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.

(Russia Today)   Connecticut has created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals, because some residents are refusing to register guns under a new law enacted after the Sandy Hook School shooting   (rt.com) divider line 458
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4738 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 09:20:28 AM

dittybopper: Heh.


Lol, I see you steered clear of that worm this time.
 
2014-02-13 09:21:52 AM

Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.


Oh man, that's awesome. Well done, Dimensio.
 
2014-02-13 09:22:48 AM

Mr Perkins: Basily Gourt: [i976.photobucket.com image 600x348]">

[img.fark.net image 311x391]


The ironic thing about all these "but ... but ... but ... Native Americans!" arguments is that more guns ultimately would have made no difference to the fate of the natives, kinda the same argument pro-gun types are making about this registration law.  Over 90% of the native population died from disease and in the end they simply lacked the infrastructure, technology, cohesiveness and population to prevail against the invaders.
 
2014-02-13 09:23:23 AM

incrdbil: I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing.  the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.


No kidding!!


i976.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 09:26:29 AM

smoky2010: dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.

So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.


Blah blah blah. This is the problem with slippery slope. We said Democrats would enact registries, you said no they won't. And look what we have. Registration leads to confiscation, period. Look at Canada. They outlaw a 22 rilfe because it looks like an AK-47, then confiscate. Australia did the same thing, and Obama admin has said Australian gun laws are a model.

Wake up.

Next thing will be dropping the 4th amendment so cops can randomly search your house for guns.
 
2014-02-13 09:29:11 AM

dittybopper: mbillips: I know a vast number of gun nuts think that the 2nd Amendment enshrines a right to rebellion, but they're full of crap both legally and practically. The Constitution is a framework FOR HOW ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WORKS, and it contains no poison pills or out clauses.

It's not a poison pill or out clause.  It's the ultimate in checks and balances.

The government has the power to call forth the military (including the militia) to suppress insurrections.  The people retain the means to overthrow the government by force if necessary.

The Founding Fathers weren't fools:  They knew that *NO* government lasts forever.  Through their knowledge of Greek and Roman history, they knew that even longstanding democracies can be subverted into totalitarian dictatorships.  So they made it as difficult as possible to amend the Constitution, while still retaining the ability for it be amended to suit the times.

But they also explicitly recognized it in their debates on the Constitution itself:

 Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered b ...


What the fark? That pantywaist MADISON said that? He was the one who wanted to propose a clause about obscenity in the first Amendment.

My respect for him just quadrupled.
 
2014-02-13 09:29:52 AM

Thunderpipes: smoky2010: dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered 
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high 
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.

So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

Blah blah blah. This is the problem with slippery slope. We said Democrats would enact registries, you said no they won't. And look what we have. Registration leads to confiscation, period. Look at Canada. They outlaw a 22 rilfe because it looks like an AK-47, then confiscate. Australia did the same thing, and Obama admin has said Australian gun laws are a model.

Wake up.

Next thing will be dropping the 4th amendment so cops can randomly search your house for guns.


Where can I donate to your tin-foil fund? I want to make sure that you don't run out of tin-foil hats and let common sense interfere with logic.

Also, when you want to spout out random crap, please don't piggy-back off of my comments in a thread.
 
2014-02-13 09:35:00 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


So your logic is "things are really farked up and the police can't respond to emergencies, lets take your guns so you have no chance of defending yourself."  That's some weapons grade koolaid you've been drinking.
 
2014-02-13 09:41:02 AM
Connecticut has a very transient population. If I'm only going to be living in your glorified shiathole of a state for 5 years before I pack up and leave, I will simply hide my scary looking guns in the attic until I move someplace else where those guns won't cause people to get their panties in a bunch.
 
2014-02-13 09:43:40 AM

smoky2010: Thunderpipes: smoky2010: dittybopper: mbillips: Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.?

You mean this UK?

In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered
firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high
as 4 million.

Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.

That's a distinction without a difference.  Just because they didn't show up at your door with a SWAT unit to forcibly take them from you doesn't make it any better:  Either way, they'd be forced by the Fourth Amendment to compensate you.

