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.

(Slate)   Convicted felon writes letter thanking the NRA for making it easy for him to obtain guns through their opposition to universal background checks. Stay tuned for the hilarity, for it shall surely ensue   (slate.com) divider line 110
    More: Amusing, NRA, convicted felon, loyal opposition, background checks, Hartford Courant, supermax  
•       •       •

9421 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jun 2013 at 3:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-13 11:39:49 AM
Someone should make sure the parole board knows his intentions.

PS: it is still illegal for him to buy a firearm without the passage of UBC.
 
2013-06-13 02:24:37 PM

Giltric: Someone should make sure the parole board knows his intentions.

PS: it is still illegal for him to buy a firearm without the passage of UBC.



i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-13 03:05:28 PM
 
2013-06-13 03:46:11 PM

minoridiot: He likes to troll people.


Yeah.

Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

If they can import 11.5 tons of weed into the country every single *DAY*, though just a single state, what's to stop them from bringing in guns, too?  An unfired gun is going to smell the same as new auto parts to a dog.

Not to mention that it would be a problem like counterfeiting:  Prior to computers and quality inkjet printers, the Secret Service only had to worry about a relative handful of people printing thousands of bogus bills.  Once quality color printing came along, it was more a problem of thousands of people each printing out a relative handful of bills.  That's what would happen, as people would make guns for criminals (either through traditional means, making crude but effective guns, or now by 3D printing them).

It is different in one way, though:  The US changed it's money to make it harder to counterfeit.   You can't do that with guns:  A gun that works is a gun that works.

They are a 600+ year old technology.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.
 
2013-06-13 03:46:56 PM
www.digitaltrends.com
 
2013-06-13 03:47:05 PM

dittybopper: They are a 600+ year old technology.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.


Here is the actual link that Fark choked on:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743
 
2013-06-13 03:47:44 PM

Giltric: Someone should make sure the parole board knows his intentions.

PS: it is still illegal for him to buy a firearm without the passage of UBC.


Yeah, this'd be more effective if he wrote the letter AFTER purchasing a gun. As it stands, when (if?) he gets out and fails to buy the gun, he'll look pretty dumb.

// I mean, apart from being a "career criminal" dumb enough to hand the parole board its "DENIED" stamp, already inked
 
2013-06-13 03:48:01 PM
Thanks, here's the carton of cigarettes promised you.
 
2013-06-13 03:48:38 PM

Giltric: Someone should make sure the parole board knows his intentions.


I mean, obviously it's meant to be sarcastic, but I wonder if this will be seen as the equivalent of saying you have a bomb at airport security.
 
2013-06-13 03:49:55 PM
I wonder if Gosnell will send a letter to planned parenthood for making it easy for him to kill babies for 30 years?

/2 stupids make a right... right?
 
2013-06-13 03:51:00 PM
Criminals aren't really interested in whether there's a law requiring background checks.
 
2013-06-13 03:51:50 PM

dittybopper: minoridiot: He likes to troll people.

Yeah.

Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

If they can import 11.5 tons of weed into the country every single *DAY*, though just a single state, what's to stop them from bringing in guns, too?  An unfired gun is going to smell the same as new auto parts to a dog.

Not to mention that it would be a problem like counterfeiting:  Prior to computers and quality inkjet printers, the Secret Service only had to worry about a relative handful of people printing thousands of bogus bills.  Once quality color printing came along, it was more a problem of thousands of people each printing out a relative handful of bills.  That's what would happen, as people would make guns for criminals (either through traditional means, making crude but effective guns, or now by 3D printing them).

It is different in one way, though:  The US changed it's money to make it harder to counterfeit.   You can't do that with guns:  A gun that works is a gun that works.

They are a 600+ year old technology.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.


Yep, I was really impressed at how un-crude these backyard made firearms were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE
I suspect the guy will be surprised at how few guns will be available at the gun show without a background check.  Ironic if because of the notariety, he gets arested, too.  Gun shows are one of the few places where I've actually seen an arrest of someone who fails the background check.
 
2013-06-13 03:52:40 PM
I doubt there will be any hilarity. Rehash of the 10,000 other Fark gun threads, yes. Hilarity, no.

/not even in before the rehashing started
 
2013-06-13 03:55:05 PM

dittybopper: minoridiot: He likes to troll people.

