of those elitists in power is openly shared with We the People. Why is this allowed to occur in a whole town. The Police rescued these people?  Was this needed for a manhunt? Where were the canine officers on this manhunt? And it turned out that a man ,out for a smoke, discovered the guy and called the law. A citizen ,not locked away in his house found the killer. But we know that you will not watch these 1 min videos. They do not fit your take on things. Or do you like the way they made those people "feel" so safe. it was nice the cops apologized for breaking the law.. NO Exigent circumstances presented themselves.
Again you think the framers of the constitution were concerned that my hunting was endangered so they wanted to make sure I had a right to hunting guns? You are a tool.
 
2013-04-25 08:04:52 AM  

luxup: The looting that turned out to be people stealing running jackets.


We know how well the cops keep "the peace".
 
2013-04-25 08:24:52 AM  

special20: GoldSpider: special20: No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we should outlaw semi-automatic rifles (of whatever characteristics you choose) because some people willfully break the law to modify them?  Think about that for a moment...

I am not arguing anything. All I did was state a fact: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean people won't still have whatever they want to get their grubby hands on. Now excuse me while I smoke a doob, and take a nice pull on some moonshine. You should just go ahead and start a fight on the internet with someone else.


I haven't started any fights. Again I was simply pointing out that it's unlikely there are people selling full auto conversions on the open market due to the fact that they are illegal. That is until you came in and insulted me by insinuating that I'm part of a homophobic discriminatory organization.
 
2013-04-25 08:24:57 AM  

swangoatman: You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP


i.imgur.com

/Let go!
 
2013-04-25 08:34:50 AM  

luxup: swangoatman: Liberals doing their gun thing to kids now:

An NYU psychology student  was arrested on illegal weapons possession raps Monday,

Bernard Goal, 20, was busted after a startled maintenance crew spotted a pair of realistic looking rifles on his bed while he was out and alerted campus security.

Public safety officers swept the Texas native's room and found four more Airsoft weapons that closely resembled AK-47s and a black Colt carbine rifles, sources said.

NYPD cops arrested Goal at 2:30 p.m. Monday and hit him with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles and replica firearms, according to a law enforcement source.

The weapons fire pellets through compressed air and are routinely mistaken for actual firearms. They have a range of about 140 to 300 feet and can cause flesh wounds at a close range, sources said.

"It's very scary to know there were guns one floor below me. I had no idea," said one of Goal's co-workers, who described him as pleasant and a hard worker. "But knowing Bernard I'm not scared."

Are you still scared of the kids little liberal mommy? You still gonna let me keep the scary shotgun,pistols and BB GUNS??

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x364]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyu_student_busted_fo r_bu ilding_1lZqVHYj47McYLAtcHKAWP

Funny, it's not the liberals who want to arm themselves because a college kid is making air rifles.  Who is the more scared, the one who says (like me) what is your point?  The cops got him.

Or the guy that says this is why they need to have a gun, so I can protect myself from the tyrannical rule that is imminent because a college kid made a pellet gun.  This one is up there with the guy who used looting on Boston as a reason.  The looting that turned out to be people stealing running jackets.

I sure as heck know which one sounds more paranoid, and I'm pretty sure who is more afraid.


He posted the article to show the absurdity of gun laws in NY, not to justify owning firearms. I think you are confused. He is not saying that you need to own a firearm because there is a kid making airsoft guns. He is saying that it is ridiculous the guy was charged with a crime and had his airsoft guns confiscated because they are so afraid of guns in NY that you can't even own a toy that looks like one. They even refer to them as weapons in the article. The person who thought it was scary to know there were airsoft guns one floor away puts it over the top.
 
2013-04-25 08:38:15 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: swangoatman: You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP

[i.imgur.com image 207x300]

/Let go!


Your right. Why argue with the dead.. I'll just ignore his ignorance of life and hatred for things he fears.. But I won't put him on ignore as he probably is a nice person when he is not attacking things he does not know anything about.
 
2013-04-25 08:54:59 AM  

swangoatman: Vlad_the_Inaner: swangoatman: You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP

[i.imgur.com image 207x300]

/Let go!

Your right. Why argue with the dead.. I'll just ignore his ignorance of life and hatred for things he fears.. But I won't put him on ignore as he probably is a nice person when he is not attacking things he does not know anything about.


You seem pretty set on attacking "liberals" who you very obviously know nothing about.
 
2013-04-25 11:24:24 AM  

Teufelaffe: swangoatman: Teufelaffe: The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed,

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Will Thomas Jefferson do?

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."


Well, we have been at war for the past 60 years.
Welcome to forever.
 
2013-04-25 12:04:08 PM  
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.
 
2013-04-25 01:13:28 PM  

Fark France: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.


