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 97
    More: Sick, al-Qaeda, Gadahn, Muslims, American Terrorist, Sandy Hook, exclamation points, assault rifles  
•       •       •

3363 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-24 10:46:49 AM
11 votes:

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

WTF?


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

The folks who go to gun shows would never in a million years sell a gun to a guy who looked muslim-y.
2013-04-24 12:05:42 PM
5 votes:

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


Tats enjoys blood shed like most Israelis.

nigelparry.com
2013-04-24 12:00:32 PM
4 votes:

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


Having background checks doesn't change "our way of lives"
2013-04-24 12:35:46 PM
3 votes:
It's really telling/crazy that so many gun nuts think it's their right to sell their guns to their friends without any type of restriction. They don't see the glaringly obvious problem with this.

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

Incoming - herp a derpa confiscation mohammed jihad.

Anyway, I'm off to go get blacked out drunk and drive on the freeway, because no one is irresponsible until they actually kill someone. Stop infringing on my right to get drunk and drive. I've never killed anyone before, why are you putting restrictions on MY constitutional right to transportation? Just because I drink from a 'scary' Jim Bean bottle? You're racist.
2013-04-24 12:03:51 PM
3 votes:

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


She was a law-abiding gun owner. As was her son, until he stopped abiding.
2013-04-24 11:11:54 AM
3 votes:

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


A lot of gaps in there.

Where did the Tsarnaevs get theirs?
2013-04-24 10:41:54 AM
3 votes:
Saw somewhere else that even if SOMEONE IS ON THE TERROR WATCHLIST they can still buy a firearm even with a background check..

WTF?
2013-04-24 01:16:31 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

Now where's the confusion?

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

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

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

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

Again, I ask, where's the confusion?


Uhm, civilian ARs never had select-fire. They were built with mechanical changes to prevent full auto. They just LOOK like the military version. So, let's stop playing word games and admit it. you are scared by the appearance of the weapon and want to ban the scary thing.
2013-04-24 12:51:45 PM
2 votes:

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


Which is already illegal and not a damned bit of knee-jerk gun control laws you pass can do anything about it.
2013-04-24 12:36:13 PM
2 votes:
imageshack.us
2013-04-24 12:31:09 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


What caliber makes it an Assault Rifle?

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

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

The hysteria over Assault weapons is all about a class of weapons that look like military weapons.   They aren't, they are similar in appearance and function.   They look scary to the uninformed, so they must be scary.
2013-04-24 12:18:19 PM
2 votes:

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

WTF?


You are correct; outrageously, the United States government does not use the secretly compiled and demonstrably erroneous "terror watch "list as a method for abridging Constitutionally protected liberties, despite such abridgment guaranteeing that those affected would be denied any due process and despite an inability to appeal being listed.
2013-04-24 12:17:08 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


That is a very strange thing to say.  It makes...no sense whatsoever.
2013-04-24 12:06:59 PM
2 votes:
Many of you are assuming that:
1) The prospective terrorist has a Muslim appearance; and / or
2) The prospective terrorist would approach the sellers directly rather than use a straw buyer.
2013-04-24 12:05:40 PM
2 votes:
smerfnablin:

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

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


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

Profit over prophet, y'know.
2013-04-24 12:03:18 PM
2 votes:

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


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

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

Now, if you're fine with the idea of a wanted man escaping from police and then buying weapons without any kind of a background check (as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been free to do had he not been caught Friday night), good for you. But the rest of us think that's batshiat insane.
2013-04-24 12:03:00 PM
2 votes:

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

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


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

Yes, it does change my way of life.
2013-04-24 11:55:05 AM
2 votes:
... so we should just restrict our rights and freedom because some people might exploit them? Al Qaeda found a loophole, well good for them, but it should have exactly 0% influence on any decisions in the matter. fark them, we're not going to change our way of lives one more iota because of them.
2013-04-24 11:54:31 AM
2 votes:
i253.photobucket.comMy opinions are never respected so I will just post my thoughtfully created Paintshoop, which is even less respected.
2013-04-24 11:24:55 AM
2 votes:
Ive been to several gun shows in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) and they are all pretty much the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think a muslim with a noticeable accent really wants to approach one of these individuals and attempt to purchase a firearm from them?
2013-04-24 11:08:08 AM
2 votes:
Are they farking stupid? Do you REALLY want to be a muslim at a gunshow?!

