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.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   (usatoday.com) divider line 453
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8137 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 04:18:21 PM

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right.

Does the court pull the public defender from the case or reverse the trial decision if you fail to pay in the future?  In what way does the government remove your right to representation if you don't pay?


Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic? I know some of the basics but if you want an advanced class on what kind of trials the 6th amendment applies to and under what circumstances someone is required to reimburse their legal counsel you'd probably trust your own research more than my say so.

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you're one of those.

Which portion of the Constitution restricts child pron?  It's okay.  You can say that it's not in there.  Don't worry, it's not a shocking revelation to the rest of us that child pron isn't in the Constitution.


Do you do stand up too?
 
2013-07-08 04:19:03 PM
Is anybody else getting the feeling that StaleCoffee may be mentally ill? So many of his (her?) posts have that style that hints at a very loose connection with reality. They remind me a bit of Jared Loughner's "'What is government if words have no meaning" rants.
 
2013-07-08 04:21:17 PM

MFAWG: doglover: MFAWG: Guns do not
Do they have another use? Please enlighten me.
Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead.


earlier you implied that using a knife is not the same as a gun because knives are not used strictly for killing things.  Are you saying that you have a problem with all weapons?  If you do not have a problem with all weapons, and feel you have a right to defend yourself from an attacker, then what does it matter if you defend yourself with a knife, a gun, a baseball bat or anything else?

BTW I agree with you, guns are absolutely designed for killing, and target shooting is simply practice for putting holes in targets.  However I believe that if someone is going to have a gun to defend themselves then they should be practiced.
 
2013-07-08 04:24:10 PM

Aldon: AngryJailhouseFistfark: supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.


What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?


I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.

Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada.  I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Here is a good place to start, a few of Canada's federal gun safety laws:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html">htt p://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html

Add some of those laws with enforcement with universal background checks and it seems obvious you will save lives without taking away any guns for law abiding and sane citizens.


But the follow-up question, how to enforce this? Preventing the purchase with the background check is pro-active, but short of doing house-to-house inspections to see the hardware is locked up, the only way you'd enforce this is an add-on penalty after Junior's already taken the family gun and shot up the Dairy Freeze. It is highly probably that the responsible gun-owner already has his stuff secured, thus you've got laws that are only obeyed by the people who are self-regulating in the first place and thus meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the gun violence reduced but feel-good laws backed up by Tough Talk and Resolution are a waste of my tax-payer dollar and accomplish nothing. I'm guessing the lower gun-crime rate in Canadia is a product of their socio-economic situation, (ie. less social stratification & poverty than Homeland) than a factor of the "keep it locked up" laws.
 
2013-07-08 04:25:23 PM

redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though


I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?
 
2013-07-08 04:25:50 PM

StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?

I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?
 
2013-07-08 04:26:13 PM

JesseL: Is anybody else getting the feeling that StaleCoffee may be mentally ill? So many of his (her?) posts have that style that hints at a very loose connection with reality. They remind me a bit of Jared Loughner's "'What is government if words have no meaning" rants.


Sorry, I've been on the soy sauce.
 
2013-07-08 04:27:01 PM

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?


Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.
 
2013-07-08 04:31:48 PM

Aldon: redmid17: All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.

Hmmm, in order to purchase a car the sale and transfer of ownership needs to be recorded.  No matter if it is going to be functioning on private property or not (at least in California).

I would have no problem if someone can build their own car or firearm with legal parts and only have it in their property and would have heavy regulations on moving or transferring it to another person or location.


No it doesn't. Only if you intend to drive it on public roads does it need to be recorded. Once a car has been given salvage or junk status, you can pass it around like a village bicycle if you want.
 
2013-07-08 04:31:55 PM

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?

Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


FINE I'll scroll it back up for you:

"If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer."
 
2013-07-08 04:34:46 PM

StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.
 
2013-07-08 04:35:12 PM

StaleCoffee: redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though

I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?


1) they were never gonna win that fight
2) there were avenues of redress they neglected to consider that came well short of harassing the "revenooer" who came into town.
 
2013-07-08 04:36:50 PM

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.

Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.


You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.
 
2013-07-08 04:37:07 PM

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?

Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


So how about the two of you take your dick-measuring contest offline and reserve your posts for the actual dissemination of Useful Information so that the rest of us are edified and improved by the reading of the threed. Let that be your badge of honor. Let that be the standard by which you are judged, and thus, known and respected. The other Farker should not be a rival against whom you strive with your foolish antics and small-market radio show quiz questions. No, the other Farker should be the iron which sharpens your iron, and in so doing allows both of you to share your combined, collected knowings with this assembly and all boats are raised by the tide and all beards can be equally plucked and there will be reach-arounds and golden laurels presented to all and sundry.

The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

Feel the love; Be.....the love.

We're all in this together.
 
2013-07-08 04:38:39 PM

bigpete53: redmid17: bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.

Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

Dimensio: A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.

What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Dimensio: If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.

I have no idea what the purpose of the component ban is, so I can't comment on its efficacy. I'll have to trust that you know what you're talking about in that it's not been effective in achieving its goal. My experience with California gun owners, though, is that they're fairly irrational regarding firearms laws. I trust that you are not, and perhaps that single law should be repealed.


I think what was intended by saying "lawmakers with no understanding" was that suppressors became "silencers" because of Hollywood.  The truth of the matter is that a suppressor changes the sound from ear splitting to simply something loud.  It still sounds like a gun shot, and unless the round is specifically designed to fly at subsonic speeds, the bullet still makes its own crack as it breaks the sound barrier.  To give a good approximation, a 9mm bullet fired through a suppressor is about as loud as a 12 pound vase dropped from 5 feet in the air, and allowed to shatter on a cement floor.  A suppressor might make it so the neighbors down the street cant hear you, but unless the properties are large, there is a fair chance that the next door neighbor will hear even suppressed gunfire.
 
2013-07-08 04:39:19 PM

redmid17: You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.


Of course they bill you for it, but what if you don't pay or can't pay?

Of course, if you lost the case (which you probably did since you used a PD) they'll just add it to the list of things tacked on to your prison expenses...
 
2013-07-08 04:43:19 PM

bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.

No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.


you can tow the car to a private property and drive it all day if you wish.
 
2013-07-08 04:43:41 PM

Click Click D'oh: redmid17: You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.

Of course they bill you for it, but what if you don't pay or can't pay?

Of course, if you lost the case (which you probably did since you used a PD) they'll just add it to the list of things tacked on to your prison expenses...


They got my BS OWI charge dropped to a misdemeanor PI charge which I got a diversion for and the charge ultimately dropped, so I consider that a win.

If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.
 
2013-07-08 04:45:53 PM

redmid17: If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.


They would probably just deduct it from your paycheck.
 
2013-07-08 04:47:40 PM

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.

Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.


looooooool

It's absolutely AWESOME to watch you oversimplify the Constitution when it suits you and then see you ramp it up with the evolution of it over time in other circumstances. I mean on one hand there's the whole The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About That (I said that in a huffy-puffy kind of voice where I made my neck all fat, if I could, I kind of can't really sorry) and then on the other it's The Original Understanding About This Was Really This.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+Counsel

As I can best understand it, it's there.

So you're saying that the government can't make you pay for that if you can afford it? Or are you saying that your right to legal counsel isn't a right, or that even though you are required to pay for your right to counsel, it doesn't count, because it's.. I dunno, a private attorney?

The relevant text is: "For 150 years, the Right to Counsel Clause was construed as simply granting to a defendant the right to retain a private attorney. This did not mean that an impoverished criminal defendant had the right to a court-appointed attorney without cost. "

Or are you suggesting that it's unconstitutional for the government to require said legal counsel to have been in good standing with the bar and paid, if they're retained, assuming you don't waive that? I mean you have the option to waive your right to gun ownership too.
 
2013-07-08 04:48:43 PM

redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though

I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?

1) they were never gonna win that fight
2) there were avenues of redress they neglected to consider that came well short of harassing the "revenooer" who came into town.


Agree on both counts, so... I'll go play XCOM or something I guess.
 
2013-07-08 04:48:58 PM

Click Click D'oh: redmid17: If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.

They would probably just deduct it from your paycheck.


They can garnish your wages but unless you notified them that you lack the means to pay them back (they will often work out a payment plan), they will likely arrest you and let you talk to the judge about it. Depending on what the original charge/deal was, there is a chance that the original charge might come back up and bite you in the ass.
 