But cash doesn't compensate you for loss of utility.

So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

Blah blah blah. This is the problem with slippery slope. We said Democrats would enact registries, you said no they won't. And look what we have. Registration leads to confiscation, period. Look at Canada. They outlaw a 22 rilfe because it looks like an AK-47, then confiscate. Australia did the same thing, and Obama admin has said Australian gun laws are a model.

Wake up.

Next thing will be dropping the 4th amendment so cops can randomly search your house for guns.

Where can I donate to your tin-foil fund? I want to make sure that you don't run out of tin-foil hats and let common sense interfere with logic.

Also, when you want to spout out random crap, please don't piggy-back off of my comments in a thread.


How do you equate citation of specific examples with inappropriate paranoia? A direct response to you doesn't count as "piggy-backing" of your comments. It's considered a response.

Do you realize that by countering a position with nothing other than accusations and derision, you push people away from your point of view?

Polarizing an issue makes more activists for BOTH sides, and it's counter-productive to your goals when you dismiss arguments as paranoia or feelings of inadequacy.
 
2014-02-13 09:44:33 AM

cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself


No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.
 
2014-02-13 09:44:50 AM

Dimensio: Joe Blowme: [c6.nrostatic.com image 630x380]

I do not believe that the image of a perfectly safe, civilian-legal target rifle is of relevance to this discussion, which relates to deadly semi-automatic assault weapons.


shiat, now i have to take the hook out myself
 
2014-02-13 09:48:25 AM

Pangea: How do you equate citation of specific examples with inappropriate paranoia?


"No one wants to take your guns" and "You are being paranoid, you nut job" is the sound the benevolent make as they label you a paranoid nut job and take your guns.
 
2014-02-13 09:50:56 AM

Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.


Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.
 
2014-02-13 10:00:35 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.


Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.
 
2014-02-13 10:01:05 AM

smoky2010: So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.


If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.
 
2014-02-13 10:03:51 AM

mbillips: Securitywyrm: Piizzadude: Farkage: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

Just how the fark do you rationalize that??!?  Disarming the law abiding public absolutely ensures only the people that refused to register their guns (criminals) in a time of crisis are armed, while the police are completely overwhelmed and are unable to help you if anything happens helps society out precisely how??!?

Dey not tankin' ur gunz, theys wants you to register dem. ani't noes disarmin' goin' on  less you cant foller da lawz.

If you could just kindly point to ONE example in history where citizens were required to register all their guns and it was not followed by mass confiscation, that would be great.

Uh, pretty much everywhere in Europe other than the U.K.? Many U.S. states? Legal firearms confiscation is pretty clearly barred in the U.S. Some local jurisdictions can force you to sell or otherwise dispose of them in a legal fashion, but they haven't confiscated them.


Godwining thread in 3... 2... 1...
You mean like this?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-contr o l-stephen-p-halbrook
 
2014-02-13 10:06:51 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.

This is entirely wrong. The word postdates Middle English, entering Early Modern English from Latin, and has a wider meaning that what you just made up along with your linguistic "history."
 
2014-02-13 10:07:19 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.


What about the others in the household?

For example, with the exception of the bolt action .22 LR my parents gave me when I was a kid, all of the guns in the bopper household have been acquired since the distaffbopper and I have been cohabitating at least, and probably since we've been married.

She has equal right to those firearms that I do.  Removing them from the house because I might be clinically depressed is a violation of *HER* rights.

SImilarly, what if the situation were reversed?  What if she were clinically depressed?  Should I give up my rights because of her illness?

And what about the guns that aren't legally firearms (ie., the custom flintlock my father built for me).  She knows how it operates and how to load it.  But legally, it's not a firearm under federal or state law.  What about those sorts of guns?
 
2014-02-13 10:09:53 AM

YixilTesiphon: Dimensio: I, personally, cannot even understand why any sane or rational person would possess the "banned" firearms, and I am disappointed that the state continues to allow ownership of these dangerous devices. These deadly assault weapons serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than the facilitation of mass murder. For that reason, they have no place in society, except in the hands of law enforcement.