Have you SEEN the type of people who show up at gunshows? It would be like making their dream come true
2013-04-24 11:04:39 AM
2 votes:

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


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

It's like saying "You don't need a driver's license to drive this car." where the car is actually a ten speed Huffy.
2013-04-24 10:57:26 AM
2 votes:

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


Citation please.
2013-04-24 10:50:09 AM
2 votes:
Aarontology: I'm not worried about this, and you know why?

The folks who go to gun showsrun elections would never in a million years provide a voter IDsell a gun to a guy  who looked muslim-y.
2013-04-24 10:48:43 AM
2 votes:
Not sure why you mentioned Sandy Hook, that was his mother's legally acquired and fully background checked guns there.
2013-04-24 10:45:09 AM
2 votes:

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

WTF?


Yup, all they need to do is a 'private seller' transaction, no check required.
2013-04-25 02:57:43 PM
1 votes:

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: mizchief: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Fark France: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

On the flip side of that, bombs kill far fewer people in the US every year than guns, so we obviously should lift any and all legal restrictions on the manufacture and possession of explosives as well as ceasing the monitoring of the sales of explosives or large amounts of chemicals that can be used to make explosives.  After all, the fewer the number of deaths caused by something, the less it should be restricted or monitored.

Protip: When someone says "X is dangerous, maybe we should do something about that", responding with "Well, Y is *more* dangerous!" makes you sound a moron.  This isn't a f*cking contest.

Saying that other people should stop enjoying potentially dangerous hobbies, while not addressing other hobbies produce many times more deaths, but are enjoyed by yourself makes you a hypocrite.

If the conversation were about "what are some dangerous things and what can we do about them?" sure.  But that's not what the conversation is about.  It's about guns, so pulling the "Well X, Y, and Z kill more people than guns.  Why aren't you doing anything about them!?" shiat is just deflection.


And this is what we have to resort to in a debate where an appeal to emotion is made. The "gun show loophole" has been addressed several times in this thread as a misnomer. The majority of retailers at a gun show are dealers with an FFL that run a background check. The proposed laws would not have prevented any of the recent tragedies, nor did the '94 AWB produce any measurable effect on gun crime as per the FBI. It simply hindered the ability of a large number of people to enjoy an activity. Regulating private sales is unenforcable without registration, and registration is unacceptable. If the government has access to the names and addresses of all gun owners, it defeats the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Registration, apart from being costly, is an ineffective deterrent. Look at what happened when Canada gave a long-gun registry a shot. They just abandoned it because it was nothing more than a pit to throw tax dollars into.

And to the people saying that you can make a full-auto gun by simply filing down some parts, shut up. That's an incredible display of ignorance at best and a gross example of intentional dishonesty to advance a goal at worst. The sears used to make a reliable select-fire weapon are heavily regulated and are regarded as machine guns themselves. There are ways to rig a gun to fire as an automatic; they're unreliable and do not allow for select-fire operation. A piece of string can be used to rig up an automatic weapon under the right circumstances. The ATF, in just one of many displays of their incompetency, ruled in 2004 that a 14" piece of string with a loop at both ends was a machine gun. The plain facts are that if you understand the basic construction and operation of a firearm, you can make one. No amount of laws are going to change that. Same goes for bombs. And until we start regulating knowledge of basic chemistry and engineering, it will continue to be the case.
2013-04-25 02:07:11 PM
1 votes:

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

You wouldn't own a hammer...you probably just use your gun to pound nails, right?

Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

Don't I have a right to go watch a movie in Colorado without having to dodge bullets? I mean...it's not in your constitution or anything, so maybe not.

Hey...I just think a reg is a no brainer. But hey...I'm Canadian...so shoot me.

\I was kidding...don't shoot me...or anyone else, please.


