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  
•       •       •

12690 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:05 AM (32 weeks 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 06:32:14 PM

69gnarkill69: Magorn: mbillips: Fubini: Magorn: Pretty Boy Floyd's colt Automatic

This is not what we call a machinegun. In that usage, 'automatic' is a jargon term that means 'self-loading and extracting'... in other words, it's what we'd call a semi-automatic weapon today. At the time, it was used to distinguish that type of weapon from something like a revolver, bolt-action, or lever-action gun. (The revolver doesn't extract casings after use, the bolt action and the lever action both loads and extracts, but the action must be operated manually.)

Case in point: Colt didn't make any machineguns at that time, other than the M1895 machinegun, which is definitely *not* a crime gun. It's a tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine gun.

Pretty Boy Floyd's criminal career was in the early '30s. Colt manufactured the Maxim/Vickers and the Browning M1917 under license during WWI. They also manufactured 15,000 Thompson submachine guns.

But what he's referring to is the "baby machine gun," which a certain San Antonio gunsmith made from the Colt 1911 and supplied to gangsters and bank robbers, including Floyd.

Yeah, this puppy:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 540x309]
Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning

Sin against God or ahead of his time?
Old and busted:
[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]
New hotness:
[img25.imageshack.us image 640x448]


EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.
 
2013-09-03 06:36:26 PM

heili skrimsli: ZeroPly: So he calls 911 in a panic like he just found an anthrax lab. It was hard for me and Mikey to keep straight faces as we carted away all that sweet, sweet loot in our squad car.

I would keep my mouth shut in a 'to the grave' kind of way about something like that.


utahraptor2: ZeroPly: Back when I was a cop some uneducated fool bought a house as-is at an estate sale.

You could have educated him.

You know, to help our cause of preserving the rights of American citizens. Perhaps even offered to take him to the range. These hysterical, sheltered, rich liberals are smarter than we give them credit for - that's not to say they're smart. And they blindly look up to authority figures with guns, with the eyes of an awestruck child who's never seen a hard day.

It would have been an easy chance.


Pretty sure he/she was riffing on an earlier poster who described the same scenario from the new homeowner's POV.
 
2013-09-03 06:43:20 PM

mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.



When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

i135.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-03 06:52:55 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: I was fairly unimpressed the first time I saw a Slidefire stock for sale. I figured it was like the rest of the things like that, dating back to the '80s. The first time I used one? Damned if it didn't work, right out of the box, first time, every time. Sure, it teaches bad habits, but throwing an under $400 stock on a $500 rifle and it's damned near as good as a registered receiver gun that was going for $10K? As a range toy: "Me Likey."


An ex-mil buddy of mine has one, and according to him while it's somewhat slower than true full auto (though not appreciably), it's quite a bit easier to control. I'd never fired an automatic weapon before (still haven't, actually. I need to remedy that), and after just a little practice I could unload a magazine into a pumpkin at 25yd with only a couple strays. Everyone I've talked to on the subject has said that'd be pretty farking difficult without a lot more upper body strength and practice than I have.

/Also, we spent more on ammo in an hour than he did on the stock.
 
2013-09-03 07:03:22 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: An ex-mil buddy of mine has one, and according to him while it's somewhat slower than true full auto (though not appreciably), it's quite a bit easier to control.


I've professionally fired a pretty wide variety of full autos over the years, and their cyclic rates vary, from around 350 RPM to 1200 rpm.  The Slidefires are close enough that I wasn't able to tell the difference without using equipment to measure the actual ROF.  Of course, I tend to run mine on an AR chambered in 5.45x39mm, due to the ammo cost difference.  In other words:  "Close enough for government work."  lol
 
2013-09-03 07:06:51 PM

utahraptor2:  dittybopper:

Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: /And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the ad hominem game.

My Boobies in this thread was 3 hours before you joined it with your utter lack of understanding of the topic at hand. I made three posts before you showed up to show us all how little you actually know by claiming that the CDC has been 'prevented' from actually studying the statistics and demographics homicides involving firearms.

