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.

(Some Guy)   Too many criminals are paying $500 to a lawyer to establish a trust, then spending $15k more to buy a machine gun, $1k more to buy a silencer, $400 more in tax stamps and waiting 8-10 months to go kill a bunch of people   (blog.princelaw.com) divider line 346
    More: Stupid, rulemaking process, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, law enforcement officer, NICS, FFL  
•       •       •

12705 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 10:32:45 AM  

Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.


What?
 
2013-09-03 10:32:55 AM  

heili skrimsli: c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.


Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.

And I'd apply that to both trusts *AND* private NFA transfers.

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.
 
2013-09-03 10:34:01 AM  

AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?


It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.
 
2013-09-03 10:34:23 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.


I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?
 
2013-09-03 10:34:31 AM  

Fubini: smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

This is a horribly misguided sentiment. What you really ought to be doing is understanding the actual risk your weapon presents to your hearing.

Firing an M1 Garand (old school battle rifle firing .30-06) generates 168db of sound pressure, so one hearing protection device that reduces 30db will only take it down to 138db, which is still above the threshold of audible pain (130db) and well above the threshold for hearing damage at 85db. To safely fire such a weapon would require at a minimum both earmuffs and earplugs.

Silencers are only one way to reduce sound pressure, but a smart person uses all available tools at their disposal to protect their hearing.

Remember: All hearing damage is permanent. It might not feel like a lot today or tomorrow, but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.


And that's why I use ear protection when using loud machinery like the lawmower. It's not painful loud, but I know that if I have to shout to someone standing next to me in order to speak with them, then it's loud enough to do damage.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:07 AM  
I'd also point out that people submit articles with the actual headlines copypasta'd, so it's not like this is something unique or different.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:10 AM  

smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction.  33 is about the max.   So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection.  It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


And I should point out that the sound pressure delivered to the shooter is not just a function of weapon type and cartridge. A poorly designed .22 rifle can produce 145db of sound pressure at the shooter.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:03 AM  

dittybopper: I'd also point out that people submit articles with the actual headlines copypasta'd, so it's not like this is something unique or different.


That is true by definition.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:53 AM  

umad: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?


It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.
 
2013-09-03 10:38:25 AM  

Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-09-03 10:39:02 AM  

Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.


Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.
 
2013-09-03 10:41:29 AM  

smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?


HE SAID, 30 EARS OF BAT shiat WILL KILL YOU BETH.
 
2013-09-03 10:41:36 AM  

smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?


Maybe I should have phrased that better: all hearing damage (however slight) is cumulative.

Firing modern firearms with one form of hearing protection (just earmuffs or just earplugs) only nets about a 20-30db reduction in sound pressure. Unfortunately, most firearms generate sound pressures in the range of 140-170db, so one form of protection only gets you down to 110-140db. This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

Put simply: firing a modern handgun or rifle with only one form of hearing protection results in hearing damage  every time you pull the trigger. It's not enough to deafen you immediately, it's not enough to notice in a before/after comparison, but it does cause damage. If you shoot guns like that for years on end, that damage accumulates and generates a significant loss of hearing ability.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:09 AM  

Fubini: Maybe I should have phrased that better


It was a joke.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:31 AM  

Kredal: Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.


Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.
 
2013-09-03 10:45:45 AM  

redmid17: smells_like_meat: Fubini: but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

What?

HE SAID, 30 EARS OF BAT shiat WILL KILL YOU BETH.


BUT PAT SAID THERE WOULD BE NO METH.
 
2013-09-03 10:46:51 AM  

Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.


That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.
 
2013-09-03 10:48:09 AM  

dittybopper: AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?

It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.


Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

My two cents.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:25 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.


The ATF  is intentionally hamstrung because of the shiat they pulled on the public back in the 1970's and 1980's, as documented by the US Senate subcommittee on the Consitution.