Posts like this make you sounds stupid, FYI.
2013-04-25 01:36:23 PM
1 votes:

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Fark France: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Anyone saying that firearms need to be restricted to protect children should spend some time on here. Drownings kill far more children than firearms for any reason. Protip: Drownings outweigh intentional shooting deaths of children 0-14 by a factor of more than 20. Banning privately owned pools would probably alleviate this problem to some degree. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

On the flip side of that, bombs kill far fewer people in the US every year than guns, so we obviously should lift any and all legal restrictions on the manufacture and possession of explosives as well as ceasing the monitoring of the sales of explosives or large amounts of chemicals that can be used to make explosives.  After all, the fewer the number of deaths caused by something, the less it should be restricted or monitored.

Protip: When someone says "X is dangerous, maybe we should do something about that", responding with "Well, Y is *more* dangerous!" makes you sound a moron.  This isn't a f*cking contest.


Saying that other people should stop enjoying potentially dangerous hobbies, while not addressing other hobbies produce many times more deaths, but are enjoyed by yourself makes you a hypocrite.

Now this f*cking contest you speak of, this sounds more interesting than arguing with douchebags on the internet. Where can I enter?
2013-04-25 02:00:06 AM
1 votes:

swangoatman: Liberals doing their gun thing to kids now:

An NYU psychology student  was arrested on illegal weapons possession raps Monday,

Bernard Goal, 20, was busted after a startled maintenance crew spotted a pair of realistic looking rifles on his bed while he was out and alerted campus security.

Public safety officers swept the Texas native's room and found four more Airsoft weapons that closely resembled AK-47s and a black Colt carbine rifles, sources said.

NYPD cops arrested Goal at 2:30 p.m. Monday and hit him with six misdemeanor violations of a local law that prohibits the possession or sale of air rifles and replica firearms, according to a law enforcement source.

The weapons fire pellets through compressed air and are routinely mistaken for actual firearms. They have a range of about 140 to 300 feet and can cause flesh wounds at a close range, sources said.

"It's very scary to know there were guns one floor below me. I had no idea," said one of Goal's co-workers, who described him as pleasant and a hard worker. "But knowing Bernard I'm not scared."

Are you still scared of the kids little liberal mommy? You still gonna let me keep the scary shotgun,pistols and BB GUNS??

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x364]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyu_student_busted_fo r_bu ilding_1lZqVHYj47McYLAtcHKAWP


Funny, it's not the liberals who want to arm themselves because a college kid is making air rifles.  Who is the more scared, the one who says (like me) what is your point?  The cops got him.

Or the guy that says this is why they need to have a gun, so I can protect myself from the tyrannical rule that is imminent because a college kid made a pellet gun.  This one is up there with the guy who used looting on Boston as a reason.  The looting that turned out to be people stealing running jackets.

I sure as heck know which one sounds more paranoid, and I'm pretty sure who is more afraid.
2013-04-25 01:51:15 AM
1 votes:

swangoatman: luxup: The sane ones can have shotguns and pistols.

But can I keep my rifle too? or am I supposed to shoot the dear I eat with a pistol? How many bullets you gonna let me have to hunt with ?
Mom, can I please have another bullet as the one I shot missed.
Your lack of knowledge proves you really do not know the topic past your indoctrination..



Sure, hunt all you want.  You need an assault rifle for that?  I didn't know that those were designed for hunting deer.Also, I know enough to know that if you need 10 shots to kill a deer they you should just give up hunting.  Raise chickens instead.

Oh yea. the best for last.I fixed your PC speech for ya.
You are so in-tune to FORCE aren't you LUXUP>
We can force a mental patient  a child in school to take meds.
 We can take away children from WHO WE FEEL are unfit bad parents who refuse to accept our communist ideals..
 It's just a matter of time before we work out a way to take the guns away from those we can't control through propaganda and fear.the crazy people.


Yeah, you keep thinking that.  There is no dignity in your stance.  There is no honor in your convictions.  Any coward can call someone names and change words to justify their own fears.  You are not standing up for what is right, you are blocking progress because you are afraid.  Just look at your retorts or whatever you like to call it.  You throw around words like communist, propaganda and fear because you don't have facts and a sound argument.  All you can do is try to justify your emotions on the subject and that is always messy.  You don't look at history, you ignore it.