2013-07-08 04:50:12 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.


I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.
 
2013-07-08 04:55:44 PM

StaleCoffee:  I mean on one hand there's the whole The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About That (I said that in a huffy-puffy kind of voice where I made my neck all fat, if I could, I kind of can't really sorry) and then on the other it's The Original Understanding About This Was Really This.

Really?  You're still miffed that you couldn't find a restriction on child pron in the Constitution?

StaleCoffee: So you're saying that the government can't make you pay for that if you can afford it?


That determination will be made when you indicate that you need Public Defense.  If you are actually flat out broke, then no, you won't pay for it at all.  If when they review your financial records, they may require you to reimburse what you can afford.

StaleCoffee: Or are you saying that your right to legal counsel isn't a right,


Are you even reading what I type?

And for the love of god, finish reading your link.
 
2013-07-08 04:57:39 PM

StaleCoffee: AngryJailhouseFistfark: The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.



Champagne waterfall and an Andrew Lloyd Webber soundtrack?
 
2013-07-08 04:58:17 PM
redmid17:They can garnish your wages but unless you notified them that you lack the means to pay them back ...

I have never seen public counsel be assigned without first having a financial review... which may consist of as little as bringing in paycheck stubs or showing proof of unemployment.  The court has always known the financial status of the defendant.  I have also seen payment plans get cut off when defendants lost the ability to pay.
 
2013-07-08 05:02:52 PM

Click Click D'oh: redmid17:They can garnish your wages but unless you notified them that you lack the means to pay them back ...

I have never seen public counsel be assigned without first having a financial review... which may consist of as little as bringing in paycheck stubs or showing proof of unemployment.  The court has always known the financial status of the defendant.  I have also seen payment plans get cut off when defendants lost the ability to pay.


They asked me how much I made since I was not a dependent of my parents. No employment check or paystubs. It was minimal enough that they gave me a PD.
 
2013-07-08 05:06:57 PM

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee:  I mean on one hand there's the whole The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About That (I said that in a huffy-puffy kind of voice where I made my neck all fat, if I could, I kind of can't really sorry) and then on the other it's The Original Understanding About This Was Really This.

Really?  You're still miffed that you couldn't find a restriction on child pron in the Constitution?

StaleCoffee: So you're saying that the government can't make you pay for that if you can afford it?

That determination will be made when you indicate that you need Public Defense.  If you are actually flat out broke, then no, you won't pay for it at all.  If when they review your financial records, they may require you to reimburse what you can afford.

StaleCoffee: Or are you saying that your right to legal counsel isn't a right,

Are you even reading what I type?

And for the love of god, finish reading your link.


Okay, okay, as fun as it is I have to move on. You're pretty though, and it's me, I swear, not you.

WHO AM I KIDDING ITS ALL YOU YOURE TOO SKINNY I LIKE CHICKS WITH SOME CURVES

Anyway since I may not reply again, if you want me to say you win or something, you win. Also, I have a very small penis and I don't exercise or brush my teeth, and I don't like fighting cuz it's mean so.. I think that covers it? PROPS SIR, FIST IN THE AIR
 
2013-07-08 05:08:36 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: StaleCoffee: AngryJailhouseFistfark: The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.


Champagne waterfall and an Andrew Lloyd Webber soundtrack?


Can that waterfall be made out of empty jumbo shrimp shells and maybe have that soundtrack on an old reel to reel? Or is that overkill? Maybe overkill.
 
2013-07-08 05:32:05 PM

AngryDragon: vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

You know they used to have...are you sitting down?...SHOOTING CLUBS IN SCHOOLS.  Students would actually carry their rifles in the open on school grounds.  And there was never a school shooting.  The guns are not to blame and all the idiotic zero-tolerance laws have done absolutely nothing to make kids safer.


Thank god I was sitting down. If you want, visit the wiki page on school shootings in the US. It's actually pretty interesting, as it goes all the way back to 1760's.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_S t ates
It is pretty reckless to say "and there was never a school shooting". Maybe not where you went to school, thankfully, but that doesn't mean it was true for everybody else. Take note of how many were rifles the student brought from home, it's quite a bit. This type of killing cannot be done with a knife, or bare hands, I don't care how trained you are. Keeping guns out of school, and tough gun rules in school absolutely do make students safer. It is definitely not a perfect science, but when a gun is discovered at school before something happens, it does save lives.