Yeah.

Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

If they can import 11.5 tons of weed into the country every single *DAY*, though just a single state, what's to stop them from bringing in guns, too?   An unfired gun is going to smell the same as new auto parts to a dog.


<snip>

Y'know, I've been wondering about that.  A lot of the nicer-end guns I get in (Colt, Magnum Research, Sig, etc) come with the spent shell casing showing they have been test-fired at the factory and the shell inspected to be defect free.  But I also do transfers for people who order these cheaper guns where they do NOT come with a spent casing.

Just makes me wonder if the budget guns are not going through a test firing process (or maybe they are and they aren't bothering to keep the shell) and if that one round fired at the factory would be enough to alert a dog by scent.
 
2013-06-13 03:56:54 PM
That the way you do it.

narwhaler.com
 
2013-06-13 03:58:03 PM

dittybopper: They are a 600+ year old technology. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.


That's the goal, you see. That's the goal.
 
2013-06-13 04:00:08 PM

Skyd1v: A lot of the nicer-end guns I get in (Colt, Magnum Research, Sig, etc) come with the spent shell casing showing they have been test-fired at the factory and the shell inspected to be defect free.


Actually, that was probably to comply with the laws of NY and MD which required a fired casing for entry into their now defunct ballistic databases.  Since they test fire them any way, and a couple states required that casing for entry into their databases, they just threw it in.

Kind of a stupid requirement, because it wouldn't even be effective for fully a third of the handguns sold (revolvers don't eject shell casings at crime scenes), and in fact, despite running the program for 10 years and costing tens of millions of dollars, the NYS database didn't result in the solving of a single crime.
 
2013-06-13 04:01:01 PM
If you trust him enough to be out of prison then he should be allowed to have a gun. If you don't trust him enough to not commit crimes then don't let him out of prison.
 
2013-06-13 04:04:08 PM
So, he writes for The Onion?
 
2013-06-13 04:05:38 PM

dittybopper: Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

In Britain, it used to be that half of the suicides were by people asphyxiating by gas. Either by "sticking their head in an oven" or just filling a sealed room with running gas. So two things were done. All new ovens had to turn the burner on at the same time as the gas - so no more filling your house with gas. And, they switched over to a less lethal natural gas. People could argue that "people who want to commit suicide will just find another way", but by taking away the easiest and most fashionable way, they cut the suicide rate by a third.

The truth is that humans are lazy, and by taking away the easiest way to commit a crime, you knock off a good percentage of crime right then and there. So this "well... criminals could still get around that" argument is pure nonsense from a legal perspective. Of course they can. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an effective law.

 
2013-06-13 04:06:27 PM

lacydog: dittybopper: Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

In Britain, it used to be that half of the suicides were by people asphyxiating by gas. Either by "sticking their head in an oven" or just filling a sealed room with running gas. So two things were done. All new ovens had to turn the burner on at the same time as the gas - so no more filling your house with gas. And, they switched over to a less lethal natural gas. People could argue that "people who want to commit suicide will just find another way", but by taking away the easiest and most fashionable way, they cut the suicide rate by a third.

The truth is that humans are lazy, and by taking away the easiest way to commit a crime, you knock off a good percentage of crime right then and there. So this "well... criminals could still get around that" argument is pure nonsense from a legal perspective. Of course they can. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an effective law.


Wow... I don't know why fark threw away half my comment. Fail on me for not using preview.
 
2013-06-13 04:07:59 PM
Erik Zettergren :
For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Mr. Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met.
After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson's hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.
 
2013-06-13 04:08:46 PM
My black powder 44 Colt Navy (replica from a kit) has been declared a "non gun".
It's deadly and one of the few pistols I've seen which may be called a tack driver.
It can even speed load (kind of), I use Zig-Zags for my wrap.
I've been told that a convicted felon may have a plack powder rifle, or pistol, or a shotgun for home defense.
I'm okay for that, but if he's out for a stroll carrying he should do a flat 5, but it should be based on his priors, some guys should just get all the lightweight malum prohibitum krapus maximus quashed, and full citizenship restored.
Every mans home is his castle.
But the streets belong to us all.
Except you.
Yeah, you, the guy with the hot pink Ingram.
Not yours.
No.