On the flip side of that, bombs kill far fewer people in the US every year than guns, so we obviously should lift any and all legal restrictions on the manufacture and possession of explosives as well as ceasing the monitoring of the sales of explosives or large amounts of chemicals that can be used to make explosives.  After all, the fewer the number of deaths caused by something, the less it should be restricted or monitored.

Protip: When someone says "X is dangerous, maybe we should do something about that", responding with "Well, Y is *more* dangerous!" makes you sound a moron.  This isn't a f*cking contest.
 
2013-04-25 01:44:20 PM  

mizchief: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Fark France: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

On the flip side of that, bombs kill far fewer people in the US every year than guns, so we obviously should lift any and all legal restrictions on the manufacture and possession of explosives as well as ceasing the monitoring of the sales of explosives or large amounts of chemicals that can be used to make explosives.  After all, the fewer the number of deaths caused by something, the less it should be restricted or monitored.

Protip: When someone says "X is dangerous, maybe we should do something about that", responding with "Well, Y is *more* dangerous!" makes you sound a moron.  This isn't a f*cking contest.

Saying that other people should stop enjoying potentially dangerous hobbies, while not addressing other hobbies produce many times more deaths, but are enjoyed by yourself makes you a hypocrite.


If the conversation were about "what are some dangerous things and what can we do about them?" sure.  But that's not what the conversation is about.  It's about guns, so pulling the "Well X, Y, and Z kill more people than guns.  Why aren't you doing anything about them!?" shiat is just deflection.
 
2013-04-25 02:07:11 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making, since an impulsive murder is a very different act from a planned attack, wouldn't you agree? If he brained her with a hammer, would that hammer be any less deadly a weapon than a gun, despite its manufactured intent of pounding nails into a board?

You wouldn't own a hammer...you probably just use your gun to pound nails, right?

Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

Don't I have a right to go watch a movie in Colorado without having to dodge bullets? I mean...it's not in your constitution or anything, so maybe not.

Hey...I just think a reg is a no brainer. But hey...I'm Canadian...so shoot me.

\I was kidding...don't shoot me...or anyone else, please.


Posts like this make you sounds stupid, FYI.
 
2013-04-25 02:57:43 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: mizchief: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Fark France: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

On the flip side of that, bombs kill far fewer people in the US every year than guns, so we obviously should lift any and all legal restrictions on the manufacture and possession of explosives as well as ceasing the monitoring of the sales of explosives or large amounts of chemicals that can be used to make explosives.  After all, the fewer the number of deaths caused by something, the less it should be restricted or monitored.

Protip: When someone says "X is dangerous, maybe we should do something about that", responding with "Well, Y is *more* dangerous!" makes you sound a moron.  This isn't a f*cking contest.

Saying that other people should stop enjoying potentially dangerous hobbies, while not addressing other hobbies produce many times more deaths, but are enjoyed by yourself makes you a hypocrite.

If the conversation were about "what are some dangerous things and what can we do about them?" sure.  But that's not what the conversation is about.  It's about guns, so pulling the "Well X, Y, and Z kill more people than guns.  Why aren't you doing anything about them!?" shiat is just deflection.


And this is what we have to resort to in a debate where an appeal to emotion is made. The "gun show loophole" has been addressed several times in this thread as a misnomer. The majority of retailers at a gun show are dealers with an FFL that run a background check. The proposed laws would not have prevented any of the recent tragedies, nor did the '94 AWB produce any measurable effect on gun crime as per the FBI. It simply hindered the ability of a large number of people to enjoy an activity. Regulating private sales is unenforcable without registration, and registration is unacceptable. If the government has access to the names and addresses of all gun owners, it defeats the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Registration, apart from being costly, is an ineffective deterrent. Look at what happened when Canada gave a long-gun registry a shot. They just abandoned it because it was nothing more than a pit to throw tax dollars into.

And to the people saying that you can make a full-auto gun by simply filing down some parts, shut up. That's an incredible display of ignorance at best and a gross example of intentional dishonesty to advance a goal at worst. The sears used to make a reliable select-fire weapon are heavily regulated and are regarded as machine guns themselves. There are ways to rig a gun to fire as an automatic; they're unreliable and do not allow for select-fire operation. A piece of string can be used to rig up an automatic weapon under the right circumstances. The ATF, in just one of many displays of their incompetency, ruled in 2004 that a 14" piece of string with a loop at both ends was a machine gun. The plain facts are that if you understand the basic construction and operation of a firearm, you can make one. No amount of laws are going to change that. Same goes for bombs. And until we start regulating knowledge of basic chemistry and engineering, it will continue to be the case.
 
2013-04-25 03:11:13 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: " shiat is just deflection.


you mean that since handguns kill MANY MANY more than the scary rifle that they seek to ban that the scary gun ban may be a deflection to the real effort to get ALL guns even BB guns outlawed ? if you read the article you will see he was with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles
 
2013-04-25 03:37:49 PM  

Falin: JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making, since an impulsive murder is a very different act from a planned attack, wouldn't you agree? If he brained her with a hammer, would that hammer be any less deadly a weapon than a gun, despite its manufactured intent of pounding nails into a board?

