Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

3384 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-24 03:02:37 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.


He committed a crime.
he committed another crime when he KILLED the cop to STEAL his gun.
Criminals wont do a background check.
They are criminals, silly.
 
2013-04-24 03:04:40 PM  

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

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

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

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

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


Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.
 
2013-04-24 03:04:46 PM  

arentol: Both actions are illegal because they infringe on other peoples rights, and neither of them have anything to do with any enumerated right.


So explain whose rights I'm infringing on by broadcasting nudity or one-sided political speech on commercial frequencies. Someone has to purchase special equipment and tune that equipment specifically in order to receive my broadcast, yet I am limited in what I can say.
 
2013-04-24 03:05:07 PM  

Skyd1v: JohnnyCanuck: Bravo Two: Personally, I just don't want you, the government, or anyone else to know what guns I own. It's none of your business.

Personally, I just don't want anyone who is paranoid enough to feel the need to have a secret arsenal to have....well...a secret arsenal.

Why should your desires out-trump mine?

Our desires are to keep what we have.  You desire to take away what we have.  Until JohnyCanuck is crowned High King Poo-Bah, you don't get to dictate what things other people get to own.


Not trying to dictate what you own....just that you're "man" enough to put your name on it.
My desire is to be alive after the movie. I have my life right now...don't try and take that away from me.
 
2013-04-24 03:05:09 PM  

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

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

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

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.

I sell all my guns to drug dealers for 200% profit as a private dealer. So is my transaction legal or do drug dealers acquire guns illegally?


Depends on the state, in California (at least back when I sold a gun) you have to have a gun dealer act as intermediary and hold the gun for the 2 week holding period and do the background check. Costs $25-ish, as I recall.

Apparently (according to all the recent news pieces on the topic)
- Guns shows are not black market orgies of unrestricted gun sales
- Straw purchase is how most guns get into criminal hands
- Gun theft is a problem, but not a major source of guns for criminals

I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.
 
2013-04-24 03:06:58 PM  

arentol: Even worse when you consider that it also won't stop people intending to commit crimes from acquiring a firearm.


But it will stop people who have already shown behavior harmful to others from obtaining one.
 
2013-04-24 03:07:44 PM  

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

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

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

Then you dont have an AR15 You have a replica .22


The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.
 
2013-04-24 03:08:01 PM  

stampylives: into a well regulated militia.


the phraseology refers to "well equiped militia" if you do research such as the constitutions adopted by the States before and after the US constitution was ratified. Pass it along and educate all your peers. No I wont provide citations for you to do your homework. There are no cliff notes to your exercise of your rights.better yet. Let a liberal show me different circa 1780's definition.
 
2013-04-24 03:09:26 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?


To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking them from you.


Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

JohnnyCanuck: Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.


I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!
 
2013-04-24 03:09:32 PM  

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.


Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

I don't think your analogy is well thought out.
 
2013-04-24 03:09:52 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Not trying to dictate what you own....just that you're "man" enough to put your name on it.


I think I just inadvertantly came up with the perfect ad campaign for the registry....

In a deep manly voice...

"Only pussies don't register their guns. Are you a pussy? Man up nancy-boy...register your firearms. All the REAL MEN are doing it. Don't be a pussy!"
 
2013-04-24 03:10:29 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm sure your points were great.

You cant read it because it shows how uninformed you are. I was the unit armorer while I was in the Army so excuse me for knowing a little about the weapons you speak of. I can see you are someone who doesn't care about truthfulness or facts so I wont even attempt to check through your shell of willful ignorance.
FYI not a gun nut. Dont own any assault type weapons , a couple of 12ga shotguns, a .22 rifle and a ...


The real tipping point into gooberville is when you start posting pictures of all your guns arranged on your bed like your dolly collection. That's when your family and friends should have a talk with you.
 
2013-04-24 03:11:16 PM  

Dimensio: The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.


Because .22LR rounds are far cheaper than .223, am I right?  Just curious.
 
2013-04-24 03:12:30 PM  

ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.


Whose stupid idea was that?
 
2013-04-24 03:12:48 PM  
background checks prevent nothing & are a burden to honest men buying firearms criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS!
 
2013-04-24 03:13:01 PM  

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

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

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

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

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?

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


Now, after Boston, we have "assault gun powder".
Get on it.
 