//llllll__

(((( A failed pregnancy.))))
 
2013-06-13 04:13:51 PM
[jokerpopcorn.gif]
[BoxxyYouzTrollin.jpg]
 
2013-06-13 04:15:27 PM
dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.
 
2013-06-13 04:17:40 PM

dittybopper: Skyd1v: A lot of the nicer-end guns I get in (Colt, Magnum Research, Sig, etc) come with the spent shell casing showing they have been test-fired at the factory and the shell inspected to be defect free.

Actually, that was probably to comply with the laws of NY and MD which required a fired casing for entry into their now defunct ballistic databases.  Since they test fire them any way, and a couple states required that casing for entry into their databases, they just threw it in.

Kind of a stupid requirement, because it wouldn't even be effective for fully a third of the handguns sold (revolvers don't eject shell casings at crime scenes), and in fact, despite running the program for 10 years and costing tens of millions of dollars, the NYS database didn't result in the solving of a single crime.


Hmmm...The FFL forums seem to be about 50/50 difference in opinion on the spent casing being a "Test fired for safety" tool and a "Ballistic Fingerprint" mandate.  In the cases where people claim it is for ballistic fingerprinting, it isn't the ejected case they are looking at, but the striations in the bullet fired. ( thus revolvers not ejecting cases would be a moot point)  Seems to me that if the latter were the case 10 minutes with a crowning tool would kind of defeat the purpose anyway.

I not only see the casings included with handguns...they come with new rifles as well, and the little envelopes the casings are in have printing right on them stating that they are test rounds fired for safety and to ensure quality. (or some such marketing speak.  I'm not in my shop right now and am paraphrasing.)  I've never given it any thought really, other than wondering if the test round would alert a dog.  And that's just idle curiosity.
 
2013-06-13 04:19:52 PM

MemeSlave: Criminals aren't really interested in whether there's a law requiring background checks.


The people currently selling them legally this way though? Would they care and perhaps stop if they too could be held liable for selling them and/or the crimes committed by doing so?

You can shut up and not come back now. I hate how this has to be repeated in every one of these threads and yet the mouth breathers keep repeating the criminals dont obey laws so why have them retardation.
 
2013-06-13 04:20:23 PM
Slate is becoming a joke. Giving any credibility to a prison troll is what a joke organization does to sell their propaganda. We all know how much Slate loves guns.

I read Slate for the same reason I read Drudge. It's entertaining to see how low extremist on both sides go.
 
2013-06-13 04:23:10 PM

Skyd1v: dittybopper: Skyd1v: A lot of the nicer-end guns I get in (Colt, Magnum Research, Sig, etc) come with the spent shell casing showing they have been test-fired at the factory and the shell inspected to be defect free.

Actually, that was probably to comply with the laws of NY and MD which required a fired casing for entry into their now defunct ballistic databases.  Since they test fire them any way, and a couple states required that casing for entry into their databases, they just threw it in.

Kind of a stupid requirement, because it wouldn't even be effective for fully a third of the handguns sold (revolvers don't eject shell casings at crime scenes), and in fact, despite running the program for 10 years and costing tens of millions of dollars, the NYS database didn't result in the solving of a single crime.

Hmmm...The FFL forums seem to be about 50/50 difference in opinion on the spent casing being a "Test fired for safety" tool and a "Ballistic Fingerprint" mandate.  In the cases where people claim it is for ballistic fingerprinting, it isn't the ejected case they are looking at, but the striations in the bullet fired. ( thus revolvers not ejecting cases would be a moot point)  Seems to me that if the latter were the case 10 minutes with a crowning tool would kind of defeat the purpose anyway.

I not only see the casings included with handguns...they come with new rifles as well, and the little envelopes the casings are in have printing right on them stating that they are test rounds fired for safety and to ensure quality. (or some such marketing speak.  I'm not in my shop right now and am paraphrasing.)  I've never given it any thought really, other than wondering if the test round would alert a dog.  And that's just idle curiosity.


When I was a kid a guy killed his parents and got off scot-free because he ran a drill bit through the barrel of his weapon.
Not kidding.

/Memo: Drill bits.
 
