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 498
    More: Sick, al-Qaeda, Gadahn, Muslims, American Terrorist, Sandy Hook, exclamation points, assault rifles  
•       •       •

3362 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 498 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report