2013-04-24 03:14:01 PM  

numbquil: Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.


I hate to say it, but citation needed. We've seen a few examples in this thread of those who say their name was mistakenly added, but each of them was able to actually to purchase a firearm - as in, they had a method to appeal their status, and it worked.

Please find an example of someone who should be legally allowed to purchase a firearm, but failed a background check and has no legal recourse.

And I'm not going to defend the silly TWL. We need to revamp that system as soon as humanly possible.
 
2013-04-24 03:14:36 PM  

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

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

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

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.

I sell all my guns to drug dealers for 200% profit as a private dealer. So is my transaction legal or do drug dealers acquire guns illegally?

Depends on the state, in California (at least back when I sold a gun) you have to have a gun dealer act as intermediary and hold the gun for the 2 week holding period and do the background check. Costs $25-ish, as I recall.

Apparently (according to all the recent news pieces on the topic)
- Guns shows are not black market orgies of unrestricted gun sales
- Straw purchase is how most guns get into criminal hands
- Gun theft is a problem, but not a major source of guns for criminals

I'm told it used to be pretty easy to mail-order guns on the internets, they would just have a "Check this box if it's totally OK for you to buy a gun, and you're 18, and your background is A-OK, and you're sure you aren't lying or anything (wink wink)". But they have cracked down on that by now.


It's pretty much that easy right now.  I have done 3 this morning.  You just need to have someone like me on standby ready to provide their FFL information and a shipping address.

Once I actually get the gun, though, I still run the NICS on the purchaser and all information about the weapon/new owner goes into the bound book.  (and a spreadsheet stored on an external hard drive, for redundancy)
 
2013-04-24 03:14:37 PM  
mizchief

Which is why we should separate the two. Background checks should only include information on the person, not what guns the person is trying to buy. Get yourself a permit and then you only need to be checked every few years for renewal but allow hooks into the DB so when someone with a permit commits a crime, it gets flagged and the permit is revoked.

Completely agreed. Something like this has a much better chance of passing (IMO) than any of the more ridiculous proposals that have failed lately.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:09 PM  

GoldSpider: Dimensio: The rifle will fire .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition should I replace the .22LR conversion kit with the original bolt and carrier. I would not even need to replace the upper receiver.

Because .22LR rounds are far cheaper than .223, am I right?  Just curious.


I will inform you when any supplier again has a stock of either caliber.

I purchased the kit so that I could use the rifle at an indoor range and so that I could use less expensive ammunition with the rifle.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:12 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?

To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.


No, but I believe that if you're using it lawfully then you should have no problem putting your name on it.

Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

Some people are paranoid delusional nut jobs.

I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!


The day is young...who knows what will happen on your drive home.
 
2013-04-24 03:15:42 PM  

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

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


Depends on the state you live in.

A semi-auto centerfire rifle with a detachable mag that holds more than 10 rounds is considered an assult rifle in Ca.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart_front.png
 
2013-04-24 03:16:40 PM  

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


Do you think this is a reasonable and reliable control?
 
2013-04-24 03:17:11 PM  

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

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

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

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


I really hope you are kidding.
 
2013-04-24 03:19:36 PM  

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

Whose stupid idea was that?


I was responding to this:

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.

 
2013-04-24 03:19:51 PM  

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

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

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

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

I really hope you are kidding.


These are the "reasonable" people we're supposed to be negotiating with to come up with "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.
 
2013-04-24 03:19:52 PM  
Fark...we will do there job for em.
We are doing a decent job of killing off our fellow American's on our own.
They probably realize that fact for themselves and are sitting back and waiting.
A mass killing, a couple of weeks of head shaking, some tears, some B/S from the politico's and liberals and it's back to the same old, same old.

They watch...they wait...and the world laughs at us....the most powerful nation on the planet. Killing our own daily.

We gots the guns and we gots the body count.....and we are the civilized ones?
But, we got the guns!  Yeah!!!!  ...out of my cold dead hands............

Going to get me one of them Bushmasters and do me some serious  duck hunting. It's the American way.


Oh, sorry we were talking about THOSE other terrorists, right? The one's that want to kill us American's, right? From some out of the way uncivilized place...Bad people..

