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  
•       •       •

3361 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 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 03:35:04 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.


The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.
 
2013-04-24 03:35:59 PM

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

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


Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:08 PM
Anyway...its been fun. I'm heading home to eat some babies and rape some ol' ladies that don't own guns.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:10 PM

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


Ah, but if he is a habitual drunkard, that was not only reeking of gin when you sold you him car, but he wasn't even able to produce a driver's license as ID so you could sign over the title, then you WOULD be liable.
 
2013-04-24 03:36:27 PM
I really wonder where this whole "Gun Show Loophole" thing came from.  99% of the people selling firearms at a gunshow are licensed dealers.  WHICH MEANS THEY ARE REQUIRED, BY FEDERAL LAW, TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK!  There is no exception for the location or venue.

The only thing close is the "private sale" but again, 99% of firearm owners conduct a private transaction through a dealer to cover their butt in case the guy buying the weapon is a felon.  Guess what?  Background check.

The *only* time which I (and the vast majority of gun owners) would not follow this rule would be if I was best friends or family with the person I was selling/gifting it to.
 
2013-04-24 03:37:28 PM

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


Personally, I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year, but I suppose that's the difference between me and the people so bent on renewing the AWB.
 
2013-04-24 03:38:37 PM

mizchief: The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.


frankencj: Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.


Hey, soda and alcohol aren't intended to kill anyone, so that doesn't count.
 
2013-04-24 03:38:59 PM

GanjSmokr: You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"


The goalposts were already moved, and not buy me. Selling a car to a sober individual is not the same as selling a weapon to a career criminal who has hurt people with guns before. As I said above, the analogy is more like selling a car to a habitual drunkard with no license whose own car is in the impound.
 
2013-04-24 03:39:06 PM

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

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

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.


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

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

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.


OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.
 
2013-04-24 03:40:10 PM

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

Again, I ask, where's the confusion?


Look,M16s and M4s are auto.  You can get (with proper paperwork) auto AR-15 style weapons too.

But most of the weapons under discussion were built in the factory to be semi-auto.  There never was a 'previously'.  They were made that way day zero.

It seems like the legislative definition of 'assault weapon' basically boils down to 'scary'.  Appearance rather than functionality.  That's the legislative definition.  The military uses a different one.
 
2013-04-24 03:40:26 PM

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

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

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.

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

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

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.

OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?
 
2013-04-24 03:40:51 PM

GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year


I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:43 PM

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

FTFY.

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


Sorry for the double reply. The window crashed the first time. I'm not the one claiming that passing new laws is going to prevent future crime. You are. What I can tell you is that no one is selling full auto conversion kits on the open market. It's not like you can go on ebay or amazon and buy a conversion for your AR-15. While it is possible to do it, it is completely insane. I believe the minimum sentence if convicted is 5 years in federal prison and you won't be able to own a gun legally again in your lifetime.

No one who wants to keep their 2nd amendment rights would even think of converting their weapon to fire full auto. You would never be able to fire it again. Anyone in the vicinity would instantly know that you were firing a machine gun and notify the authorities. Hell I have friends who were confronted by police simply because they were firing rapidly at the range and someone thought they had machine guns.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:58 PM

ox45tallboy: GanjSmokr: You responded by moving goalposts...

"If I sell a car to a guy, who then gets drunk and kills someone with it" != "if you hand your car keys to a drunk guy"

The goalposts were already moved, and not buy me. Selling a car to a sober individual is not the same as selling a weapon to a career criminal who has hurt people with guns before. As I said above, the analogy is more like selling a car to a habitual drunkard with no license whose own car is in the impound.


You crafted your scenario fit the outcome you wanted to get.  Simple as that.
 
2013-04-24 03:42:24 PM

swangoatman: stampylives: into a well regulated militia.

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


FTFY

In the parlance of the time, a "well regulated militia" would be both properly equipped and trained.  It's pretty much impossible to keep people from training if they want to, but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia, thus the creation of the Second Amendment.  Of course, most of our modern batch of Second Amendment defenders fall a bit short on the training part, but by golly they're all over the equipped part.  I guess enthusiasm has to count for something, right?
 
2013-04-24 03:42:30 PM

JohnnyCanuck: That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


Depends.  Much of the killing by guns is suicide.
 
2013-04-24 03:42:50 PM

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

No, I am pretty sure that it is to indicate that this talking point ironically ignores the limiting of our freedom enumerated in our Constitution.


If the intent was to indicate irony, that also serves my point.
 
2013-04-24 03:44:40 PM

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

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

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.

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

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

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.

OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


Shouldn't the focus be on saving lives? If you had a dead child would it really make you feel better knowing it was by a car accident, or cancer, or any other "non intended" cause?
 
2013-04-24 03:45:01 PM

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

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

The soda ban would save more lives than the assault weapons ban given the number of people killed each year by obesity.

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

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

Please do google how many deaths are alcohol related...scary.

OK...the next time I hear of someone murdered by being forced to drink alcohol or soda i'll come find you two.

That's a personal choice...taking a bullet is not.