This is the kind of thing that should get anyone mad, regardless of how you personally feel about guns:

The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearms
enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals
who lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun
confiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number of
sales-often as few as four-from their personal collections. Although each of the sales was
completely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having
"engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permits
a felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge or
intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of five
years in federal prison

...
In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and interpretations of law which
the Bureau had not published in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552. For instance,
beginning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that (pg.22) a dealer who sells to
a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows
that that individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other unqualified purchaser.
This position was never published in the Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications
which Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in violation of existing law
...
The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the Bureau has formulated a
requirement, of which dealers were not informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of
sales even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than merely failing to publish this
requirement. At one point, even as it was prosecuting a dealer on this charge (admitting that he had
no criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I. Hayakawa to indicate that there
was no such legal requirement and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau has stated that that is not the
Bureau's position and that such sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by licensed firearms dealers as stating
that such sales were in fact legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the Bureau
has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended
to prevent "secret lawmaking" by administrative bodies.


That's the reason why the ATF was "hamstrung":  Because it was violating the due process rights (never mind the Second Amendment rights) of the people they were prosecuting, so much so that Congress felt it had to step in and limit what the ATF was allowed to do.

Even if you think guns should be completely outlawed, I'm sure you would agree that secret rule-making by government agencies in order to advance that is unAmerican, and sets a really, really bad precedent.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:38 AM  

pyrotek85: Kredal: Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession.  Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home.  She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in.  She has access to it, and therefore possession.  OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out.  While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find.  But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust.  Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.


Paranoid?  I formed a trust for the same reason.
 
2013-09-03 10:52:40 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper: AltheaToldMe: alienated: 4/10, subby. You'll get some bites

1, Skim article - Check.
2, Scroll down to comments section. - Check
3, Copypasta the Weeners FTFA. - Check
4, Submit said copypasta as 'clever' headline to Fark. - Check
5, Instant Green Light - Check.

Da phark?

0/10 for lack of any cognitive thinking.

/Really, Fark?
//Seriously?

It worked, didn't it?

/Subby.

Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

My two cents.


This is actually an update, not a repeat, but don't let actually reading the link get in the way of that sentiment you got there.
 
2013-09-03 10:53:08 AM  

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.

Oil filters are silly unless you're really good at point shooting or at point blank range.

Laser sight works fine.


And, considering use with a handgun, you'd also need to make sure the thing will unlock and cycle with the weight on the end and no Nielsen mechanism to help. You'd also have to worry about serious blowback if you had the oil filter's threaded side facing the breech, if turned the other way, you'd have to figure a reliable way to keep it aligned without worrying about deforming. Oil filter as suppressor isn't all that good an idea.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:03 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.


No he doesn't.  One of his advisors told him this would appease his gun grabber base.
 
2013-09-03 10:55:45 AM  

Zane256: Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.


What about a few hundred of those short impulses over the course of a couple hours (like a typical day at the range)?
 
2013-09-03 10:55:53 AM  

pyrotek85: umad: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?

It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.


Now, remember, "murder, OMG the CHILDREN" is just the villain in our quest to remove ALL gunz ALL the time.
 
2013-09-03 10:58:46 AM  

JesseL: Zane256: Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.

What about a few hundred of those short impulses over the course of a couple hours (like a typical day at the range)?


At 85 dbs? No big deal. Any sound over 140 db without hearing protection, however, has the potential for hearing damage. Even a single gunshot without hearing protection can result in hearing damage.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:33 AM  

dr_blasto: Also, suppressors shouldn't be NFA items.


This.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:42 AM  
jasonwilliams400com.startlogic.com
Cop math...
 
2013-09-03 11:02:18 AM  

Fark It: At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature. Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen. And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement). Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....


Yeah, how many crimes will this prevent anyway?

plausdeny: In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common. Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.


Agreed.  Unless it can drive the report down to levels to escape notice it's of no use to criminals and shouldn't be a regulated item at all.

technofiend: This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.


What's the need for stealth?  Get a bunch of guys with rifles.  Get an 18-wheeler and set up a bunch of shooter's positions on top of the trailer.  Drive into zombie territory and make a ruckus.  If too many show up that they are getting close despite the guys with the rifles you move on a bit and repeat.  Why go zombie hunting when the zombies will perfectly well throw themselves on your guns anyway?