Many times, zero-tolerance policies are crazy, but when it comes to having an actual gun on school grounds, and students' lives are even  potentiallyat risk, no tolerance should be given. The lives and safety students and children must come first!
 
2013-07-08 05:51:19 PM

vanbiber874: AngryDragon: vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

You know they used to have...are you sitting down?...SHOOTING CLUBS IN SCHOOLS.  Students would actually carry their rifles in the open on school grounds.  And there was never a school shooting.  The guns are not to blame and all the idiotic zero-tolerance laws have done absolutely nothing to make kids safer.

Thank god I was sitting down. If you want, visit the wiki page on school shootings in the US. It's actually pretty interesting, as it goes all the way back to 1760's.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_S t ates
It is pretty reckless to say "and there was never a school shooting". Maybe not where you went to school, thankfully, but that doesn't mean it was true for everybody else. Take note of how many were rifles the student brought from home, it's quite a bit. This type of killing cannot be done with a knife, or bare hands, I don't care how trained you are. Keeping guns out of school, and tough gun rules in school absolutely do make students safer. It is definitely not a perfect science, but when a gun is discovered at school before something happens, it does save lives.

Many times, zero-tolerance policies are crazy, but when it comes to having an actual gun on school grounds, and students' lives are even  potentiallyat risk, no tolerance should be given. The lives and safety students and children must ...


And for that reason, students who point fingers or eat Pop-Tarts should be expelled without any review.
 
2013-07-08 05:51:43 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Great Janitor: I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon

Why can't the felon own firearms? Likewise the dishonorably discharged from the military. Sure, I get that if the person committed some violent crimes, go ahead and take away the gun rights. What about a felony tax evasion or some similar non-violent nerd-crime? How does that rate a loss of firearms rights?

Yes, I know the blanket "felons lose firearms rights" rule is already in effect, I'm just wondering what is the rationale behind it, (I suspect there isn't any).


because it is less paperwork if you just blanket the felons rather than try to define which types of felons you want to bar from possession
 
2013-07-08 06:26:27 PM

chuggernaught: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.


Find one for sale, pay $200 to apply for a Class III tax stamp, satisfy the Federal and State conditions and convince your mother to raise your allowance and to let you keep it in the basement and you can have it. (The $200 tax stamp applies to each round of ammunition as well, destructive device. The field artillery, nuclear weapons, nerve gas example is pretty childish and has nothing to do with "Gun Control" or "Concealed Carry" or "Assault Bayonet Lugs and Shoulder Things That Go Up".
 
2013-07-08 06:54:56 PM

Click Click D'oh: They muzzle and the trigger. It's the same for all firearms. No class needed. The owners manual for any firearm covers that.


The idea isn't so much to catch the owners, the idea is to catch people like Larry Moreford, who shot Brandon Maxfield, who he was babysitting at the time.  There's a reason I don't support requiring a training class for owners, but want one for everybody.

Click Click D'oh: Your local FLL needs to start using the computer based system.


The closest FFL to me is also a hardware store that uses paper tape price stickers and a punch key register.  Computer?  What's that?  There's probably more computing power in my phone than what operates that store.

Aldon: I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...


Mandatory licenses:  Only if you're going to be operating the gun on public land.  Only shoot at home/work/private range?  No license needed.
Training:  Again, only if you're operating on public land.  Which is mostly already required outside of public ranges(IE training areas), in the form of hunter's safety and CCW
Registration:  Only on public roads
Insurance:  Only if you're operating your firearm on public property, and it's already covered by most homeowner's/general liability policies.

manimal2878: I'm pretty sure we are talking about THE 40mm gun (the bofurs). Not just anything with a 40mm bore. I don't give a crap about muzzle loading cannons, I didn't bring those up, Dittybopper did.


You made a 'I bet' comment about muzzle loading cannons, which brought it into relevance.  I countered that not only do explosive shells exist for his weapons, they're also period accurate.  If you're insistent upon specifying the 40mm Bofors, the comment remains true.  You can buy solid ammo for the Bofors, just as you can get(or make) explosive rounds for antique/replica muzzle loading cannon.
 
