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.

(The Raw Story)   'Guns & Ammo' magazine publishes a thoughtful, well-researched editorial in favor of firearms safety legislation. Which is, of course, an unjustified assault on OUR FREEDOMS and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED   (rawstory.com) divider line 335
    More: Obvious, Guns & Ammo, legislation, firearms, Language interpretation, editorials, safety  
•       •       •

2466 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 04:31:21 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.


These are not mutually exclusive issues.  Why not both?
 
2013-11-07 04:35:44 PM  

sprawl15: It does no such thing, unless you are suggesting that the definition of "keep" does not include ownership of property outside of your current city limits. And, again:


Prior to enactment of the law, residents of such firearms could legally own such firearms within the city.

After enactment of the law, residents of such firearms could no longer legally own those same firearms within the city, even if they had owned those firearms prior to enactment of the law.

Additionally, the law did not prohibit ownership of property outside of the city limits because the New York city government cannot legally regulate property outside of the New York city limits.

Based upon your previous assertion, and the assertion of COMALite J, the law enacted by the City of New York violates the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution.

f you want to move the goalposts now, that's fine.

I have relocated no scoring structures; I originally noted that the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution does not preclude a government -- including the federal government -- from prohibiting, at some future date, the possession of a currently legal item.
 
2013-11-07 04:36:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: What are the first seven words of the Constitution?


Which has nothing to do with my point.  Just because 'we' are part of the government does not limit or hinder the government's ability to violate the governing bounds set by the constitution.  For example, just because the goverment effed up the RoE and viloated the 4th Amendment in every way possible, does not mean that the citizens voted on or endorsed this action.
 
2013-11-07 04:36:37 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Nina_Hartley's_Ass

Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.

What do you imagine you're trying to say, here? The only policy anyone wants out of Ruby Ridge is "hey, maybe government officials shouldn't be abusive dicks." Guess what? Most government officials who opined on the matter agree.

So what, exactly, are you trying to say?


Is Nina_Hartley's_Ass not merely attempting to express irrational disdain and contempt for all firearm owners, as is the case in every discussion?
 
2013-11-07 04:38:33 PM  
Dimensio

Is Nina_Hartley's_Ass not merely attempting to express irrational disdain and contempt for all firearm owners, as is the case in every discussion?

Well, yes, but I can always hope for more.
 
2013-11-07 04:43:37 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: Zeno-25: Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

*snerk* I strongly urge you not to test your hypothesis, traitor.


I'm not advocating it, just stating that there would be an insurgency before you ever saw a an AR weilding Teabagger on an armored hoveround take on the USMC.
 
2013-11-07 04:44:10 PM  

sprawl15: The dissonance between what the law actually said and what the AG allowed to occur caused all kinds of issues, including arrests of people who didn't have a detachable magazine on their weapon. That went up to the courts, who said the AG was a farking idiot and shouldn't have let that happen and that all of those guns were assault weapons. This was followed by a series of amnesty periods where one could register their firearms after the fact (covering them under § 12285), which also were put to an end by the courts.


You're pretty much correct up until this point. The California DA thought that these weapons could be owned legally and registered. He reversed that position in 1998 and because of the confusion that caused the CA legislature had to make a clear law deciding the issue. That's what I linked to. Even if you had previously registered one of those rifles they had to be disposed of or given up after that law came into effect.
 
2013-11-07 04:45:55 PM  

Dimensio: Based upon your previous assertion, and the assertion of COMALite J, the law enacted by the City of New York violates the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution.


Incorrect. As I said before:

sprawl15: still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city

That agency is incredibly important because were no such agency given it would very clearly be a violation of ex post facto.

Dimensio: I originally noted that the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution does not preclude a government -- including the federal government -- from prohibiting, at some future date, the possession of a currently legal item.


No, you noted:

Dimensio: The [ex post facto] clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

There are distinctions. You supposedly hold yourself to a higher level of argument, so why are you engaging in pettiness like fairweather shifting of your arguments?
 
2013-11-07 04:52:33 PM  

HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.


Not until the checks bounce.
 
2013-11-07 04:53:23 PM  
My philosophy is pretty selfish. I have a large collection of penis extensions, but fully favor extensive gun control, because 1--criminals will never steal and use them as soon as they become more controlled, and 2--you're all f*cking insane. The States are full of mentally unbalanced idiots, and most of you should be superglued to your disabled Go-Go Ultra X 3-Wheel Travel Mobility scooters. The mental disorder situation here is only going to get worse, since apparently winning partisan wars and treating symptoms are far more important than solving problems.