2013-06-13 04:28:24 PM
Yep, and if someone in Congress would write a bill that ONLY contained a requirement for background checks then I don't think there would be a problem with it.  The problem is that they try to jam all kinds of other BAN! BAN! BAN! REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT! crap in there, try to gain sympathy by parading dead kids families on stage, or use scare tactics to try to make their point.

There isn't a single politician that has any power to get consensus that has a damn clue what "common sense" is.  The ones that do have the power have sold out to special interest groups from one side or the other many, many years ago and have completely lost touch with the general population.

So everyone is essentially yelling if we can't haz you can't haz.
 
2013-06-13 04:28:51 PM

BigScorch: dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.


You tards and your attempt to counter something nobody is saying.

Nobody is saying what you accuse them of saying.


Enforce the laws on the books, prosecute straw purchasers, people who fail background checks when knowingly providing false iinformation, do not offer plea deals to criminals who commit crimes that have mandatory minimum sentences attached etc......

The AWB which limited both assault weapons and magazine capacities had a negligible impact on crime. It could not even be measured by the ATF or other government agencies.

Take your stupid pot smoke fueled progressive argument and shove it sideways up your ass you stupid retarded troll.
 
2013-06-13 04:43:10 PM
can you really troll when you are a multiple felon sitting in a cement cell?
It would be better had he written a note to the judge asking why he needed 81 marks before they jammed him up for a longer time
 
2013-06-13 04:43:50 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: If you trust him enough to be out of prison then he should be allowed to have a gun. If you don't trust him enough to not commit crimes then don't let him out of prison.


Yeah ... you realize that 'trust' has absolutely nothing to do with a convict's release from prison right?

They do their time they become ex-cons ... even if everyone in the prison knows they will re-offend.
 
2013-06-13 04:48:03 PM
Enforce the laws on the books, prosecute straw purchasers, people who fail background checks when knowingly providing false iinformation, do not offer plea deals to criminals who commit crimes that have mandatory minimum sentences attached etc......

Agree, agree, and agree.

Take your stupid pot smoke fueled progressive argument and shove it sideways up your ass you stupid retarded troll.

If more people smoked pot, there would be FAR less need for guns.  In fact, let all the "criminals" who are in prison for pot-related crimes out of jail.  We need that space for the REAL criminals... you know, the ones that use guns.
 
2013-06-13 04:49:13 PM
Good luck with that.

Just like I'm going to have sex with Kristen Bell tonight, some things are easier said than done.
 
2013-06-13 05:00:36 PM

dittybopper: minoridiot: He likes to troll people.

Yeah.

Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

If they can import 11.5 tons of weed into the country every single *DAY*, though just a single state, what's to stop them from bringing in guns, too?  An unfired gun is going to smell the same as new auto parts to a dog.

Not to mention that it would be a problem like counterfeiting:  Prior to computers and quality inkjet printers, the Secret Service only had to worry about a relative handful of people printing thousands of bogus bills.  Once quality color printing came along, it was more a problem of thousands of people each printing out a relative handful of bills.  That's what would happen, as people would make guns for criminals (either through traditional means, making crude but effective guns, or now by 3D printing them).

It is different in one way, though:  The US changed it's money to make it harder to counterfeit.   You can't do that with guns:  A gun that works is a gun that works.

They are a 600+ year old technology.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.


Since criminals break the laws anyway, we shouldn't have laws.
 
2013-06-13 05:02:52 PM

thetubameister: Since criminals break the laws anyway, we shouldn't have laws.


Fark really needs a 'dumbest' tag for post like this.
 
2013-06-13 05:04:03 PM

Slappajo: Yep, and if someone in Congress would write a bill that ONLY contained a requirement for background checks then I don't think there would be a problem with it.


Yep, came here to say pretty much the same thing.  The democrats made sure that they poisoned the well with respect to this legislation.
 
2013-06-13 05:06:23 PM

thetubameister: dittybopper: minoridiot: He likes to troll people.

Yeah.

Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

If they can import 11.5 tons of weed into the country every single *DAY*, though just a single state, what's to stop them from bringing in guns, too?  An unfired gun is going to smell the same as new auto parts to a dog.