Several people called you out on that, and pointed you to the actual study, so you decided to name-drop Adam Lanza as if his criminal actions had anything whatever to do with NFA items (they didn't), and you were again called out by several people. In response to that, you moved the goal posts and tried to claim that him murdering his mother to steal her firearms is 'the same idea' as felons getting relatives to create NFA trusts and buy machine guns for them.

And again, more than one person called you out on it, but you decided that I came into this thread solely to persecute you. On the contrary, I recognized your username and the type of posts I've seen  you make before, and pointed out that this is your usual style so that people could potentially avoid wasting their time trying to actually educate you on the facts.


You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.


Fine: You  coming in to a conversation I was having with other people. Here, I've bolded the parts for you that are relevant to my argument. Including from other posts.

The CDC  was previously banned from studying gun violence. That was a  big shiatstorm that Obama addressed; I wasn't aware the results had come out yet. As I said: I goofed.

As for the rest? The people in this thread are implying that NFA guns are somehow not subject to the same issues non-NFA guns are. Re-reading, I am coming off as strange, because quite frankly I do not see the logic in that. If you're going to argue that NFA guns should be exempt from the rules of non-NFA guns, you  first have to prove that they are  fundamentally different in a relevant way. At no point was this proof ever offered. My fault in this argument was to not ask for this proof straight off and instead accept the assumption, which I do take responsibility for. Next time I have a discussion, I'm going to take a minute and walk out the logic before posting, instead of going with the obvious response.
 
2013-09-03 07:10:01 PM

PsiChick: Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.


Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.
 
2013-09-03 07:14:00 PM

Molavian: Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.


And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.
 
2013-09-03 07:18:13 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.


When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

[i135.photobucket.com image 120x61]


Pffft.  I cut my teeth on steel, wood, and flint:

img144.imageshack.us

Kids have it too soft today.
 
2013-09-03 07:18:58 PM

Molavian: PsiChick: Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.


The problem with breaking things down by race is that you're essentially breaking things down by poverty. So if you'd like to suggest we solve our poverty problem in America...yeah, let's do it!

Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.
 
2013-09-03 07:23:36 PM
lulz
 
2013-09-03 07:24:15 PM
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-03 07:42:22 PM

PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.


Like getting rid of bars?
 
2013-09-03 07:44:46 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.


PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.


So we ban alcohol.  Problem solved.
 
2013-09-03 07:48:58 PM

Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.


Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?
 
2013-09-03 07:57:42 PM

Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: And if you read the CDC study you'll see that folks should have access to guns or alcohol, but not both, and getting rid of alcohol had a bigger impact.

PsiChick: Or in the meantime we could use the more general method that's already been proven and doesn't rely on needing political utopia.

So we ban alcohol.  Problem solved.


One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are  exactly the same!
 
2013-09-03 08:00:17 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?


We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.
 
2013-09-03 08:04:25 PM

PsiChick: I'd be a-okay with that. Better use of our time then going after potheads.


I agree........

Kill the war on drugs. You could probably eliminate 7k gun related deaths a year*.


*numbers provided by Rectal Institute of Statistical Consulting LLC
 
2013-09-03 08:05:00 PM

PsiChick: utahraptor2:  dittybopper:

Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: /And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the ad hominem game.

My Boobies in this thread was 3 hours before you joined it with your utter lack of understanding of the topic at hand. I made three posts before you showed up to show us all how little you actually know by claiming that the CDC has been 'prevented' from actually studying the statistics and demographics homicides involving firearms.

Several people called you out on that, and pointed you to the actual study, so you decided to name-drop Adam Lanza as if his criminal actions had anything whatever to do with NFA items (they didn't), and you were again called out by several people. In response to that, you moved the goal posts and tried to claim that him murdering his mother to steal her firearms is 'the same idea' as felons getting relatives to create NFA trusts and buy machine guns for them.

And again, more than one person called you out on it, but you decided that I came into this thread solely to persecute you. On the contrary, I recognized your username and the type of posts I've seen  you make before, and pointed out that this is your usual style so that people could potentially avoid wasting their time trying to actually educate you on the facts.

You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.

Fine: You  coming in to a conversation I was having with other people. Here, I've bolded the parts for you that are relevant to my argument. Including from other posts.

The CDC  was previously banned from studying gun violence. That was a  big shiatstorm that Obama addressed; I wasn't aware the results had come out yet. As I said: I goofed.