I used to make a big deal about how I was a "responsible gun enthusiast" in response to the label "gun nut", but really, I want what you disingenuous, intellectually dishonest morons (Hi Jon Stewart!) want, as long as mine aren't taken away.
 
2013-11-07 04:55:26 PM  

sprawl15: That agency is incredibly important because were no such agency given it would very clearly be a violation of ex post facto.


You are attaching an artificial constraint; the city of New York was unable to regulate firearms outside of the city limits, thus owned firearms moved out of the city could not be affected by any city laws. Nonetheless, the owners of such firearms were no longer able to keep their firearms within the city, when previously they had been able to do so.

By your same reasoning, a federal law would not violate what you claim to be an "ex post facto" prohibition" because owners could transport their firearms outside of the country, where federal law would have no jurisdiction.
 
2013-11-07 05:00:32 PM  

odinsposse: The California DA thought that these weapons could be owned legally and registered. He reversed that position in 1998 and because of the confusion that caused the CA legislature had to make a clear law deciding the issue.


Only due to the pressure of the courts - the Dingman case in particular going up to the state supreme court and the backing of Dingman and the increasingly obvious conclusion that the court would draw (old old news article).

odinsposse: Even if you had previously registered one of those rifles they had to be disposed of or given up after that law came into effect.


They always needed to be disposed of. That's the whole point - the weapons were never legally brought into the state and sold to owners, because the Executive branch decided to ignore what the Legislative legislated. Those imported rifles and mods were explicitly against the law and always were explicitly against the law. The law you linked did not change that. The purpose of the law that you linked was to abrogate those who illegally bought an illegally imported firearm without malice of criminal penalties. The state bent over backwards allowing not only registration (early rounds of which were upheld, the later ones not so) but backwards modification to allow one to keep those rifles. Now, why that AG wasn't thrown in jail is beyond me, but something something California.

But to call that a parallel with a confiscation of legally purchased items is silly. A hypothetical where the state of Georgia's AG decides to allow import/sale of weapons banned by the NFA and then the Fed steps in and takes the weapons out of the hands of those who were illegally sold the weapons while providing for more than fair reimbursement and no criminal penalties is far closer to what happened with the SKS rifles in Cali.
 
2013-11-07 05:01:17 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.


The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.
 
2013-11-07 05:08:02 PM  

Dimensio: You are attaching an artificial constraint; the city of New York was unable to regulate firearms outside of the city limits, thus owned firearms moved out of the city could not be affected by any city laws.


Incorrect. The city of New York could have instead worded the law such that they were illegal to own/transport immediately. That would deny individuals the agency to move said firearms, making it a violation of ex post facto. Do you deny a distinction between "The thing you legally own is illegal here starting now" and "The thing you legally own will be illegal soon but if you want to keep it you can move it"?

Again, I'll cite Calder v. Bull:
I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal and punishes such action.

Dimensio: By your same reasoning, a federal law would not violate what you claim to be an "ex post facto" prohibition" because owners could transport their firearms outside of the country, where federal law would have no jurisdiction.


State/local governments are restricted much less strictly in authorized action than the Federal government. Such a prohibition is impossible because of the lack of enumerated authority to enact such a prohibition in the first place.
 
2013-11-07 05:18:22 PM  

sprawl15: State/local governments are restricted much less strictly in authorized action than the Federal government. Such a prohibition is impossible because of the lack of enumerated authority to enact such a prohibition in the first place.


We are at a fundamental disagreement of the meaning of the "Ex Post Facto" prohibition of the United States Constitution.

While I acknowledge that the clause would not allow previously documented ownership of a newly banned firearm to establish probable cause of criminal possession after the enactment of the ban, I dispute that the clause prohibits the federal government from outlawing possession of a class of currently legally owned firearms at some future date. The absence of case law to the contrary, combined, the explicit endorsement of such bans by elected officials is valid reason to oppose enactment of a system that would document ownership of such firearms to government officials, unless that system includes with it a safeguard to make future prohibition efforts impractical (such as a clause mandating destruction of a registry should a firearm prohibition be passed through Congress, but before that prohibition is signed into law by the President).
 
2013-11-07 05:29:28 PM  

NEDM: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.

