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 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.
 
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