You are deluded in your thinking.  I don't need to cry communist because I don't agree with you, I just have to point out your own behavior.  You are disingenuous because you wrap your irrational fear in so called patriotism.  Well, it's time you were shouted down.

But nope, you, the vocal minority have no interest in reality.  You don't want to make sure we do whatever we can to protect kids from getting shot up.  Nope, you are more concerned that you have enough bullets to kill a deer.
2013-04-24 11:00:52 PM
1 votes:

legion_of_doo: luxup: swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.

Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.

when should a person's private medical information be used to take away their rights?

you need a trial for that, I think. a computer search isn't going to cut it.


When a mental health review is a component of gun ownership, that's when.  When a psychiatrist needs to perform a court ordered mental health review because someone refuses to comply because the 'jack booted oppressors are coming for my guns.' That's when.

We can force a mental patient to take meds.  We can take away children from bad parents.  It's just a matter of time before we work out a way to take the guns away from the crazy people.

The sane ones can have shotguns and pistols.

Of course it just takes a bit longer when the crazy people block common sense measures.  You don't have to like it and I'm not saying it will be quick and easy.  I'm saying the rest of us are getting fed up with BS.  Just think about how much your guns and love of freedom is helping the next people that get killed in the next school shooting.

THAT, unlike the oppression of the American people by a tyrannical leader will actually happen in your lifetime, probably a few times.  So thanks for getting in the way of trying to stop those.
2013-04-24 10:45:51 PM
1 votes:

swangoatman: luxup: criminals who buy them

most criminals, similar to liberals, just take things instead of buying them on the free market.


And the extreme right nudged on by the libertarian nuts (who vote republican) make it easier for the criminals to get the guns to do the stealing.

Here are a couple of excerpt from an article I'm sure you won't read...

The Founders didn't anticipate the New Deal-- there was no need for them to-- but they were as quick to resort to the resources of the state as any modern liberal. Ben Franklin, for instance, played the Pennsylvania legislature like a violin-- using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish, for instance. Obviously he had no qualms about using state power to do good social works.

and this one...

The process of giving life to our constitutional rights has largely been the work of liberals. On the greatest fight of all, to treat blacks as human beings, libertarians supported the other side.

History shows that your ideology does not protect the constitution or it's amendments, all it does is make it easier for businesses to abuse it and tell you what to think.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
2013-04-24 10:02:29 PM
1 votes:

swangoatman: luxup: moving forward

Well, your liberal ,mocking arrogance is indeed LEANING FORWARD like your Communist ideology. I never said I had an arsenal .Liberal bigoted minds always runs to  extremism.
Denial of reality is also a mental illness.  Your fear of self defense is irrational.Your fear of duty to community defense is indefensible.
So is being a lying sociopath that manipulates others to the point of their being vulnerable and dependent on the perpetrator. Sounds like your ideology,buddy.
You have not stated HOW my ideal are "old" or out dated. You just say they are. You have not SHOWN that the idea of people having the right to have arms is not in keeping with the Republic form of government.
IT has however been proven that Tyrants, Communists and Theocrats love to control the weapons.


Wow, that is a lot of insults.  The mark of a true orator or one who does not have actual facts to back them up?  Do you think the United States is in danger of being overrun by tyrants, communists and Theocrats?  What's taking them so long?  Wait for Jesus instead, the message is better.

You see, when the founders came up with that it was a different time.  Sure, keep your pistols and shotguns, what on earth do you need an assault rifle for?  For the perceived threat that will never come?  Your ideas are out or date because they were based on a world as it functioned over 200 years ago and you somehow think (despite history) that if everyone had a gun and all their personal freedoms then all the problems would go away.  What would happen is organized crime would take over and they will always have more guns than you.

It's not liberal mocking, it's common sense observations based in reality.

I never said YOU had an arsenal.  I did post on hording now being defined as a mental illness, thereby giving a bases to possibly classify someone who had an arsenal of guns as mentally incompetent.  I said that it would be a good way of separating those who have a pistol or shotgun for self defense from those who keep an arsenal.  You took that to mean I accused you of having an arsenal.  Again, no bases in reality but shows your irrational fear.  You took words and either didn't understand them or twisted them to cement YOUR fear of possibly loosing YOUR guns.  There is nothing that makes me believe you care about anyone else's freedoms.

