Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(AL.com)   What if you could only buy guns in two places in Alabama, which are surrounded by protestors who sometimes kill dealers, and you have to learn about the links between firearms and cancer before buying?   (al.com) divider line 444
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

10700 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2014 at 12:22 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-05 09:42:24 AM  
I don't have the right permits to buy guns at any place in my state. If I want a permit for a handgun I would need all sorts of indoctrination and checking and the permit could still be denied on the whim of the police chief or restricted to a degree that would make it useless. Depending on some last minute political negotiations the same rules might be applied to long guns. With no change to current law the chief would have to come up with a legitimate reason to do more than stall issuance of a permit for a long gun. All to exercise what the U.S. Supreme Court has called a constitutional right.
 
2014-08-05 09:43:44 AM  
What if you had to get a federal criminal background check to get an abortion from a federally licensed abortion provider, and you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Further, what if that federally licensed provider was required to keep the records of that abortion for at least 20 years, and upon retirement give all the records to the federal government.

And with every abortion, you were given a box of condoms whether you wanted them or not.

Of course, abortion rights and the right to arms aren't exactly analogous.  One is actually explicitly protected by the Constitution.

BTW, for the record, I agree with the judge.  I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion and guns.
 
2014-08-05 09:53:18 AM  

dittybopper: One is actually explicitly protected by the Constitution


Although I understand your use of the word "explicitly" here, I would point out that abortion before viability is also protected by the Constitution (per the S. Ct.).
 
2014-08-05 09:55:25 AM  
I think this is a perfectly good analogy.  Both guns and abortion are legal and Constitutionally protected.  Gun advocates fight tirelessly to prevent the government from enacting restrictions on who can buy guns, where they can buy guns, and what types of guns and ammo they can buy.  Well abortion advocates feel the same way - women who are legally entitled to an abortion should not have to suffer all these cumbersome restrictions (which are nakedly designed to prevent abortion, not "make them safer").
 
2014-08-05 10:19:46 AM  
My guess is that protesters would be slowly whittled away, assuming they didn't hypocritically have guns.
 
2014-08-05 10:43:11 AM  

dittybopper: What if you had to get a federal criminal background check to get an abortion from a federally licensed abortion provider, and you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Further, what if that federally licensed provider was required to keep the records of that abortion for at least 20 years, and upon retirement give all the records to the federal government.


Call us when someone can use their abortion to maim or kill other viable human beings.
 
2014-08-05 10:51:21 AM  

Trivia Jockey: I think this is a perfectly good analogy.  Both guns and abortion are legal and Constitutionally protected.  Gun advocates fight tirelessly to prevent the government from enacting restrictions on who can buy guns, where they can buy guns, and what types of guns and ammo they can buy.  Well abortion advocates feel the same way - women who are legally entitled to an abortion should not have to suffer all these cumbersome restrictions (which are nakedly designed to prevent abortion, not "make them safer").


Precisely.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-05 10:59:19 AM  

Trivia Jockey: dittybopper: One is actually explicitly protected by the Constitution

Although I understand your use of the word "explicitly" here, I would point out that abortion before viability is also protected by the Constitution (per the S. Ct.).


I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.

The constitutional right to own a gun was created by the Supreme court just as the right to abortion is, and both are subject to regulation.

There are far more restrictions on abortion than on guns.  Even Roe v Wade prohibits abortion after the beginning of the third trimester for instance.
 
2014-08-05 11:00:40 AM  
This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.
 
2014-08-05 11:04:24 AM  

vpb: I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.


I agree with you, but I was conceding (for the purposes of responding to him only) that arms are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution while abortion is not.  But that is ultimately a distinction without a difference.
 
2014-08-05 11:04:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.


A well regulated Uterus, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to not necessarily keep and bear Children, shall not be infringed.
 