2013-07-08 07:32:10 PM

redmid17: Aldon: redmid17: All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.

Hmmm, in order to purchase a car the sale and transfer of ownership needs to be recorded.  No matter if it is going to be functioning on private property or not (at least in California).

I would have no problem if someone can build their own car or firearm with legal parts and only have it in their property and would have heavy regulations on moving or transferring it to another person or location.

No it doesn't. Only if you intend to drive it on public roads does it need to be recorded. Once a car has been given salvage or junk status, you can pass it around like a village bicycle if you want.


It might be different from State to State but in California you need to register a car even if you are not planning on using it, you even have to register a car as "salvaged" when applicable.  I guess you can get away with it if you never take it off your property (it is still illegal, but no one would ever know), but in any case if you transferred ownership  it needs to be recorded for you to be the legal owner.

If a car is junk status (unable to be used for its intended purpose), I don't think anyone would care if it is registered or not.  But if you make the car usable again,  it does need to be registered to remain legal.
 
2013-07-08 07:36:24 PM

vanbiber874: Many times, zero-tolerance policies are crazy, but when it comes to having an actual gun on school grounds, and students' lives are even potentiallyat risk, no tolerance should be given. The lives and safety students and children must come first!


How about 'unauthorized' firearms, and you simply require the weapons be transported in a locked case and stored in the school armory (otherwise known as the Janitor's office) until the shooting activity starts?

If a student brings a weapon intending harm, of course you toss the book at them.

Until then, leave plastic toy guns, water guns, the rifles in the hands of miniature green army men, drawings of mom in full battle rattle carrying an M-4(deployed at the time), pop tarts eaten 'into the form a gun', fingers pointed like a gun, and all the other variations alone.
 
2013-07-08 07:42:06 PM

Aldon: If a car is junk status (unable to be used for its intended purpose), I don't think anyone would care if it is registered or not. But if you make the car usable again, it does need to be registered to remain legal.


I'm not 100% sure about California, but in the states I've been in a "salvage" title, IE the car was wrecked, taken off the books, then restored and they want to put it back on the books, isn't for some junker you drive out in the back 40.  It's for a car that's once more street legal*.

Legal/illegal, you generally need to register a 'street car' just to properly record the change of ownership.  You can then apply to have it de-registered, at which point the state doesn't record it anymore, with the consequence that irregardless of it's condition and presence of equipment that would make it street-legal.

It's just that these processes aren't well known, and often not well developed/practiced/streamlined, because 99.99% of vehicles are driven on roads.  Even tractors and farm equipment, thus they need their tag, because just crossing a street under it's own power is enough.  Heck, If it's wheels touch the street it's in violation.  You don't tow these vehicles to avoid the registration requirements, you trailer them.

*If quite probably not as safe as original due to the strain on various components.
 
2013-07-08 07:45:09 PM

Firethorn: Aldon: I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...

Mandatory licenses: Only if you're going to be operating the gun on public land. Only shoot at home/work/private range? No license needed.
Training: Again, only if you're operating on public land. Which is mostly already required outside of public ranges(IE training areas), in the form of hunter's safety and CCW
Registration: Only on public roads
Insurance: Only if you're operating your firearm on public property, and it's already covered by most homeowner's/general liability policies.


Registration: every car needs to be registered (at least in California), even if you plan on being non-operational on public roads. You register your car as non-operational. If you receive a car in any way from another party, the ownership transfer has to legally be recorded, even if you only plan on using it on private property. There are heavy restrictions on moving a non-operational vehicle out of private land.
 
2013-07-08 09:16:41 PM

Aldon: Firethorn: Aldon: I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...

Mandatory licenses: Only if you're going to be operating the gun on public land. Only shoot at home/work/private range? No license needed.
Training: Again, only if you're operating on public land. Which is mostly already required outside of public ranges(IE training areas), in the form of hunter's safety and CCW
Registration: Only on public roads
Insurance: Only if you're operating your firearm on public property, and it's already covered by most homeowner's/general liability policies.

Registration: every car needs to be registered (at least in California), even if you plan on being non-operational on public roads. You register your car as non-operational. If you receive a car in any way from another party, the ownership transfer has to legally be recorded, even if you only plan on using it on private property. There are heavy restrictions on moving a non-operational vehicle out of private land.