Drunk drivers kill how many a year...and...
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/17081716-418/22-in-niu-frat-char ge d-with-hazing-in-freshmans-alcohol-related-death.html
 
2013-04-24 03:45:12 PM

GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?


What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.
 
2013-04-24 03:45:15 PM

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

Which is already illegal and not a damned bit of knee-jerk gun control laws you pass can do anything about it.



The current system has penalties on the books, but no enforcement or tracking mechanisms by which to enforce those laws.  This is by design of course so individuals such as yourself can then spout crap like the above.

You also happen to be dead wrong.  There *are* laws that can be passed that would mitigate these sales and make it possible to track these guns.  A simple three point starting plan includes:
1) Require registration of all firearms.
2) Require disclosure of *all* sales to a centralized system for tracking.
3) Make violations of both of the above as well as straw purchases a Federal felony with a mandatory min. of five years in jail.

The three above *would* change that.  The straw purchaser may not report his sale, but a FFL dealer would.
Now if the seller and straw purchaser both conspire to break the laws, then the transaction is made.  But you didn't propose that.  You merely said no laws could be passed that would change straw buyers.  And I submit to you that you're wrong.  Make the whole sales system accountable and the one or two who fail to report will be easier to spot in comparison.

Now whether or not the laws above go too far is a different discussion.  But the fact remains that laws *could* in fact be passed that would curtail the problem.
 
2013-04-24 03:45:49 PM

Teufelaffe: but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia.


Actaully Heller held that the prefatory clause does not limit or bind, in any way, the operative clause of the Second Amendment.  So - not really.
 
2013-04-24 03:47:48 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.


Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.
 
2013-04-24 03:49:39 PM

JohnnyCanuck: You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


One of those necessarily endangers the public.  The other does not.  Can you guess which is which?
 
2013-04-24 03:50:09 PM

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

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


Yes.
 
2013-04-24 03:50:32 PM

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


I don't understand what you are trying to say here, are you for or against more background checks, because those points could go either way.

Universal background checks (UBC) won't stop either of those scenarios. Someones appearance has nothing to do with their ability to pass a background check, so people who might have rejected a purchaser based on appearance a/o behavior will now accept them because they pass the UBC. And of course if the person uses a straw purchaser then the UBC system won't stop them either, because the straw purchaser will pass the check. This is why UBC won't work.
 
2013-04-24 03:52:00 PM

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


What of it??  You're the one who implied (incorrectly) that alcohol only kills those who drink it.  That's "what of it".

That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.
 
2013-04-24 03:52:22 PM

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.


Getting behind the wheel of a car drunk is more analogous to standing outside your front door and firing your glock in random directions than driving with a glock in your pants. Carrying a glock in your pants really only puts your testicles at risk. I'm overlooking the fact that your statement is incorrect unless the person has a concealed carry permit.
 
2013-04-24 03:53:18 PM

HeadLever: Teufelaffe: but a government can restrict access to the tools required for a militia.

Actaully Heller held that the prefatory clause does not limit or bind, in any way, the operative clause of the Second Amendment.  So - not really.


There I am talking about governments in general, not ours specifically.  That would be why I said "a government" not "our government".
 
2013-04-24 03:53:18 PM

This text is now purple: Mimic_Octopus: How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?

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

Yes.


Although it was probably something like this: www.microscan.com
 
2013-04-24 03:54:56 PM

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

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

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

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

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


Sorry you didn't say you had the convo. kit for it. You get the Bushmaster or did you luck into an actual AR15?
 
2013-04-24 03:56:21 PM

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

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

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

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



I'm sure it's been said repeatedly in this thread but your statement is a load of horseshiat.
 
2013-04-24 03:56:38 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, dude, you got it all wrong. Gunshows are where people use loopholes to buy semi-auto (that's like *half* auto!) black assault rifles that have 500 round clips that are loaded with teflon coated, armor piercing, exploding cop killer bullets. The place is so full of nutjobs and psychos who love guns that it's a wonder a full scale fire-fight doesn't break out every 10 minutes. Plus you can buy bullets in boxes of **50**!! Who needs that many  Goddamn bullets at one time? For $200 you can get a sniper rifle specially designed to kill children from over 5 miles away, as well as night vision equipment that auto targets cops in total darkness and super powerful handheld lasers that will bring down police helicopters. If the government had any damn sense, it would host the country's largest gunshow, fill it to capacity, chain the doors shut, and burn it down, thus ending all of our problems forever.

/Actualy most of the private sales I bought have been quite reasonable. Got a '41 military luger for $900, a 1900 Mauser flatside C96 for $850, and a hi-standard model 10 shotgun for $300. (I don't think the lady knew what she had. They are worth at least twice that.)
 
2013-04-24 03:56:48 PM

GanjSmokr: JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: How about someone murdered by a drunk driver?

What of it? You get caught behind the wheel while drunk there are many laws in place to deal with that. In most states...you get caught driving with a glock in your pants and the cop will admire it while saying it's almost as nice as the one he owns.