I don't deny reality.  I don't deny that putting tougher gun controls would help prevent future kids being killed.  I don't deny that it is a matter of time before the next one and you and your guns will not stop it.  You deny it.

"So is being a lying sociopath that manipulates others to the point of their being vulnerable and dependent on the perpetrator."

That is indefensible.  It's how I feel about LaPierre, the gun lobby and you, the people that let the big gun companies dictate how you think.  It's how I feel about the politicians that looked at those families in the eyes and said that they felt their pain but then voted no represent you, not me.
2013-04-24 08:45:32 PM
1 votes:

Loadmaster: At a gun show I went to in Texas recently, all the dealers guns I talked to all required having a CHL for gun purchases, which requires a background check and fingerprinting to obtain. Maybe it's different in other states.


Or, maybe that is what they all say at the gun shows.  If the people who buy illegal guns don't follow the rules then why should the sellers?  But wait, people who sell guns would never lie right, just the criminals who buy them.
2013-04-24 08:32:04 PM
1 votes:

swangoatman: duenor: Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

i am in love.


Blinded by love more like it.  Stare all dreamy eyed at your guns and fight for individual rights while the corporations compile more and more information on you so they can sell you stuff.  Live in the past and never look to the future, that is all your ideology is and what makes you all such good sheep.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we will think of something.  Of interest to me is this...

http://www.compulsive-hoarding.org/DSM-V.html

To sum up, there is this thing called the DSM that lists mental disorders.  They just added hording.  Seems like a nice way to determine who keeps a gun for self defense and who likes to keep an arsenal.  Helps me to understand why the gun nuts are so resistant to opening the door to a mental health check.

I"m not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you don't accept that your way of thinking is helping to keep the country from moving forward then other ways will be found to deal with you.  The NRA can't have your back for ever because eventually that turd is going to lose it's shine.
2013-04-24 07:45:37 PM
1 votes:

duenor: Teufelaffe:As for the rest of your...ahem, screed, you can take your "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!" crap and stuff it in your paranoid keister.   The 2nd amendment was crafted because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that we would have a standing army.  The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed, not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

What kind of silly thinking is this? Are you seriously suggesting that the founders never thought that the USA would ever have or need a standing army? That they would somehow just be able to rely on their ragtag rebel army (which was substantially reinforced & supplied by the French, incidentally, which did have plenty of standing army) into perpetuity? That they were so shortsighted and blithely naive (in spite of the still-recent independence war) that they would never need to establish a military? That in spite of their education, travels abroad into Europe, and knowledge of history they figured the USA would just never have to deal with organized war?

There was no standing army, yes - but don't confuse "could not yet establish a standing army"  with "never envisioned we'd have one". They knew darn well that we'd eventually need one. They also knew darn well that standing armies help tyrants immensely. Therefore, they envisioned a system by which the populace would act as both a militia as well as a final check against any force that would seek to subjugate that free state.

I should also point out that the standing army was established in 1784, with most of the founders till alive and well. Where's the record of their outrage at this impossibility?



"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"A standing army not only diminshes the population of a country, but even the size and breed of the human species; for an army is the flower of the nation; all the most vigorous, stout, and well-made men in a kingdon are to be found in the army, and these men in general never marry." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"He who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, will lose both and deserve neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin in reference to the idea of a standing army

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." ~ Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment

"Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~ Patrick Henry

Yeah, they farking loved the idea of a standing army.
2013-04-24 05:53:57 PM
1 votes:

swangoatman: You must be one of those who never bother to be trained in the use of arms.


That's a pretty odd assumption to make there.  I grew up in a household with handguns, learned proper gun safety at 4, first started shooting at 8.  I go target shooting when I can, and know the basics of handling rifles and shotguns.

swangoatman: Are you a Weekend Warrior? Are you a member of your local neighborhood watch? Do you willingly take time for Disaster Relief Training? Also you must be forgetting that the vast majority of humankind RUN from trouble while the VAST majority of brave men and women will face the trouble head on. Did you see the first responders running toward the bombs? I did. Did you also see the NON-PAID volunteers? I did.
 If he people of Boston were allowed by their parents to have weapons I am sure there would have been less LOOTING in Boston after the bombs too, as the cops were rather busy with other things.This accounts for the few, the brave, the willing as opposed to the many, the cowards, the sheep. If you really took things as they should be taken you would be sure that you are a trained person for the militia,either by gun or medical or by logistical support. Those who openly mock the 2nd amendment do not understand it's importance in protecting the other rights. How are you a part of the right and responsibility of being in the militia?