Oh man, that's awesome. Well done, Dimensio.


Better stop selling gasoline too.
 
2014-02-13 10:11:44 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


So when there is no effective law enforcement, the Police have deserted and cannot possibly provide any protection to anyone, it makes sense to you to remove the possibility that any normal person could protect themselves.
 
2014-02-13 10:11:57 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.


Ah, so basically "only those who can afford a physician long enough to be 'cleared' of any mental health problems can have firearms. And what about those who just get declared as "having mental problems" by a police officer who saw them for 10 seconds, or some state-funded doc who gets a bonus for every 'dangerous person' he writes up?

You hate the poor.
 
2014-02-13 10:19:40 AM
Well, duh. Anyone who thought most people would comply with such a law have no understanding of human nature or the American people's basic, historical distrust of government.
 
2014-02-13 10:19:58 AM
Sorry, all my firearms were lost in a tragic canoeing accident on Lake Michigan several years ago.
 
2014-02-13 10:21:59 AM

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.


Actually they went door to door FORCING their way in and searching for guns whether there was anyone there or not.
Nagin should have gone to prison over that order but didn't. But he will do time for bribery and corruption, at least there is that.
 
2014-02-13 10:23:40 AM

dittybopper: smoky2010: So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.


My neighbor is a non-violent felon. He is a raging alcoholic and is currently incarcerated. This is his 4th time being in prison for drinking related crimes in 10 years. As he has some serious medical issues, they don't keep him in jail for too long as he is a very expensive inmate. He'll be out for this conviction with a total of 7 months served. He has violent outbursts and hasn't beat his current wife and kids that I am aware of.

Do you think that this repeat offender should be allowed to possess and carry weapons? I think that seeing he can't abide by the rules, he should not have that privilege any longer. I also think that he shouldn't have a license any longer but, CT doesn't seem to agree with me. I guess 4 drunk driving and reckless driving convictions hasn't crossed that threshold yet.

So, long story short, no, I don't think that ANY felon should have access to firearms, whether they are violent or not. They have proven that they do not obey by the rules and shouldn't be allowed this privilege.
 
2014-02-13 10:24:12 AM

Poe: I think the folks in CT experienced an onslaught of tragic boating accidents over the past year, resulting in the loss overboard of untold numbers of "assault weapons."


Only a fraction have followed the new law, however, and the state could soon face serious consequences if they all decide to take action. If they are lucky they will only lose their jobs, if the state starts killing people in SWAT raids? The funny part is, this is all about scary looking black rifles that are basically 250-300 yard guns. What the politicians need to be worried about is the bolt action deer rifles in real rifle calibers, 500 - 1000 yard guns in the hands of pissed off people who have been backed into a corner and expect the Brown Shirts are going to kill them anyway.
 
2014-02-13 10:28:35 AM

Piizzadude: Boojum2k: Pokey.Clyde: Actually, they were taking people's guns.

Don't worry, Piizzadude will be right there with you. Weather and schedule permitting, of course, and not if there's anything better to do.

Sorry I was wrong, I support the NY ban.

The 2nd also does not say what kind of gun, nor how many bullets. Assault weapons and anything over 6 bullets is too much


You're over your limit on bullshiat posts.  The 1st amendment does not say what kind of speech, nor how much.  Anything over 6 posts is too much.
 
2014-02-13 10:29:59 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, duh. Anyone who thought most people would comply with such a law have no understanding of human nature or the American people's basic, historical distrust of government.


What the hell is going on today.  Is this a repeat of 1938 already?  Don't forget Poland boys or we will shizzle the nizzle before the drizzle.
 
2014-02-13 10:36:23 AM

smoky2010: dittybopper: smoky2010: So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns:  They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.

My neighbor is a non-violent felon. He is a raging alcoholic and is currently incarcerated. This is his 4th time being in prison for drinking related crimes in 10 years. As he has some serious medical issues, they don't keep him in jail for too long as he is a very expensive inmate. He'll be out for this conviction with a total of 7 months served. He has violent outbursts and hasn't beat his current wife and kids that I am aware of.