As for the rest? The people in this thread are implying that NFA guns are somehow not subject to the same issues non-NFA guns are. Re-reading, I am coming off as strange, because quite frankly I do not see the logic in that. If you're going to argue that NFA guns should be exempt from the rules of non-NFA guns, you  first have to prove that they are  fundamentally different in a relevant way. At no point was this proof ever offered. My fault in this argument was to not ask for this proof straight off and instead accept the assumption, which I do take responsibility for. Next time I have a discussion, I'm going to take a minute and walk out the logic before posting, instead of going with the obvious response.


Here's a clue for you about the CDC:

Neither of the Cs stand for crime.

As for the idea that you were having some sort of private conversation that I intruded upon, you posted publicly in a thread. Your ignorant, factually incorrect and intellectually facile comments are fair game for calling out, by me or anyone else who recognizes the bullshiat for what it is.
 
2013-09-03 08:09:04 PM

Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?

We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.


The war on alcohol worked out so well for us the first time, what with creating the organized crime and gangster culture that Hoover and his FBI lied about and manipulated to give us the NFA atrocity of 1934, and played that into the GCA of 1968 and the problem laden FOPA of 1986 that left us with the stink of the illegally passed Hughes Amendment.

Yep, the war on alcohol. Great idea.
 
2013-09-03 08:14:20 PM
RTFA and it's stupid. I'm not a lawyer or gun nut so it's just a bunch of gibberish. Want my support? Write in English.
 
2013-09-03 08:18:58 PM

Giltric: PsiChick: I'd be a-okay with that. Better use of our time then going after potheads.

I agree........

Kill the war on drugs. You could probably eliminate 7k gun related deaths a year*.


*numbers provided by Rectal Institute of Statistical Consulting LLC


...Ironically, that probably  would lower the homicide rate overall.

heili skrimsli: Here's a clue for you about the CDC:

Neither of the Cs stand for crime.

As for the idea that you were having some sort of private conversation that I intruded upon, you posted publicly in a thread. Your ignorant, factually incorrect and intellectually facile comments are fair game for calling out, by me or anyone else who recognizes the bullshiat for what it is.


The CDC collects data on  any public health threat. How do you not know that?
 
2013-09-03 08:19:03 PM

heili skrimsli: Molavian: Noticeably F.A.T.: Molavian: So we ban alcohol. Problem solved.

Get's rid of all sorts of violence, not just with guns. Not to mention all the incidental crap like drunk driving and frat boys taking headers off balconies. What's not to love?

We could replace The War on Drugs with The War on Alcohol.  This is really a Win/WIn.

The war on alcohol worked out so well for us the first time, what with creating the organized crime and gangster culture that Hoover and his FBI lied about and manipulated to give us the NFA atrocity of 1934, and played that into the GCA of 1968 and the problem laden FOPA of 1986 that left us with the stink of the illegally passed Hughes Amendment.

Yep, the war on alcohol. Great idea.


You're not seeing the bigger picture here.
 
2013-09-03 08:30:02 PM

dittybopper: Giltric: The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.


Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.
 
2013-09-03 08:39:07 PM

Skyd1v: redmid17: Skyd1v: redmid17: PsiChick: redmid17: Care to wager how many times a family member has purchased an NFA weapon for a relative who used it in a crime?

Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

I don't normally bet with dead criminals. However if he did take that bet, I daresay he (and you) would be disappointed with the results.

Scroll up. I'm referring to the principle, not the weapon type--gun crime isn't really something that depends on the type of gun, the attacker will use what's available.

Your principle is also heavily flawed. Any execution of a crime or possession of an NFA weapon in use of a crime automatically tacks on a *long* time of mandatory prison (ie 30 years for use of a silencer in a crime). There is a very, very small advantage to using an NFA weapon, which has been seriously tracked throughout its life and a $200 kel-tec that has been passed around more than the village bicycle versus all the disadvantages. Criminals aren't always smart but availability is only part of what is going on. Criminals value portable and concealable weapons. That is why handguns are by far the most used weapon in crimes, especially murders. Rifles and shotguns are much easier to get than handguns in many places, especially in cities like NYC and Chicago, and there is no federal requirement for FFLs to register sales of multiple long guns in a short period of time by one person.