Sorry...I got sidetracked......Terrorists BAD....Bad people BAD...NO GUNS or PRESSURE COOKERS for TERRORISTS.

We now need a ban on:

Pressure Cookers
Ball bearings
Wire
Batteries
Back Packs

The Internets
 
2013-04-24 03:19:54 PM  

fredsnake: background checks prevent nothing & are a burden to honest men buying firearms criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS!


You know what else is a "burden"...burying a loved one that was killed by the assault rifle that was purchased to hunt pheasant.

Sorry to put you out of your way. Do you biatch this much when you have to renew your drivers license?
 
2013-04-24 03:20:10 PM  

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

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


Also, an AR-15 is not an assult rifle....
 
2013-04-24 03:20:44 PM  

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

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

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.sht ml


Confiscation does not equal forced selling...only because money is involved?  Money makes everything OK.
 
2013-04-24 03:21:13 PM  
Let's go all NYC on these gun shows and gun show traders and BB gun owners that scare the libs and supply the terrorists with killing machines !!!!!...Wait What?
 
2013-04-24 03:21:24 PM  
In the Closet of Fear for most of the inexperienced jackwagons so terrified of Gunz, "Assault" generally means anything scary looking enough to fulfill the "one shot, one kill, 40 per second" scenario championed by the likes of Piers Morgan.

Like some other areas, there is no consensus of fact, only opinion.
 
2013-04-24 03:22:16 PM  

boozehat: A semi-auto centerfire rifle with a detachable mag that holds more than 10 rounds is considered an assult rifle in Ca.


The flowchart is for an assault weapon.  Not an assault rifle.  There is a difference.
 
2013-04-24 03:22:58 PM  

GoldSpider: special20: Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout? My argument failed me so I'm going to call you names now.

FTFY.


No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so. Therefore, when someone points that out is as annoying to me as that damn kid who reminds the teacher about homework on a Friday... which makes me think about calling someone an eagle scout. I'd say that was better than calling someone an annoying farkhead... your choice now, idnit.
 
2013-04-24 03:25:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: numbquil: Firearms aren't legally available to everyone and anyone but everyone and anyone can end up on one of those FBI watchlists. How would you like it if you went to go purchase a new .22 for plinking and found out that you were mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list? Then you find out that there is no clear legal route to have your name cleared. These lists have been heavily criticised by members of both major political parties for various reasons.

I hate to say it, but citation needed. We've seen a few examples in this thread of those who say their name was mistakenly added, but each of them was able to actually to purchase a firearm - as in, they had a method to appeal their status, and it worked.

Please find an example of someone who should be legally allowed to purchase a firearm, but failed a background check and has no legal recourse.

And I'm not going to defend the silly TWL. We need to revamp that system as soon as humanly possible.


Citation needed for what? I'm talking about a hypothetical situation. Currently, being on the terrorist watch list does not prevent you from purchasing a firearm. I noticed you were replying to some people who were having an argument about this and that is what confused me. I thought you were arguing that people on the TWL should not be able to purchase firearms. I didn't see anyone in the thread claim they were denied a firearm based on being on a terrorist watch list. I did see people say they were denied for other reasons which were later cleared up.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/government-watch-list.htm">http://pe ople.howstuffworks.com/government-watch-list.htm
If you want more information about watch lists including attempting to get off of one you can read this
 
2013-04-24 03:25:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: I was responding to this:


Fair enough, I just assumed you agreed with it as reasonable.

JohnnyCanuck: You know what else is a "burden"...burying a loved one that was killed by the assault rifle that was purchased to hunt pheasant.


Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?
 
2013-04-24 03:26:46 PM  

ox45tallboy: Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.

Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

I don't think your analogy is well thought out.


Ah, but if He is not drunk when I sell him the car, then I'm not liable. He can drive from where I sold it to him to the goddamn bar and get drunk, that's his business. He can drive afterwards. if he is clean and sober when buying the car, why do I care what he does afterwards, and why should I be liable for it?
 
2013-04-24 03:27:15 PM  

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence?

To believe that, you must believe there is no responsible way to use a gun that doesn't result in someone's death.  I keep the term "gun stupid" handy for such occasions.

JohnnyCanuck: No one is taking them from you.

Some people believe that a registry would make it easier for the government to do so, should they ever decide it's in "the greater public good" to disarm the civilian populace.