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...


It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm anyway.  If you're going to break the law to get one he's pointing out an easier way to do it.

pedrop357: This is just a way to deny NFA transfers by requiring all of them to have CLEO signoff. The administration can pretend that they did nothing to stop anyone legally allowed from obtaining firearms.


Thank you.  I was wondering how this was actually an issue.

dittybopper: Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.


Sounds like a good idea.  That gives you something to challenge if the reason is invalid.
 
2013-09-03 11:18:25 AM  
Cats also work
www.games10.de
www.dealspwn.com
 
2013-09-03 11:22:01 AM  
This "loophole" was always for people/corporations intending to buy several class2/3 weapons and or silencers.  Only one or two of each and it was still cheaper and easier just to go through the standard ATF bullshiat.  But especially the precision shooters often have to buy one muffler for each of their rifles, either do to different caliber or whatever.

gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?


It is called that, pretty much by pretentious douchebags who are concerned that Hollywood has forever ruined the term "silencer", OR they are techish and know full well that a "silencer" doesn't silence anything, but instead lowers the decibel level to a more acceptable range to prevent hearing damage.  Oh, and they are pretentious douchebags, too. These are the same people that refer to a rifle and it's bolt on accessories as a "weapons system," while people like me would call the same rifle a "stick with glass and a nightlight."

Henry Maxim invented the damn things, and he called them silencers.  Good enough for me, although I really prefer the term "muffler" like you would associate with a car engine because it's the exact same technology.
 
2013-09-03 11:23:47 AM  

smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.


And even at that reduction, if you shoot a lot, you're still doing damage to your hearing, especially if you're shooting at indoor ranges.

Wouldn't you take a 60 dB reduction in noise over a 30 dB reduction? I would.

dittybopper: Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.


The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.
 
2013-09-03 11:27:19 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread.


This is *NOT* a repeat.  It's about something that is happening *NOW*.  Read the date on TFA:  August 30th, 2013, for an ATF Notice of Proposed Rule-Making dated on August 29th.

I haven't posted anything about that NPR.


(Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed).

Thanks.

 But dude...you're completely obsessed.

No.  I post in other threads about other things, especially if it touches on things like radios, or SIGINT, or one of my biggest advocacy areas, Safe Haven laws.  It's just that you're suffering from observational bias:  You come into gun threads, or ones that may be tangentially related, and there I am.  Well, of course.  You don't see me in the ubiquitous threads about the Kardashians, because I couldn't care less about them, so I don't post in them.  Often enough, though, I'll be posting humorous or punning comments in threads unrelated to guns.  Like this one:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916608/Egyptian-authorities-detain-sus pe cted-spy-swan-Officials-figure-that-you-cant-spell-swan-without-letter s-NSA

In fact, I've posted in several different threads today:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7915701/-7235-pound-alligator-sets-Miss is sippi-record-Record-lasts-for-just-hours-when-727-pound-gator-is-taken -With-holy-shiat-pics-Alligator-trifecta-in-play

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916759/In-case-you-were-wondering-its- no t-illegal-to-sell-anti-NSA-shirts-that-use-NSA-logo

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916829/What-So-youre-not-actually-allo we d-to-shampoo-your-privates-on-a-bus-anymore

http://www.fark.com/comments/7916088/Its-worse-then-expected-NSA-has nt -been-spying-on-just-a-few-thousand-even-million-people-Theyve-been-sp ying-on-Brazilians

and this thread is the only one that is gun-related or that I mention guns in.

You dominate every firearm discussion thread

Consider this statement in conjunction with this statement of yours:  Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed

Would you rather the discussions be dominated by people who don't know what they Hell they are talking about, on either side?  And yes, I've had to correct some pro-2A posters in the past.

and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics...

Just for you, two of my cats:

i39.tinypic.com
Champion Mountcascade's Starlight, and just plain Freya.

 I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry.

Idolatry is the worship of something.  I don't worship anything or anybody.  I'm too old and cynical for that crap.  Everything and everybody is wrong in some way, including me.