Actually, this depends on what state you are in.  For some reason I remember the field agent mentioning this during my interview.

"In August 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate similar reporting requirements on the multiple sales related to certain rifles for a period of three years. Multiple Sales For Certain Rifles requires all federal firearms licensees in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to submit reports of multiple sales or other dispositi ...


I think there has been separate reporting/forms on the FFLs side for people buying multiple handguns and people buying multiple "assault" weapons at once for a while now. I think they expanded it to include all long rifles in the border states, not just "assault" weapons.
 
2013-09-03 08:44:05 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: A Friendly Color: Derp.It took me just under a year from the day I had enough money and knew what weapon I wanted. You literally have to get your local Chief of Police to sign a letter saying you're okay. If you live in a big town? Well...good luck.

The CLEO signoff requirement under the NFA is quite literally the last Federally-enforced Jim Crow law.

/not sarcasm.


I've heard lots of people claiming that sheriffs can be very friendly but local PD not so much.
 
2013-09-03 08:49:05 PM

Giltric: dittybopper: Giltric: The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.


My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.
 
2013-09-03 09:04:42 PM
"You be wantin' my signature on what now, mon?"

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 09:07:15 PM

dittybopper: Giltric: dittybopper: Giltric: The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants

NYC, or NYS?  Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.

My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.


The farmer started using pig shiat on the lot across the road from them just to turn the screws a bit.....
 
2013-09-03 09:29:00 PM

heili skrimsli: I've seen you around in a lot of threads condescending over topics that you don't know anything about, and generally lecturing people on whatever you learned in your freshman women's studies class, and considering the responses you're getting from Click Click D'oh and others in this thread, I'm not the only person who doesn't hold your posts in high esteem.


She is hands down, the stupidest person who regularly posts on this site.
 
2013-09-03 09:38:22 PM

zepher: 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 (nib ...


HAHAHAHAHA. oh god, hahahaha. yes. Very funny, would read again.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:40 PM

umad: heili skrimsli: I've seen you around in a lot of threads condescending over topics that you don't know anything about, and generally lecturing people on whatever you learned in your freshman women's studies class, and considering the responses you're getting from Click Click D'oh and others in this thread, I'm not the only person who doesn't hold your posts in high esteem.

She is hands down, the stupidest person who regularly posts on this site.


Do Genevieve Marie and CruiserTwelve still post?

They might give her some competition.
 
2013-09-03 10:12:34 PM

meanmutton: 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.


You have a point.

paygun: No he doesn't. One of his advisors told him this would appease his gun grabber base.


Hey, I take the man at his word.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:42 PM

PsiChick: One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are exactly the same!


You're right. Not in the way you think you are (at least, not according to the CDC), but you are right. According to the study you wanted done, reduced access to alcohol has been shown to reduce violence across the board (including gun violence), while gun bans have shown little to no evidence of reducing gun violence.
 
2013-09-03 11:59:32 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are exactly the same!

You're right. Not in the way you think you are (at least, not according to the CDC), but you are right. According to the study you wanted done, reduced access to alcohol has been shown to reduce violence across the board (including gun violence), while gun bans have shown little to no evidence of reducing gun violence.


In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.
 
2013-09-04 02:01:44 AM

PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.


It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.
 
2013-09-04 02:54:50 AM

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.


That's why I did it that way. I want my wife to have legal access.

If it was registered just to me then she wouldn't even be allowed to have the combination to the safe my NFA items reside in.
 
2013-09-04 08:35:31 AM

dittybopper: Secret Master of All Flatulence: mbillips: EWWWWWW!!! You got Glock plastic on my real gunz.


When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one.  One great thing about the Glock:  If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber.  Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

Kids have it too soft today.


I wasn't trying to make things soft for my munchkins, I just hate rust on my guns.
 
2013-09-04 08:54:29 AM

PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.



Prohibition never works.  If there's a demand, somebody will supply it, and people who want to misuse whatever simply will.  Add to that the fact that if you had your way, you would quite literally provoke a flat-out civil war.  How many people are you willing to kill in an effort to try yet again your already failed ideology?  People like you are an absolute threat to our basic freedoms and civil liberties.  We will not be disarmed, period.  We are a free people, and one way or the other, we will remain so until we die.