I live in rural Vermont; there is no neighborhood watch.  I know CPR, basic first aid and survival techniques, I know where the town evac routes are, and I have my anti-radiation dosages for me and my daughter in case of an accident at the Vermont Yankee plant.  I've never been near a true life endangering emergency like a bombing or natural disaster, so I honestly couldn't say if I'd run or not.  I'd like to think I'd be one of the people heading to help, but you never really know whether you'll pick fight or flight until the moment arrives (and anyone who claims they know which choice they'd make the first time they face an emergency is a farking liar).

As for the rest of your...ahem, screed, you can take your "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!" crap and stuff it in your paranoid keister.  The 2nd amendment was crafted because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that we would have a standing army.  The concept of the well regulated militia is to act in lieu of an army until one could be raised when needed, not as some guarantee of the ability to enact an armed revolution against our own government.

I don't mock the 2nd amendment, but I sure as hell mock those who hold in higher esteem than every other part of the Constitution and its amendments.
2013-04-24 03:59:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:32 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:04:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:00:57 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: JohnnyCanuck: Impulsive murder..planned attack...a good reg and checks would help prevent both.

I'm not entirely sure how you think a gun registry/background check would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing.  Perhaps you can elaborate on that for me.


I don't think that. Murder and violence will always be present. But minimizing the impact is a must. If someone had pulled up to the marathoners and whipped out an AK-47 a lot more than 3 people would be dead.

There are litterally millions of everyday objects that can be wrongfully used for violence. It would be impossible to ban them all. But why not simply register the objects with no purpose other than violence? No one is taking them from you. Just attaching your name to it....so when you inevitably go stark raving mad....it's easier to prove you went stark raving mad.

Simple solution...don't go stark raving mad.
2013-04-24 02:55:51 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:30 PM
1 votes:

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


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

"Well cheif, we know the gun used to murder this family was made by S&W and was sold within the U.S. I think we have to interview all the citizens. I'll start in R.I. and you start in California...we'll meet in Texas."
2013-04-24 01:56:04 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Wrong.
"military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." 
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle
2013-04-24 01:55:03 PM
1 votes:

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


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


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

Except that registrys are always the first logical step towards any form of confiscation (for the government to know what guns to take, it must know from whom to take them), so no straws there.
2013-04-24 01:51:24 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Save for when registries have been used in NY, CA, and other states to confiscate guns...
2013-04-24 01:40:02 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



And identfying the original purchaser proves nothing about who used the firearm to commit a crime. Only FFL holders are required to keep such a book. The firearm could have been transferred to various owners over several years. Requiring a background check in private sales wouldn't do anything to change this either because the serial number is not required for a background check and private sellers still wouldn't be required to keep a bound book.
2013-04-24 01:13:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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


Really. So the fact that a law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer, who can name the distributor, who can name the dealer, who can look up the gun and purchaser info in their ATF bound book (or the ATF can do this themselves once the Dealer's records are turned over to the ATF upon closing), means that it's completely useless? Good to know.
2013-04-24 01:01:41 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Now where's the confusion?


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

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

Just possession or manufacturing of the parts, without appropriate licensing, is treated by the ATF, and Federal Law, as the same as having an unregistered machine gun.   Major prison terms are involved.    You can't go to a gun show and "buy a kit"
2013-04-24 12:59:00 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


That's because it was a poorly written POS that was a registry no matter how much the bill wanted to claim it wasn't.  The information about the sale should not be sent to the government where they will use an intern from the commerce department to store the list or some other BS to get around the rule that the ATF isn't allowed to.  And the check wasn't free either
2013-04-24 12:47:49 PM
1 votes:

Hydra: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!