It also discounts the value of your opinion.

Wait, because I'm well-informed, and because I try to spread the knowledge that I have (including correcting the misconceptions of those "on my side"), that discounts the value?

Have we truly slid into Idiocracy?

My two cents.

Don't expect any change.

/In both senses of the word.
 
2013-09-03 11:32:47 AM  

heili skrimsli: The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.


You seemed to have missed this part of my post:

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.

It's not politically feasible to do what you want right now.  One step at a time.
 
2013-09-03 11:33:30 AM  
Zero is now too high of a number?
 
2013-09-03 11:35:40 AM  
dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."
 
2013-09-03 11:35:59 AM  

StrangeQ: Or we could just stop treating corporations like people


Or we could treat them more like people... if corporations commit murder, they should be subject to the death penalty just like an individual would.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:17 AM  
What blows is that I have 5 suppressors in jail and waiting for another one right now.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:54 AM  
I've lost all ability to write coherent sentences. Enjoy your productive and informative conversation.
 
2013-09-03 11:38:25 AM  

Devo: Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

et's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

 
2013-09-03 11:39:18 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."


The difference between ditty and Bevets is that ditty is correct. Well that and Bevets possibly being some type of religious trolling bot or cyborg or something.
 
2013-09-03 11:40:33 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dittybopper:

Despite my dick-like phrasing, I'd just hate for you to see you become "Gun Bevets."


You speak as if you're not already "anti gun Bevets" yourself.
 
2013-09-03 11:43:36 AM  
As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.
 
2013-09-03 11:47:52 AM  
*sigh* and here I sit in a state where I can't have any of those things to begin with.

/need to move.
//soon
 
2013-09-03 11:48:26 AM  

EvilEgg: dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist.  That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.


We don't need to combat voter fraud because no one gets convicted of voter fraud just like we don't need to combat excesses by the banking industry because banking industry executives don't get convicted.
 
2013-09-03 11:48:58 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I've lost all ability to write coherent sentences. Enjoy your productive and informative conversation.


I knew what you meant.

And while I appreciate the warning, I don't think I'm capable of sinking down the level of Steve B.  Bevets truly is a one trick pony, and while I won't begrudge anyone their faith, I will say that often faith is something that can blind us to actual truths.  Not "truths" in the metaphorical sense, but "truth" in the sense of data that can be proven by rigorous, evidence based, logical argument.  Formal logic, not "because I say so" logic.

There have been times when I've started to post something, then looked for evidence to back up my claims, only to find that I was wrong in my understanding of the situation.  Usually I catch it before I post, but not always.  And I've posted "mea culpas" before.

Speaking of gun pictures, though, would you like to see a pic of my *OTHER* cat?
 
2013-09-03 11:53:53 AM  

redmid17: The difference between ditty and Bevets is that ditty is correct.


While I appreciate the vote of confidence, that's not always entirely true.

Well that and Bevets possibly being some type of religious trolling bot or cyborg or something.

How do you know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?

Hell, how do *I* know that I'm not some kind of extremely sophisticated bot?  Wouldn't a sufficiently advanced one be capable of conversations like this?

While I am subby, and as much as I like the attention, I feel like this thread is becoming about me, not the NPR.  I also feel like dancing, wanna dance the night away....
 
2013-09-03 11:54:30 AM  

zepher: I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".


And yet the nation is awash in legally owned guns, and more are being made and bought every day. I think you overstate your case just a teeny tiny bit, melodrama doesn't really help.

/But as a gun-owner, there can be a ridiculous amount of regulation in areas that hardly make sense.
//California regs are even worse.
///Hasn't stopped me from having one.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:57 AM  
2x SWR Spectre IIs
YHM Stainless Phantom 7.62
AAC Ti Rant .45
Surefire SOCOM556-RC
Surefire SOCOM762-RC

I do all my suppressor shopping at Silencer Shop.

Good deals, good selection, best customer service in the business.
 
2013-09-03 12:00:30 PM  

base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.


How did you manage to obtain a device after only an eight month wait?

/Submitted NFA paperwork in Februray.
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report