Not to mention that it would be a problem like counterfeiting:  Prior to computers and quality inkjet printers, the Secret Service only had to worry about a relative handful of people printing thousands of bogus bills.  Once quality color printing came along, it was more a problem of thousands of people each printing out a relative handful of bills.  That's what would happen, as people would make guns for criminals (either through traditional means, making crude but effective guns, or now by 3D printing them).

It is different in one way, though:  The US changed it's money to make it harder to counterfeit.   You can't do that with guns:  A gun that works is a gun that works.

They are a 600+ year old technology.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no matter what you try, short of outright confiscation, there is no way to tackle the remainder problem.

Since criminals break the laws anyway, we shouldn't have laws.


Plus it's not like gun control has worked anywhere outside the country, or within the country. To prove something like that you'd have to have similar examples, facts, and comparisons of states with the highest homicide by gun relative to other states per 100k.

So as long as we don't have any of those things, which we must not, nothing can possibly ever work.
 
2013-06-13 05:06:43 PM

Slappajo: Yep, and if someone in Congress would write a bill that ONLY contained a requirement for background checks then I don't think there would be a problem with it.  The problem is that they try to jam all kinds of other BAN! BAN! BAN! REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT! crap in there, try to gain sympathy by parading dead kids families on stage, or use scare tactics to try to make their point.

There isn't a single politician that has any power to get consensus that has a damn clue what "common sense" is.  The ones that do have the power have sold out to special interest groups from one side or the other many, many years ago and have completely lost touch with the general population.

So everyone is essentially yelling if we can't haz you can't haz.


I wonder what special interest groupthat would be? That bill had 86% public support. It didn't get passed because your politicians are more beholden to specific, very profitable industry than their constituents. And that industry has you blaming the politicians. It's hilarious. I'll leave it up to the reader to guess what industry lobby group we're talking about.
 
2013-06-13 05:09:15 PM

BigScorch: dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.


But those laws don't impede on the rights of ordinary citizens. They have a measurable impact on crime. The laws on the books aren't enforced as is. If those whom were so adamantly in favor of "common sense gun control" would actually read the laws, they'd see that much of what they're asking for is already in place, just not enforced. Politicians are blatantly exploiting this ignorance for their own means, and it's rather annoying to argue with the uninformed when you're simply shouted down as a "gun nut" and they declare you the loser of the debate.
 
2013-06-13 05:10:52 PM

Fark France: BigScorch: dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.

But those laws don't impede on the rights of ordinary citizens. They have a measurable impact on crime. The laws on the books aren't enforced as is. If those whom were so adamantly in favor of "common sense gun control" would actually read the laws, they'd see that much of what they're asking for is already in place, just not enforced. Politicians are blatantly exploiting this ignorance for their own means, and it's rather annoying to argue with the uninformed when you're simply shouted down as a "gun nut" and they declare you the loser of the debate.


Why don't you share your wisdom instead of nailing yourself to the cross? We'll wait.
 
2013-06-13 05:15:15 PM

howdoibegin: That bill had 86% public support.


Got a source for that?  Make sure that this poll is tailored to that specific bill that included the manditory submittsion of gun make, model and serial number.

Saying that you have broad support for UBC is one thing.  Saying that you had support for the bill that was floated a month or so ago is completely different.
 
2013-06-13 05:16:55 PM

Giltric: BigScorch: dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.

You tards and your attempt to counter something nobody is saying.

Nobody is saying what you accuse them of saying.


Enforce the laws on the books, prosecute straw purchasers, people who fail background checks when knowingly providing false iinformation, do not offer plea deals to criminals who commit crimes that have mandatory minimum sentences attached etc......

The AWB which limited both assault weapons and magazine capacities had a negligible impact on crime. It could not even be measured by the ATF or other government agencies.

Take your stupid pot smoke fueled progressive argument and shove it sideways up your ass you stupid retarded troll.


Except that that's exactly what plenty of people say on this and other forums/forae.

Rhetoric like that doesn't make you sound very bright.

/Never smoked pot in my life.
 
2013-06-13 05:17:30 PM

howdoibegin: And that industry has you blaming the politicians.


Actaully, it was the politicians that inserted that retarded requirement for submittsion of gun information into this bill, not the NRA.  If the politicians wanted this bill to fail, I couldn't have thought of a better way to do it.
 
2013-06-13 05:19:05 PM

justtray: Fark France: BigScorch: dittybopper:
Besides which, even if we *DID* have universal background checks, like they have in other countries, criminals would still get their guns.