You wouldn't own a hammer...you probably just use your gun to pound nails, right?

Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

Don't I have a right to go watch a movie in Colorado without having to dodge bullets? I mean...it's not in your constitution or anything, so maybe not.

Hey...I just think a reg is a no brainer. But hey...I'm Canadian...so shoot me.

\I was kidding...don't shoot me...or anyone else, please.

Posts like this make you sounds stupid, FYI.


Posts like this don't just make you SOUND stupid...they in fact let all readers know that you are, in fact, very stupid. At least don't go adding "s" to words that do not require it.
I will also add that posting a response like that a day after a thread was opened lets everyone know you are also a bit of a coward hoping the original poster would not see it and rebut.

But hey...just like "many" gun owners...I assume you're just another coward in a tough man disguise.

\FYI
 
2013-04-25 03:44:40 PM  

swangoatman: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: " shiat is just deflection.

you mean that since handguns kill MANY MANY more than the scary rifle that they seek to ban that the scary gun ban may be a deflection to the real effort to get ALL guns even BB guns outlawed ? if you read the article you will see he was with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles


Are you on drugs?  The deflection is that whenever the topic of gun violence comes up, there is always some yahoo who brings up something entirely unrelated to guns (hammers, cars, pools, alcohol, etc) and says, "Well this thing here kills more people every year than guns.  Why aren't you doing anything about that, huh?"  It's a classic deflection technique and it means that they're unwilling to have an honest discussion about the actual topic.
 
2013-04-25 04:21:28 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: swangoatman: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: " shiat is just deflection.

you mean that since handguns kill MANY MANY more than the scary rifle that they seek to ban that the scary gun ban may be a deflection to the real effort to get ALL guns even BB guns outlawed ? if you read the article you will see he was with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles

Are you on drugs?  The deflection is that whenever the topic of gun violence comes up, there is always some yahoo who brings up something entirely unrelated to guns (hammers, cars, pools, alcohol, etc) and says, "Well this thing here kills more people every year than guns.  Why aren't you doing anything about that, huh?"  It's a classic deflection technique and it means that they're unwilling to have an honest discussion about the actual topic.


I responded to your statement that it was deflection. I also presented valid arguments after the initial "deflection."
 
2013-04-25 04:25:10 PM  

swangoatman: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: " shiat is just deflection.

you mean that since handguns kill MANY MANY more than the scary rifle that they seek to ban that the scary gun ban may be a deflection to the real effort to get ALL guns even BB guns outlawed ? if you read the article you will see he was with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles


Everyone knows that air rifles are the Gateway Assault Weapons and we need background checks to buy BBs.
Maybe, actually, slingshots, yea, Assault Slingshots should be background checked.
 
2013-04-25 04:27:35 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: honest discussion about the actual topic.


like banning rifles which kill far few persons than handguns. i get it ..I get it..
 
2013-04-25 05:04:46 PM  
I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.

If you order a gun on the internets it has to be shipped to a FFL holder in your state, who is then legally responsible to perform a background check prior to releasing the firearm to your possession. Guns generally can't be shipped directly to an individual. There are few exceptions to this rule (such as if you ship your firearm to the manufacturer for repair, they can mail it back to you). Otherwise, it's a FFL transfer. I've purchased a couple of guns this way in the last year and each of them has required a trip to a local gun shop for the paperwork and waiting for the background check.
 
2013-04-25 08:58:29 PM  
These threads always warms the cockles of my heart. The anti-gunners believe they are a majority. Oh how I wait for 2014, the utter devastation of their asses shall fuel me for eons. Some states like Colorado is already gearing up recall elections against the senators that supported their retarded new gun laws.

The only thing that could make me happier is if Cuomo and Bloomberg both died of auto-erotic asphyxiation while the NY SAFE Act got repealed.
 
2013-04-25 09:02:36 PM  

tevo: I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.

If you order a gun on the internets it has to be shipped to a FFL holder in your state, who is then legally responsible to perform a background check prior to releasing the firearm to your possession. Guns generally can't be shipped directly to an individual. There are few exceptions to this rule (such as if you ship your firearm to the manufacturer for repair, they can mail it back to you). Otherwise, it's a FFL transfer. I've purchased a couple of guns this way in the last year and each of them has required a trip to a local gun shop for the paperwork and waiting for the background check.


Waste of time. Anyone unwilling to learn something about their greatest fear is certainly not going to listen to facts.
You would think that the pant wetters would go git sum learnin, if'n it really and actually was as important as they scream.

don't let the sound of your own wheels make you craazzy
 
2013-04-25 09:04:53 PM  

46 senators that voted to give your rights to the United Nations:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin(D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy(D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)