JohnnyCanuck: Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.

I own several guns, and somehow I've managed to avoid what you consider "inevitable".  But good idea!


OK, I can't help but jump in one more time. Look at how that statement is like NINE WEASEL WORDS DEEP! I mean, is any position even being asserted at all - after you cut off it's balls, put it in a dress, give it a lollipop, curl it's hair, and bend it over a sofa like that?

1) "Some people" - Who are these people? Is your Canadian girlfriend one of them? (Sorry JohnnyCanuck - it's a US thing)
2) "Would make it easier" - Not cause to happen, just slightly raise the probability of it possibly happening...
3) "Should they ever decide" - Not saying they have or will, just posing a theoretical here...
4) "The greater public good" in quotes - To emphasize that it is a difficult concept to demonstrate or define

Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.
 
2013-04-24 03:28:48 PM  

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

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

It's illegal to even be in possesion of modified parts that could be put into a firearm to make it fully automatic.

Did you make it all the way to Eagle Scout?


Sorry but I don't understand the joke. I'm an atheist so no I didn't make it to eagle scout. I was just pointing out that "selling kits" to convert a weapon to full automatic fire would be illegal under federal law. Not to mention that implementing or even possessing such a kit would also be illegal under federal law. Unless you are implying that laws do not deter people from converting weapons to fully auto, I'm not sure what the sarcasm is all about.
 
2013-04-24 03:29:21 PM  

special20: No, I failed in assuming ones mind would be prehensile to get my inference that one was being a goody two shoes. While fully automatic weapons, or parts to them are illegal, it is not going to stop anyone from doing so.


So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we should outlaw semi-automatic rifles (of whatever characteristics you choose) because some people willfully break the law to modify them?  Think about that for a moment...
 
2013-04-24 03:29:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Because if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy you ARE responsible with what he does with it, even after it is out of your control.

Whose stupid idea was that?

I was responding to this:

Bravo Two: And why should they be liable for how the gun is used after the purchase? If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it, am I liable for that? Personal responsibility is just that, personal. I can't be responsible for what you do. I can only be responsible for myself. Trying to make me take responsibility and suffer because of the behaviors of others is onerous and retarded.


You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"
 
2013-04-24 03:29:54 PM  

noitsnot: Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.


It provides them the means to that end, not that they 'will'.  Many of us don't want to fall that far down the slippery slope.  It is pretty much as simple as that.
 
2013-04-24 03:30:15 PM  

noitsnot: 1) "Some people" - Who are these people? Is your Canadian girlfriend one of them? (Sorry JohnnyCanuck - it's a US thing)


S'OK....my GF is Canadian too.

\but she actually exists...I think.
 
2013-04-24 03:31:59 PM  
numbquil:

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

Still that data is still in a file somewhere.

i.imgur.com

/the FFL people I know logged the serial numbers of the guns they had possession of to show the ATF.
 
2013-04-24 03:32:01 PM  

GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?


No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.
 
2013-04-24 03:32:44 PM  

noitsnot: "The greater public good" in quotes - To emphasize that it is a difficult concept to demonstrate or define


No, I am pretty sure that it is to indicate that this talking point ironically ignores the limiting of our freedom enumerated in our Constitution.
 
2013-04-24 03:33:38 PM  

numbquil: I thought you were arguing that people on the TWL should not be able to purchase firearms.


I'm on the fence about this. The watch list is so much more failure than accomplishment that I don't think it would do any good, and yet how silly is it to let people that you are worried about even RIDING in an airplane to purchase a machine designed for killing?

I'm not convinced either way.
 
2013-04-24 03:34:40 PM  

noitsnot: Dude, if you think "Registering our guns will mean the government will later confiscate them", step up and say that.


I don't consider myself part the group I described, but I also haven't blinded myself to the steady erosion of our rights supposedly carried out in the name of the public good.  If our government had a better track record of protecting our individual liberty, I'd have a harder time believing the gun nuts.
 
2013-04-24 03:35:59 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: Do you have a rough idea of how many people are killed each year by what you imagine are "assault rifles"?

No I do not.....but I do know that 0.0000001 per year is too many.


Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:08 PM  
Anyway...its been fun. I'm heading home to eat some babies and rape some ol' ladies that don't own guns.
 
Displayed 50 of 486 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report