2014-08-05 11:11:55 AM  

Dinki: dittybopper: What if you had to get a federal criminal background check to get an abortion from a federally licensed abortion provider, and you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Further, what if that federally licensed provider was required to keep the records of that abortion for at least 20 years, and upon retirement give all the records to the federal government.

Call us when someone can use their abortion to maim or kill other viable human beings.


You mean like late term abortions?

Like I said, I'm pro-choice for both.

Also, as an aside, I'd like to point out to you that *ALL* substantial individual rights have a cost in terms of human lives.   Some of them are easy to see, like the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and some aren't as easy to see:  For example, we have no idea how many people are killed each year because the police are required to get a warrant in order to search a private residence, or because a suspect or potential witness can't be compelled to tell the police anything.
 
2014-08-05 11:12:15 AM  

vpb: I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.


Pfft; Latin ablative absolutes are foreign law, and therefore irrelevant.
 
2014-08-05 11:21:23 AM  

vpb: I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.


Are you a non-native speaker?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



This amendment, like many parts of the constitution, clearly applies to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It is a limitation on the powers of the government that prevents them from infringing "the right of the people" to have weapons along with a subordinate clause that preemptively explains the reasoning is that without arms the people could not form a functional militia.


It applies to neither the people nor the militias they may or may not form. It's strictly a prohibition on government interference.
 
2014-08-05 11:28:51 AM  

doglover: It applies to neither the people nor the militias they may or may not form. It's strictly a prohibition on government interference.


wrong, clearly it is saying that people gotta be in a militia deemed "well regulated" by the official militia regulatory board before anyone in the militia can own a gun. To get the "well regulated" stamp your militia must have the proper fife and drum ratio and your flag guy must be over 6 feet tall.
 
2014-08-05 11:29:13 AM  

vpb: Trivia Jockey: dittybopper: One is actually explicitly protected by the Constitution

Although I understand your use of the word "explicitly" here, I would point out that abortion before viability is also protected by the Constitution (per the S. Ct.).

I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.

The constitutional right to own a gun was created by the Supreme court just as the right to abortion is, and both are subject to regulation.

There are far more restrictions on abortion than on guns.  Even Roe v Wade prohibits abortion after the beginning of the third trimester for instance.


You know, just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

Also, Roe v. Wade did *NOT* prohibit abortion after the beginning of the third trimester:

a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR _0 410_0113_ZO

[emphasis mine]

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said that states could, if they chose to, prohibit abortions after the viability of the fetus (except for life and health of the mother).  The decision itself did not prohibit them, it just preserved the power of the individual states to regulate or proscribe them if they saw fit.

Again, your complete lack of reading comprehension and of what individual Supreme Court decisions actually say surfaces in a most glaring manner.
 
2014-08-05 11:30:22 AM  

dittybopper: You mean like late term abortions?


One abortion can kill 22 other human beings in 10 minutes?

Alert the news!
 
2014-08-05 11:35:18 AM  

Headso: doglover: It applies to neither the people nor the militias they may or may not form. It's strictly a prohibition on government interference.

wrong, clearly it is saying that people gotta be in a militia deemed "well regulated" by the official militia regulatory board before anyone in the militia can own a gun. To get the "well regulated" stamp your militia must have the proper fife and drum ratio and your flag guy must be over 6 feet tall.


Yes, and for your speech to be protected, it must only be expressed in writing by a quill pen on parchment, or, if you are rich, by a Gutenberg-style press.
 
2014-08-05 11:38:59 AM  

dittybopper: you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.


You're not seriously trying to suggest this is a bad thing, right?
 
2014-08-05 11:40:17 AM  

mediablitz: dittybopper: You mean like late term abortions?

One abortion can kill 22 other human beings in 10 minutes?

Alert the news!


In 2010, 765,651 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

In 2010, there were 31,672 firearms related deaths of all kinds (homicide, suicide, unintentional, unknown)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

So apparently high capacity evil assault abortion providers are a real menace.