How about this, I will not infringe in your right to have pressure cookers, you can have as many as you want, but since you are obviously too stupid to own any weapons, we will take those. Deal?
2013-04-24 12:46:03 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


The only issue I really had with the "universal background" check bill is that it didn't allow for any of the state issued permits to be a substitution for getting a background check upon purchase of every weapon.

I already had to pass 2 GBI (state level) and a FBI background check to get my firearms permit which has to be renewed every 5 years and can be revoked at any time if conditions change that disqualify me to have it, so why should I have to waste an hour of my time and govt. resources to get checked every time I want a new piece for my collection? Also when I sell to a private individual I personally won't do so unless I can make a copy of their permit for my records so I can prove I knew they were eligible to own the firearm and if it shows up at a crime scene I can absolve my self of liabilities as being the first registered owner.

If the feds were serious about getting private sales checked and not just stirring up political bullshiat, they would make the background system available to private sellers and make it run efficiently so that people could use it voluntarily while the requirement to use it by law is fought in DC.
2013-04-24 12:43:57 PM
1 votes:
I will not stop arguing on the internet until we have successfully formed a cultural link between Islam and the right wing. I'm sick to death of seeing liberals stick up for these clowns. It's just jaw dropping. From now on, whenever someone says "Muslim" or "Islam," I want everyone to think of misogynist, theocratic, red-necked, sanctimonious, judgmental, homophobic, gun-toting hicks. There is literally no difference ideologically between Muslims and extreme right winged republicans. Yet it's always the liberals who jump to their defense and talk about how we "shouldn't lump them all together," as if the ones who aren't terrorists are somehow okay.
2013-04-24 12:42:53 PM
1 votes:

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

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


wikipedia doesn't think he's dead (plus the video is from 2011).
• background checks ≠ taking guns
2013-04-24 12:40:52 PM
1 votes:

JohnnyCanuck: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRESSURE COOKERS!!

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


It's not a gun, it's a "projectile delivery system" and has many intended uses other than killing like, um...pretending to kill via target shooting and...uh...let me get back to you.
2013-04-24 12:37:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

Now where's the confusion?
2013-04-24 12:36:32 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

/RBN = Russian business network
//Yes I consider Al Qaeda criminals
///A farkers PC is already a porn server, but it only hosts 127.0.0.1 =P
2013-04-24 12:31:23 PM
1 votes:

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


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

Well if that is true, then passing a law eliminating what is popularly referred to as the "gun show loophole" would not cause any added hassle at gun shows and would not be noticed by the gun buying public.  So why not then support it as a way to appease the gun control crowd and give lip service to gun safety for political brownie points?
2013-04-24 12:30:43 PM
1 votes:

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

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!


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

If you are going to make a false comparison then I get to also.
2013-04-24 12:28:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Unfortunately, the development of nasty weapons capable of being used in unspeakable acts of mass horror has far outpaces any infringement on rights. I recently checked with my local militia and they say there have been no attempts to infringe on their musket-bearing.
2013-04-24 12:27:43 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

Are you "trolling", lying or genuinely misinformed?

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


"Assault weapon" lacks any standard technical definition. A firearm may be an "assault weapon" based upon an entirely arbitrary standard; my .45ACP caliber handgun is not an "assault weapon" as defined by the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban", but it is an "assault weapon" as defined by California law, because of the threaded barrel added to it.
2013-04-24 12:22:55 PM
1 votes:
"Assault weapon": Any firearm which you can imagine Ahnold Swarzenegger firing more than three bullets from without tossing aside in favor of a more "manly" weapon.
2013-04-24 12:21:03 PM
1 votes:
So what I am seeing from the gun nuts in this thread is that there should not, in any way, be any firearm registry or background checks...because other gun nuts are so racist they would not sell to a brown person anyway.

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

\real names changed to protect the nut jobs.
2013-04-24 12:20:58 PM
1 votes:

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

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


My AR-15 currently fires .22LR caliber ammunition. However, the presence of a collapsing stock may imbue those bullets with armour penetrating capabilities.
2013-04-24 12:18:36 PM
1 votes:
Terrorists are always welcome at our gun club... as long as they are willing to hold the targets.
2013-04-24 12:18:14 PM
1 votes:

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

Citation please.