What of it??  You're the one who implied (incorrectly) that alcohol only kills those who drink it.  That's "what of it".

That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.


If it was about saving lives he would be spending his time and resources fighting private ownership of swimming pools. No one needs a swimming pool in their backyard. If you own both a swimming pool and a firearm, your child is many times more likely to drown in the swimming pool than be shot by the firearm.
 
2013-04-24 03:57:12 PM

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


I'm not a Christian. Why does everyone always assume that I'm a Christian when I criticize Muslims?
 
2013-04-24 03:59:12 PM

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

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about Christianity?


Yes. I'm a progressive left-leaning moderate who is frustrated with the fact that liberals in my own party will rage against Christians but give Muslims a pass, probably out of white guilt or something. I don't know. It's "ignorant" when white people are conservative, but it's "cultural, and we should respect that" when brown people are fanatically right winged.
 
2013-04-24 03:59:13 PM

numbquil: If it was about saving lives he would be spending his time and resources fighting private ownership of swimming pools. No one needs a swimming pool in their backyard. If you own both a swimming pool and a firearm, your child is many times more likely to drown in the swimming pool than be shot by the firearm.


Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with facts.
 
2013-04-24 03:59:20 PM

ox45tallboy: Bravo Two: Ah, but if He is not drunk when I sell him the car, then I'm not liable. He can drive from where I sold it to him to the goddamn bar and get drunk, that's his business. He can drive afterwards. if he is clean and sober when buying the car, why do I care what he does afterwards, and why should I be liable for it?

Ah, but if he is a habitual drunkard, that was not only reeking of gin when you sold you him car, but he wasn't even able to produce a driver's license as ID so you could sign over the title, then you WOULD be liable.


Ah, but if he was reeking of gin and hadn't produced a driver's license, I wouldn't've sold it to him.

Likewise, anyone that can't provide a driver's license and CCW permit when buying a gun from me, I don't sell it to them.  personal policy.

What they do from there, is their business.
 
2013-04-24 04:00:28 PM

JohnnyCanuck: GoldSpider: I think our efforts are better spent on the ~20,000 people that are killed by handguns every year

I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.


My concealed weapon is not, and has not ever been a problem with anyone. It has only served as a belt weight until I really really need it.
 
2013-04-24 04:00:44 PM

GoldSpider: Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here. The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form. If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.


I like you...you state good cases and don't get all out of gear when I try to get you all out of gear. Good job.

GanjSmokr: That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.


Statements like this are just..well...come on!

Later, peeps!
 
2013-04-24 04:02:49 PM

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


No, it isn't.

This weapon
t3.gstatic.com

This weapon
timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com
and this weapon
www.shotgunnews.com

Are built by the same manufacturer and fire the same caliber round.  Only one is a legitimate assault rifle.
 
2013-04-24 04:02:56 PM

JohnnyCanuck: GanjSmokr: That statement shows you obviously don't give a damn about actually saving lives.

Statements like this are just..well...come on!

Later, peeps!


Statements like that are... a logical conclusion if you don't give people a reason to think they aren't.

Have a great one!
 
2013-04-24 04:03:54 PM

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.

Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.


Firstly, I would point out that the great many of the so-called 20,000 deaths are suicides.

Secondly, I would point out that we have a plethora of laws on the books that Prohibit felons from owning firearms, and basically make being around a gun and using it in a crime illegal.

How would a ban now do anything to people who already break the law?

Also, I would fight tooth and nail against any effort that limited or restricted me from owning handguns, because for as much as a long gun works well at home for self defense, not so much if I'm out and about and need a handgun. Plus, trying to maneuver a rifle while on horseback to kill a coyote or similar is a huge pain in the ass.
 
2013-04-24 04:08:40 PM

Bravo Two: GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: I agree with that. Concealed weapons are a problem all their own.

Concealed or not, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun violence here.  The problem is that any meaningful bans thereof would run afoul of the Constitution in its present form.  If gun control advocates here organized for an amendment that updates the 2nd to a.) clarify its language, and b.) explicitly define the government's powers to regulate guns, I'd be 100% for that.

The problem is that's hard to do, so instead we get ineffectual symbolic gestures like the AWB, and overreaching laws doomed to be overturned by the courts like Heller.

Firstly, I would point out that the great many of the so-called 20,000 deaths are suicides.

Secondly, I would point out that we have a plethora of laws on the books that Prohibit felons from owning firearms, and basically make being around a gun and using it in a crime illegal.

How would a ban now do anything to people who already break the law?

Also, I would fight tooth and nail against any effort that limited or restricted me from owning handguns, because for as much as a long gun works well at home for self defense, not so much if I'm out and about and need a handgun. Plus, trying to maneuver a rifle while on horseback to kill a coyote or similar is a huge pain in the ass.


Unfortunately, most of the people in this country live in cities and probably don't have the damnedest clue what you are talking about being on horseback or killing a coyote. Due to this the practical utility of firearms has been lost somewhere between the mass shooters and those who claim they need them to protect freedom from the communist Obama regime.
 
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