If the car has its salvage certificate, you do not need to register it with the state to once sold again. It just has to be endorsed to you by the owner. If you want to re-register the car as a functioning automobile, you're only required to have the salvage cert endorsed to you by the former owner. There is a reason for that. It's because the car is essentially a pile of parts as far as the state is concerned and they do not track parts on a state level.
 
2013-07-08 09:18:25 PM
Damnitalltohell. These fun gun threads always seem to start in the morning just before I go to work.

//I'll get over it.
 
2013-07-08 11:07:59 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: But the follow-up question, how to enforce this? Preventing the purchase with the background check is pro-active, but short of doing house-to-house inspections to see the hardware is locked up, the only way you'd enforce this is an add-on penalty after Junior's already taken the family gun and shot up the Dairy Freeze. It is highly probably that the responsible gun-owner already has his stuff secured, thus you've got laws that are only obeyed by the people who are self-regulating in the first place and thus meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the gun violence reduced but feel-good laws backed up by Tough Talk and Resolution are a waste of my tax-payer dollar and accomplish nothing. I'm guessing the lower gun-crime rate in Canadia is a product of their socio-economic situation, (ie. less social stratification & poverty than Homeland) than a factor of the "keep it locked up" laws.


I'm not sure of the exact details, but I would start with how the Canadians enforce their gun storage laws.  It seems to work for them, that is a good indication it is simply not a "feel good" law.
 
2013-07-08 11:11:06 PM

redmid17: Aldon: Firethorn: Aldon: I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...

Mandatory licenses: Only if you're going to be operating the gun on public land. Only shoot at home/work/private range? No license needed.
Training: Again, only if you're operating on public land. Which is mostly already required outside of public ranges(IE training areas), in the form of hunter's safety and CCW
Registration: Only on public roads
Insurance: Only if you're operating your firearm on public property, and it's already covered by most homeowner's/general liability policies.

Registration: every car needs to be registered (at least in California), even if you plan on being non-operational on public roads. You register your car as non-operational. If you receive a car in any way from another party, the ownership transfer has to legally be recorded, even if you only plan on using it on private property. There are heavy restrictions on moving a non-operational vehicle out of private land.

If the car has its salvage certificate, you do not need to register it with the state to once sold again. It just has to be endorsed to you by the owner. If you want to re-register the car as a functioning automobile, you're only required to have the salvage cert endorsed to you by the former owner. There is a reason for that. It's because the car is essentially a pile of parts as far as the state is concerned and they do not track parts on a state level.


All sounds good to me if you want to treat guns in the same way when it comes to registration and tracking transfers of ownership.
 
2013-07-09 01:05:55 AM

bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

I moved from CA to LA about two years ago. Nothing in CA prevented me from purchasing firearms that I wanted. Nothing.



Yeah, but what if you wanted to buy an "assault weapon" AR with 30 round mags in California?
 
2013-07-09 02:14:09 AM

Zasteva: Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of guns are designed primarily for other purposes (shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.


Actually they are designed and used to protect people. And in point of fact they protect more people per year than they injure. So... There is that.
 
2013-07-09 02:40:02 AM

Aldon: All sounds good to me if you want to treat guns in the same way when it comes to registration and tracking transfers of ownership.


As we've been pointing out, if you treat it just like cars - as long as you're not going to use it on public property you never need to register it or log transfer of ownership with the state.

But fine, we know that you really want firearms registered and tracked.  As such, could you please identify how this is supposed to prevent violence?  Preferably without going with an argument along the lines of 'It'll discourage people from owning guns and thus reduce gun crime!'.  That's a bit like requiring women seeking abortion to do it within the first 2 months, have an intrusive ultrasound, have a 1 week 'cooling period' to reconsider, etc...  Like some states are trying.
 Hard mode:  How are you going to manage it in such a way that it prevents more violence than, say, hiring more cops with the resources that would go towards the registration system?
 
2013-07-09 09:45:36 AM

Firethorn: As we've been pointing out, if you treat it just like cars - as long as you're not going to use it on public property you never need to register it or log transfer of ownership with the state.


??