Do you think that this repeat offender should be allowed to possess and carry weapons? I think that seeing he can't abide by the rules, he should not have that privilege any longer. I also think that he shouldn't have a license any longer but, CT doesn't seem to agree with me. I guess 4 drunk driving and reckless driving convictions hasn't crossed that threshold yet.

So, long story short, no, I don't think that ANY felon should have access to firearms, whether they are violent or not. They have proven that they do not obey by the rules and shouldn't be allowed this privilege.


I think it might be impossible to paint with a broader brush than the one you're using. What are you basing your knowledge of his violent outbursts on? It must either be hearsay or the something you witnessed but didn't report. Your opinion lacks credibility for varying reasons in either of those scenarios.

Fortunately your anecdotes are not good enough to dictate what happens in our society.
 
2014-02-13 10:36:41 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.


Ah, another snowflake unabel to do basic research.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.


So, in order for a militia to be well-regulted (in  working order, functioning as expected)), it is necessary that the right of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ams not be infringed. (not just keep, but their right to bear them.) because it is comprised of the armed citizenry--bringing their own weapons. The militia cannot function well if the citizenry cannot keep and maintian their own weapons.
 
2014-02-13 10:38:50 AM

Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.


Bullshiat.
The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.
 
2014-02-13 10:41:09 AM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.

This is entirely wrong. The word postdates Middle English, entering Early Modern English from Latin, and has a wider meaning that what you just made up along with your linguistic "history."


You lie.
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin  regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb  regulare, from Latin  regula 'rule'.
 
2014-02-13 10:42:44 AM

Pokey.Clyde: Piizzadude: I am not a gun enthusiast so I do not have an answer, nor do I know all the types of guns. I do agree that some guns get villianized unjustly as something else (see dog, pitbull for example).

Well, just for reference

[img.fark.net image 166x213]
The one on the left is a .22LR. The one on the right is a .45 Colt.

This is one reason why capacity restrictions make no sense. Unless you shoot someone point-blank with a .22, you're not likely to kill them. Shoot them with a .45 and you'll almost always stop someone with one shot, if not outright kill them. Yet, with some sort capacity law, my rifle that fires .22s would be illegal, but a 5 or 6 round revolver that fires .45 Colt would not be.

Another reason it makes no sense is how quickly you can change a magazine/reload a revolver with a speed loader with a little practice. Just get on youtube sometime and you can find plenty of examples that prove that point.


There are already loopholes in use on these new laws. This is a legal magazine in NY under the new magazine limitation laws:

img.fark.net

Don't forget that the worst school shooting of all time, the VT massacre, was carried out with Brady Bill approved firearms including the magazine limitations. The solution was to carry a backpack full of spare magazines.

The people passing these laws have no knowledge of firearms so they pass knee jerk reactions laws out of fear of the unknown.

The other side doesn't help, though. The VT perp should never have had a firearm as he had been adjudicated mentally unsound yet managed to purchase firearms. There do need to be some background check changes. That's about the only law I've seen put forth that might actually target criminals.
 
2014-02-13 10:42:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.

This is entirely wrong. The word postdates Middle English, entering Early Modern English from Latin, and has a wider meaning that what you just made up along with your linguistic "history."

You lie.
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin  regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb  regulare, from Latin  regula 'rule'.


Wrong
SC disagrees with you so..... you lose.
 
2014-02-13 10:46:12 AM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.

What about the others in the household?

For example, with the exception of the bolt action .22 LR my parents gave me when I was a kid, all of the guns in the bopper household have been acquired since the distaffbopper and I have been cohabitating at least, and probably since we've been married.

She has equal right to those firearms that I do.  Removing them from the house because I might be clinically depressed i ...