Awhile back, right after Newtown, I learned of a conversation at the proverbial water cooler between two members of different branches of government.  This was when there was actual talk of the Feinsteinian "go around to each house and collect them all" type of legislation.  Two professionals were calmly and rationally talking about quite literally exchanging fire with each other if things warranted it in their minds.  It reminded me of a convesation I had back in the '90s, shortly after the "29 Palms" survey became public knowledge.  I put the controverisal question to a young piss and vinegar "Ring Knocker", and was surprised by his response, which was, and I quote:  "Not only no, but HELL no, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order."   There's a metric fark-ton of us out there that took and take the Oaths we've sworn seriously.  Your ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses in the last century.  "Never again.  Not on our watch."
 
2013-09-04 12:21:38 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.


You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

Secret Master of All Flatulence: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.


Prohibition never works.  If there's a demand, somebody will supply it, and people who want to misuse whatever simply will.  Add to that the fact that if you had your way, you would quite literally provoke a flat-out civil war.  How many people are you willing to kill in an effort to try yet again your already failed ideology?  People like you are an absolute threat to our basic freedoms and civil liberties.  We will not be disarmed, period.  We are a free people, and one way or the other, we will remain so until we die.

Awhile back, right after Newtown, I learned of a conversation at the proverbial water cooler between two members of different branches of government.  This was when there was actual talk of the Feinsteinian "go around to each house and collect them all" type of legislation.  Two professionals were calmly and rationally talking about quite literally exchanging fire with each other if things warranted it in their minds.  It reminded me of a convesation I had back in the '90s, shortly after the "29 Palms" survey became public knowledge.  I put the controverisal question to a young piss and vinegar "Ring Knocker", and was surprised by his response, which was, and I quote:  "Not only no, but HELL no, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order."   There's a metric fark-ton of us out there that took and take the Oaths we've sworn seriously.  Your ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses in the last century.  "Never again.  Not on our watch."


...Uh, genius? I've been arguing against prohibition, using the  actual gangsters Prohibition created as an example, this entire thread. You may have picked the wrong person to pull the 'any restrictions = total gun ban' strawman on.

/And what the hell are you talking about, my ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses? What, are you confusing me with a Nazi or something?
 
2013-09-04 12:42:10 PM

PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.


You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.
 
2013-09-04 01:54:20 PM

redmid17: PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.


Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?
 
2013-09-04 02:10:08 PM

PsiChick: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.


So you wanted the CDC study so you could promptly ignore it since it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm shocked.
 
2013-09-04 03:18:32 PM

PsiChick: redmid17: PsiChick: Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it  created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?


Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?
 
2013-09-04 06:37:04 PM

redmid17: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?

Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?


Nope. If you're right, I'm sure you can give me a valid citation.
 
2013-09-04 09:24:15 PM

PsiChick: redmid17: The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?

Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?

Nope. If you're right, I'm sure you can give me a valid citation.


* Jesus first of all you have the war on drugs, the high rate of citizen imprisonment, and lack of a comparable safety net to other countries.
* You have a 2000 mile border with a third world country which has dozens of drug cartels operating with autonomy in large areas of the northern border. Prime recipe for easy drug trafficking, and that's not even counting the various routes from Carribbean routes.
* ~80% of homicides and homicides offenders have an arrest record, the vast majority of those tend to be very extensive. Criminals killing criminals.
* We have, and have always had, far more guns per capita than any other first world country. Even switzerland only has half as many guns per capita as we do, and our civilian number has been skyrocketing over the past decade.

A gun prohibition is not legally possibly without amending the constitution and is completely not viable beyond that. Addressing the root causes of poverty, crime rates, and adding a safety net will do far more than a gun ban. So easy bullet points:

1) end the war on drugs
2) focus on jail rehabilitation for non-violent offenses
3) actually enforce current firearms laws (ie felons, fugivitives, and domestic abusers trying to fill out 4473 - low hanging fruit) and give harsher sentences to people who commit violent offenses with a firearm (no chance of parole).
4) Make sure the taxes become more progressive
5) single payer healthcare system that includes mental health
 
Displayed 46 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