The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.


There wasn't a large standing military then.
So there were no checks to bounce.
 
2013-11-07 05:40:49 PM  

sprawl15: They always needed to be disposed of. That's the whole point - the weapons were never legally brought into the state and sold to owners, because the Executive branch decided to ignore what the Legislative legislated. Those imported rifles and mods were explicitly against the law and always were explicitly against the law.


That isn't really true. Balance of powers and all that. The attorney general's office has the power to decide how laws are executed and the AG's opinion can significantly change how the law works. See  this guy for an example of that. So if there's a disagreement on the interpretation of a law between the AG and the legislature you can't call it settled until it is actually settled.

The people who owned those rifles were not, in the opinion of the AG, breaking the law.
 
2013-11-07 05:52:04 PM  

Witty_Retort: There wasn't a large standing military then.


There was one  shortly afterward though.  Two in fact. Did they get paid?
 
2013-11-07 06:02:03 PM  

Witty_Retort: NEDM: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.

The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.

There wasn't a large standing military then.
So there were no checks to bounce.



Yes there were, and you know it.  Despite it being small, it was still paid well enough for the time so people would actually consider it as a career.  It was still split in two by the Civil War (although admittedly not by such a large degree until Virginia seceded).
 
2013-11-07 06:22:59 PM  

odinsposse: The attorney general's office has the power to decide how laws are executed and the AG's opinion can significantly change how the law works.


The law stated "SKS Rifles with a detachable magazine". He said that some SKS rifles with a detachable magazine did not count. It's not getting a grey area call wrong, it's just idiocy.

Dimensio: I dispute that the clause prohibits the federal government from outlawing possession of a class of currently legally owned firearms at some future date


Practical restrictions aside, that's exactly what it does unless caveats to the outlaw are attached such as grandfather clauses.

Dimensio: The absence of case law to the contrary


I have cited case law to the contrary, including the key ex post facto case. I have also given examples to the contrary (prohibition, probably the prime example of the Federal government attempting to outlaw a product). You are free to ask for more case law, but you are not going to just ignore the cited case law. You have not provided any case law to the contrary, perhaps that is what you meant?

Dimensio: the explicit endorsement of such bans by elected officials


Is farking meaningless in every sense of the word. Elected officials can say whatever they want. Hell, the legislation can pass whatever they want and face the courts in due time.

Dimensio: is valid reason to oppose enactment of a system that would document ownership of such firearms to government officials


Your argument suggests a belief that the documentation of ownership of firearms holds practical supremacy over any other potential hurdle to a gun grab, including those I listed earlier. You have provided nothing to support such a claim or address any of the other significant hurdles that exist that would prevent a gun grab.

And you have not provided any evidence that (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (Q ⇒ P).
 
2013-11-07 09:21:49 PM  
Just hot air. The ones you really have to worry about don't care about gun control legislation because they avoid registered guns - and even gun shows - at all costs.

/Also, IT just WOULDN'T be a PROPER conservative rant WITHOUT RANDOM capitalization IN the MIDDLE OF sentences
 
2013-11-07 09:43:37 PM  

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


Just because youre paranoid, doesnt mean somebody isnt planning to take your guns, right?
 
2013-11-07 10:41:50 PM  

Elegy: new_york_monty: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

I am 100% for this idea.

Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.


I like this idea too.  But gun control advocates would use every ad hominem attack in the book until they got their way.


hinten: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

What about all those that would be trained to use a gun but not actually own one?

Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.


And just because you have a license doesn't mean that you're going to act responsiblity either.  A driver's license is only an indication that you were able to pass the bare minimum requirements (which in the US isn't much) in order for you to get a license.  It's not a barometric as to how good of a driver you are, how experienced of a driver you are, or how responsible of a driver you are.
 
2013-11-07 10:49:29 PM  
I  remember reading articles by Dick Metcalf since I was a pre-teen till my 20's.  He always was very concerned about safety first which was the way my family was.
I was warned constantly from the time I was 8 until I was in my 20's about where to point, breach open until it was time to take a shot.  So many small details to pay attention to.
I wish it were part of the culture to have almost extreme safety training as I did, then people would not think about using a gun when they get angry but instead training has made you not even consider it for safety concerns.
 