I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious, but I've also heard it elsewhere and I totally LOVE this argument.  We shouldn't try to stop criminals before the act, because they are going to do it anyways.  A few other awesome examples I think we can apply this to:

1. We should sell medicate that can be turned into meth over the counter, criminals find a way to get it anyways.
2. We shouldn't background check kiddy school employees, sex offenders will get their jobs anyways.
3. We shouldn't check passports at the borders, criminals will get into the country anyways.
4. We shouldn't check airline cargo or baggage for weapons, criminals will just find another way to sneak them in.
5. We shouldn't check prisoners for contraband when they enter prison.  Criminals will just find another way to sneak stuff in.

As long as you can't solve 100% of the problem, you should avoid solving 1% of it.  And we definitely shouldn't make it harder to break the law.  That's just waste of innocent peoples freedom.

But those laws don't impede on the rights of ordinary citizens. They have a measurable impact on crime. The laws on the books aren't enforced as is. If those whom were so adamantly in favor of "common sense gun control" would actually read the laws, they'd see that much of what they're asking for is already in place, just not enforced. Politicians are blatantly exploiting this ignorance for their own means, and it's rather annoying to argue with the uninformed when you're simply shouted down as a "gun nut" and they declare you the loser of the debate.

Why don't you share your wisdom instead of nailing yourself to the cross? We'll wait.


Sure thing. Have any questions that need answering?

This felon is barred from getting a gun at a gun show anyway. Most sellers there are FFL's that require a check for every purchase. Those booths are very expensive. The ones that aren't FFL's are generally selling stun guns, memorabilia, or antique firearms. Security will ask you to leave if you try to conduct a private sale at a show. It steals revenue from the vendors. The agency responsible for enforcing the laws we have is almost comically inept. One of the ATF's most recent sting operations to get illegal guns off the street resulted in them sending the mentally challenged man they manipulated to jail, paying 2X retail for guns people were just buying off the rack at the Gander Mountain down the road, losing about $40,000, and having a fully-automatic rifle stolen from their van. They got a total of -1 guns off the street.
 
2013-06-13 05:22:30 PM

Fark France: One of the ATF's most recent sting operations to get illegal guns off the street resulted in them sending the mentally challenged man they manipulated to jail, paying 2X retail for guns people were just buying off the rack at the Gander Mountain down the road, losing about $40,000, and having a fully-automatic rifle stolen from their van. They got a total of -1 guns off the street.


That sounds about right for the ATF
 
2013-06-13 05:25:44 PM

howdoibegin: It didn't get passed because your politicians are more beholden to specific, very profitable industry than their constituents.


Horseshiat. It didn't pass because of all of the other shiat they stuck in it. They killed it by being overzealous.
 
2013-06-13 05:28:04 PM
The "letter" sounds like a fictitious allegory created by some left-wing nutter to try to prove some point about his paranoid perception of the way things might turn out, if only in his own deluded mind.
 
2013-06-13 05:29:46 PM

Fark France: Sure thing. Have any questions that need answering?

This felon is barred from getting a gun at a gun show anyway. Most sellers there are FFL's that require a check for every purchase. Those booths are very expensive. The ones that aren't FFL's are generally selling stun guns, memorabilia, or antique firearms. Security will ask you to leave if you try to conduct a private sale at a show. It steals revenue from the vendors. The agency responsible for enforcing the laws we have is almost comically inept. One of the ATF's most recent sting operations to get illegal guns off the street resulted in them sending the mentally challenged man they manipulated to jail, paying 2X retail for guns people were just buying off the rack at the Gander Mountain down the road, losing about $40,000, and having a fully-automatic rifle stolen from their van. They got a total of -1 guns off the street.


What prevents this person from purchasing a gun from a friend, or family member who bought it legally?

Why do most straw purchases come from an incredibly small percentage of sellers?

Why are we required to destroy the background checks within 24 hours?

Why aren't dealers required to keep inventory of their product?

You focused on one aspect, were unable to present a single valid argument that shows how this person would not have been able to buy a gun, and passed it off as one for "enforcing existing laws," which you didn't even make an argument for. Just a bunch of meaningless hyperbole.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report