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

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

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

are you saying that private gun sellers are racists?


As I understand it, Islam is not a race.
2013-04-24 12:18:08 PM
1 votes:
Yes, the threat of terrorism is so great, all those muslims have been carrying out mass shootings every year in the US for the last decade and....

What's that?  Almost all those mass shootings were carried out by lonely white dudes?  Huh.
2013-04-24 12:15:35 PM
1 votes:
What we need NOW is sensible Nanny Control.
2013-04-24 12:15:19 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


You don't really believe this do you?  If so, what caliber makes a weapon an "assault rifle"
2013-04-24 12:13:23 PM
1 votes:
I did not speak for or against gun control. I said that Al Qaeda should play no part whatsoever in our decisions regarding this.

Two completely different things.
2013-04-24 12:10:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

Yes, it does change my way of life.

Those words...

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 330x282]

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

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


When someone has a username that ends in troll and posts something extremely stupid, just let it go because man, it's gone.
2013-04-24 12:09:30 PM
1 votes:

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

/ sensible pressure cooker regulations now!


We still going with that? That cop's family would like a word with you.
2013-04-24 12:08:40 PM
1 votes:

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


Some weapons can be converted from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. I hear they sell kits.
2013-04-24 12:08:17 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


How do you enforce one friend selling sex to another friend privately?
2013-04-24 12:06:50 PM
1 votes:

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


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

Our "way of lives" is kind of farked, frankly.
2013-04-24 12:06:46 PM
1 votes:

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


Just out of curiosity - should an ex-spouse - or ex-spouse to be - with an impending hearing for a domestic violence charge be able to by any weapon completely unfettered? Should someone awaiting trial - but not convicted - of a violent crime have unfettered access to weaponry?
2013-04-24 12:05:38 PM
1 votes:
They love Obama's immigration policies as well!
2013-04-24 12:04:01 PM
1 votes:

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

WTF?

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


Don't think of it as selling arms to terrorists (not that that is terribly wrong since, after all, Ronald Reagan did it). Think of it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of 6 and 7 year old children. Somehow that ennobles the cause.
2013-04-24 11:56:13 AM
1 votes:

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

WTF?

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

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


You do know that being drunk and getting caught pissing on a dumpster is enough to go on that registry right? It's almost as easy as getting on a no-fly list.....
2013-04-24 11:40:19 AM
1 votes:

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

WTF?

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

And shouting fire in a crowded theater?


Hasn't got a damn thing to do with this?
2013-04-24 11:38:00 AM
1 votes:

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

That is a PS, right?


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

Yes, it is inflammatory
Yes, it is technically accurate. Only FFLs are required to do anything when selling a firearm. If I sold one of my ARs to you I would have no duty to ask you for any ID or to have you pass a background check. A lot of guns are sold by non-licensed private sellers at gun shows.
2013-04-24 11:28:22 AM
1 votes:

Bontesla: And shouting fire in a crowded theater?


20 minutes total but that bullshiat is laid to rest in  90 seconds (but take all 20)
2013-04-24 11:17:40 AM
1 votes:

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

WTF?

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


And shouting fire in a crowded theater?
2013-04-24 11:15:18 AM
1 votes:
i've been to several gun shows (looking for a lee-enfield .303) and found them fascinating and terrifying. i saw more than a few few swastika tattoos each time.
2013-04-24 11:14:53 AM
1 votes:

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

A lot of gaps in there.

Where did the Tsarnaevs get theirs?


Williams-Sonoma, next to the pressure cookers
2013-04-24 11:04:52 AM
1 votes:

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


i think it's because sandy hook spurred the current gun debate. prior to then, democrats were mostly silent on guns. in other words, it's not like this video was just uploaded to bolster the pro-background check side.
2013-04-24 10:48:45 AM
1 votes:

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

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


You mean the guy with all the Third Reich paraphernalia for sale because of its "historical value" might not want to sell his stuff to brown folks?
2013-04-24 10:36:33 AM
1 votes:
i assumed this was fake, until i googled the guy. i guess he's the real deal. what a farking asshole.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report