Ability to change the combination of the arms safe would easily address that. Neither of you would leave firearms out where a mentally ill person could have access, right?

incrdbil: demaL-demaL-yeH
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Ah, another snowflake unabel to do basic research.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

So, in order for a militia to be well-regulted (in  working order, functioning as expected)), it is necessary that the right of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ams not be infringed. (not just keep, but their right to bear them.) because it is comprised of the armed citizenry--bringing their own weapons. The militia cannot function well if the citizenry cannot keep and maintian their own weapons.


There is no hyphen in the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 10:48:11 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.

Bullshiat.
The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.


You smoking crack? Maybe you should go get some Obamacare and sip hot chocolate in you PJs.
 
2014-02-13 10:49:20 AM

Securitywyrm: demaL-demaL-yeH: cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself

No, clinical depression is a mental illness*. When your physician clears you, you get your shootin' irons back.

*Read on down through that final paragraph.

Ah, so basically "only those who can afford a physician long enough to be 'cleared' of any mental health problems can have firearms. And what about those who just get declared as "having mental problems" by a police officer who saw them for 10 seconds, or some state-funded doc who gets a bonus for every 'dangerous person' he writes up?

You hate the poor.


Well, good thing that the AFFORDABLE Care Ace is law, and that it covers mental illnesses. And poor people.*


*Who aren't being screwed by a Republican state legislature and governor.
 
2014-02-13 10:51:34 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH

You lie.

Hardly.

Origin:
1620-30;

[C17: from Late Latin rēgulāre to control, from Latin rēgula a ruler]

c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

What's even funnier is that your own single link contradicts your assertion as to the strict meaning of the word, giving "[to] control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly" before your imagined exclusive definition of "[to] control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations."

Lol. :)

/you lie, indeed
 
2014-02-13 10:51:38 AM

Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.

Bullshiat.
The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.

You smoking crack? Maybe you should go get some Obamacare and sip hot chocolate in you PJs.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 
2014-02-13 10:59:03 AM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

You lie.

Hardly.

Origin:
1620-30;

[C17: from Late Latin rēgulāre to control, from Latin rēgula a ruler]

c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

What's even funnier is that your own single link contradicts your assertion as to the strict meaning of the word, giving "[to] control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly" before your imagined exclusive definition of "[to] control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations."

Lol. :)

/you lie, indeed


Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

Oooh. That's a toughie.

/I'll take the OED.
 
2014-02-13 11:00:43 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.
Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.
Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.

Bullshiat.
The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.

You smoking crack? Maybe you should go get some Obamacare and sip hot chocolate in you PJs.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



Would you please link that again...I can't hear you over all of Wall Street's awesome...
 
2014-02-13 11:02:10 AM
HEROES tag needed.
 
2014-02-13 11:03:59 AM
media.tumblr.com25.media.tumblr.com  brandynbold.com  gifatron.com images2.wikia.nocookie.net media0.giphy.com likegif.com
 
2014-02-13 11:04:57 AM
...and now for something completely the same...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-7LCucXpic
 
2014-02-13 11:06:06 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary


The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.
 
2014-02-13 11:14:51 AM

dittybopper: August11: Connecticutians?

Connecticoonts.


OK, I laughed...
 
2014-02-13 11:15:02 AM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.


Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*
 
2014-02-13 11:17:01 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.

Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*


As you were son.
 
2014-02-13 11:19:06 AM

blame_canada: demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Hmm. Dueling references.
*holds out hands - palms up - to weigh*
OED vs. some random online dictionary

The random online dictionary cites a number of references rather than the one. Additionally, and somewhat humorously, you also seem to be suggesting that I head a conspiracy of dubious online etymological and medical dictionaries, which is rather clownshoes.

That's rather a side point, though, as at least you seem to be tacitly admitting your previous assertion as to the exclusive meaning of the term under discussion is in error. You yourself provided the evidence.

Counterpoint:

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States,

Those rules of discipline established by Congress on March 29, 1779?
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States

This is what the Founders meant by well regulated.

/*spikes the microphone*

As you were son.


At ease, eh.

/Let's eat grandma.
//Let's eat, grandma.
///Punctuation saves lives, eh.
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report