2013-11-08 01:19:56 AM  

rev. dave: I  remember reading articles by Dick Metcalf since I was a pre-teen till my 20's.  He always was very concerned about safety first which was the way my family was.
I was warned constantly from the time I was 8 until I was in my 20's about where to point, breach open until it was time to take a shot.  So many small details to pay attention to.
I wish it were part of the culture to have almost extreme safety training as I did, then people would not think about using a gun when they get angry but instead training has made you not even consider it for safety concerns.


A generation ago, that's what the then-respectable NRA was entirely about.

Then it became a self-sustaining for-profit monster, ginning up irrational loyalty to vend to politicians.
 
2013-11-08 05:17:46 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: hinten: Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.

But not having a driver's license doesn't mean you don't own a car.  Critical difference.


It does mean you don't get to legally use said car. Using something as dangerous as a car requires proof you know what your doing. Luckily guns are not dangerous.
 
2013-11-08 08:33:26 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.


You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.
 
2013-11-08 11:48:53 AM  

sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.


Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.

Tell me something, though:
How much are these magical bullets that stop at property boundaries or can be pulled over and stopped by the cops if they stray outside the bounds?
 
2013-11-08 01:12:30 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.

Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.


It's not an analogy, it's a correction to someone who doesn't understand the law.
 
2013-11-08 01:22:34 PM  

sprawl15: demaL-demaL-yeH: sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.

Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.

It's not an analogy, it's a correction to someone who doesn't understand the law.


demaL-demaL-yeH: Tell me something, though:
How much are these magical bullets that stop at property boundaries or can be pulled over and stopped by the cops if they stray outside the bounds?


No, it is an analogy. A crappy one.
My question stands, since it addresses laws of physics.
 
2013-11-08 01:26:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it is an analogy.


"You can't drive a car without a license!"
"Actually, you can on private property"

do you know what an analogy is

serious question
 
2013-11-08 03:17:14 PM  
It helps if you use punctuation.
Look upthread six comments for the context. It is an analogy.

How much do these magic bullets that stop at property lines cost?

Serious question.
 
2013-11-08 03:51:06 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: It is an analogy.


so no you do not understand what an analogy is

i will explain

an analogy is when someone makes an argument by taking some other situation as an example and claiming an isomorphism between the two

for example, if i said "like cars, we should only license public use of firearms" you could consider the 'like cars' portion of my post an analogy and then question its validity

however, what i said was "your post on licensing requirements for driving cars is mechanically wrong, here is a more correct reading". it is not comparing anything to anything else, which is a fundamental requirement for any attempt at analogy. it is not even making a value statement, which is when you say something should or could happen. it is just stating what the actual law says

perhaps your misguided nonsense was supposed to be directed at people actually making the analogies you seem very, very upset about? or perhaps you just do not know any better and actually shiat your pants any time anyone says anything that could remotely be tied to whatever strawman you have a rage boner for

either way, go fark yourself
 
2013-11-08 07:08:20 PM  

sprawl15: demaL-demaL-yeH: It is an analogy.

so no you do not understand what an analogy is

i will explain

an analogy is when someone makes an argument by taking some other situation as an example and claiming an isomorphism between the two

for example, if i said "like cars, we should only license public use of firearms" you could consider the 'like cars' portion of my post an analogy and then question its validity

however, what i said was "your post on licensing requirements for driving cars is mechanically wrong, here is a more correct reading". it is not comparing anything to anything else, which is a fundamental requirement for any attempt at analogy. it is not even making a value statement, which is when you say something should or could happen. it is just stating what the actual law says

perhaps your misguided nonsense was supposed to be directed at people actually making the analogies you seem very, very upset about? or perhaps you just do not know any better and actually shiat your pants any time anyone says anything that could remotely be tied to whatever strawman you have a rage boner for

either way, go fark yourself


You are mistaken.
Perhaps a class in composition or rhetoric might help.

You are not using logic terms correctly, and your reasoning is not sound.
Perhaps a class in formal logic and critical thinking might help.

I could be wrong about this.
Because you may not be educable.

Therefore, I have one suggestion that applies under either circumstance:
You sound angry.
Stay away from firearms: Somebody could be hurt unnecessarliy.

No, make that two suggestions:
Masturbate: It may help relieve your anger.
 
2013-11-08 07:20:49 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You are mistaken.


About what? Your entire stream of bullshiat is asking me to justify an analogy I didn't make or support.

Do you have any actual points or are you just insistent on letting me know just how big a farking moron you are?
 
Displayed 35 of 335 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report