Unless you make the car from scratch in private property without transferring it along pubic property in any way (even crossing a public road), sure you don't have to register it, and I said I was fine with that.  But if you ever want to transfer ownership on any car (including when you first buy it), unless it is in junk condition, you have to register it and log the transfer of ownership, and again if you want to transport it anywhere out of private property it has to be done following strict rules.  Also when a working car becomes non-operable it needs to be registered as such, with records still kept by the State on ownership and the status of the car.

I'm just reacting to the idea that gun owners would love to have the same rules as they do for cars, they/you wouldn't.
 
2013-07-09 01:07:10 PM

Aldon: you have to register it and log the transfer of ownership,


Log the transfer of ownership, yes, because it's already registered by the dealership.  I must of been too tired last night when I posted that - I should have mentioned that you still need to get it out of the system properly.  However, it's possible to deregister it as a part of the purchase process.  However, as I've mentioned earlier:  This is frequently an unknown process since it's so rare, so the process to do so can be poorly documented and/or non-optimized.

if you want to transport it anywhere out of private property it has to be done following strict rules.

Why do you keep spouting this at me like it's something new?  I've already summarized the "strict rules", which amounts to - the unregistered vehicle's tires never touch a public road.  You can't tow it, you have to trailer it, and the trailer and towing vehicle need to be properly registered.  The rules may be strict, but they aren't complicated.  Understand?

I'm just reacting to the idea that gun owners would love to have the same rules as they do for cars, they/you wouldn't.

The point would be that it's a mixed bag, but on the whole positive.
Have to register guns:State will return said gun if it's stolen/lost and they find it
Need a permit to operate:Permit is valid in all 50 states and locations within them.  NYC doesn't get to not recognize permits not issued there.
Insurance: Already covered by homeowners, probably be dirt cheap considering something like 1/3rd of families own one.  The average gun is less likely to kill somebody than the average car, and suicides generally don't count for liability purposes

There's other things, but I don't have time to list them atm.
 
2013-07-09 02:32:39 PM

Firethorn: You made a 'I bet' comment about muzzle loading cannons, which brought it into relevance


No it didn't.  My comment was also irrelevant as it was only in response to irrelevance.
 
2013-07-09 03:36:38 PM

browntimmy: Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."


Where do you think the baggy pants below your arse fashion comes from.
 
2013-07-09 06:34:01 PM
Firethorn: Aldon:you have to register it and log the transfer of ownership,

Log the transfer of ownership, yes, because it's already registered by the dealership. I must of been too tired last night when I posted that - I should have mentioned that you still need to get it out of the system properly. However, it's possible to deregister it as a part of the purchase process. However, as I've mentioned earlier: This is frequently an unknown process since it's so rare, so the process to do so can be poorly documented and/or non-optimized.


The point is that, with one exception, you always have to register the owner and status (functioning/non-functioning) of a car.The one exception being cars built from scratch in a private area that never leaves that private area or transfers ownership.I'm not 100% sure what you are referring to when you say "de-register" but the DMV keeps the serial numbers on file along with the last owner of any non-operational car.And again if the ownership is transferred it needs to be recorded with the DMV.


if you want to transport it anywhere out of private property it has to be done following strict rules.

Why do you keep spouting this at me like it's something new? I've already summarized the "strict rules", which amounts to - the unregistered vehicle's tires never touch a public road. You can't tow it, you have to trailer it, and the trailer and towing vehicle need to be properly registered. The rules may be strict, but they aren't complicated. Understand?

What I'm saying is that cars and guns are materially very different in many ways.If you want to have equivalent laws for cars and guns then transporting non-operating guns would have very strict rules.Not rules like carrying on a flatbed but something like the gun will have to be disassembled.


I'm just reacting to the idea that gun owners would love to have the same rules as they do for cars, they/you wouldn't.

The point would be that it's a mixed bag, but on the whole positive.
Have to register guns:State will return said gun if it's stolen/lost and they find it
Need a permit to operate:Permit is valid in all 50 states and locations within them. NYC doesn't get to not recognize permits not issued there.
Insurance: Already covered by homeowners, probably be dirt cheap considering something like 1/3rd of families own one. The average gun is less likely to kill somebody than the average car, and suicides generally don't count for liability purposes

There's other things, but I don't have time to list them atm.


Sounds like you are for gun registration, surprising.Good for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report