/Still pro-choice on both issues.
 
2014-08-05 11:46:19 AM  

doglover: This amendment, like many parts of the constitution, clearly applies to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


A crucial part of American Legal History is that the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution were made to apply to the States as well as the Federal government through the adoption of the 14th Amendment. So the Constitution has to be read and understood as a whole, rather than a la carte.
 
2014-08-05 11:46:23 AM  

mediablitz: dittybopper: You mean like late term abortions?

One abortion can kill 22 other human beings in 10 minutes?

Alert the news!


That's a pretty violent abortion!
 
2014-08-05 11:48:21 AM  

dittybopper: mediablitz: dittybopper: You mean like late term abortions?

One abortion can kill 22 other human beings in 10 minutes?

Alert the news!

In 2010, 765,651 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

In 2010, there were 31,672 firearms related deaths of all kinds (homicide, suicide, unintentional, unknown)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

So apparently high capacity evil assault abortion providers are a real menace.

/Still pro-choice on both issues.


So in 2010, how many persons were killed by abortion? 0?
 
2014-08-05 12:01:05 PM  

Somacandra: dittybopper: you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

You're not seriously trying to suggest this is a bad thing, right?


I'm pointing out the two aren't necessarily equivalent, but since you brought it up, I see no reason why the following nonviolent felons should be prohibited from ever owning or even touching a firearm:

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org


Also, you don't permanently remove a right for a person convicted of a misdemeanor.  If you are trying to send a message about domestic violence, and to protect the victims of it, then the *CORRECT* way to do that is to make the crime a violent felony.

That I would have no problem with.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
 
2014-08-05 12:02:17 PM  

Somacandra: doglover: This amendment, like many parts of the constitution, clearly applies to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

A crucial part of American Legal History is that the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution were made to apply to the States as well as the Federal government through the adoption of the 14th Amendment. So the Constitution has to be read and understood as a whole, rather than a la carte.


Which still doesn't change the fact the Second Amendment is a prohibition on the government from removing a natural right from the people or the fact that the "well regulated" phrase means something different in eighteenth century or the even bigger fact that it doesn't matter WHAT is said about "Militia" because that's a subordinate clause.

It's like no one with a brain actually stays in America. On one side you have the Cliven Bundy "George Lincoln gave me the right to carry my uzi into Kids R Us" type lunatics and on the other side you have the "All guns kill at least 100 people per day. That's 30,000,000,000 people! We must ban them all except for military and police, because those two groups aren't statistically the least trustworthy owners or anything."
 
2014-08-05 12:02:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.


[supertroll]

Well, how many fertilized eggs get thrown out during IVF?

[/supertroll]
 
2014-08-05 12:03:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: mediablitz: dittybopper: You mean like late term abortions?

One abortion can kill 22 other human beings in 10 minutes?

Alert the news!

In 2010, 765,651 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

In 2010, there were 31,672 firearms related deaths of all kinds (homicide, suicide, unintentional, unknown)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

So apparently high capacity evil assault abortion providers are a real menace.

/Still pro-choice on both issues.

So in 2010, how many persons were killed by abortion? 0?


So you're only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not to self-defense?
 
2014-08-05 12:22:28 PM  

doglover: It's like no one with a brain actually stays in America.


Well, since this is already a gun thread, and an abortion thread, the flamewars are inevitable, so might as well jump in with both feet.

It's clear that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and was intended as such. After fighting a war against the government, you don't want them to have all the guns (which is also why they had huge debates about even having a Federal Army, too). But I don't think it's unreasonable to have rules checking to see that only those who are still due that right (i.e. not convicted criminals) are allowed to keep and bear arms, or to make sure that the person who actually ends up with the weapon is allowed to own it (no straw buyers). And yet those are both strongly opposed by the gun lobby.

If you sell or provide alcohol or cigarettes to someone who is under the legal age, even if you are an individual and not a licensed retailer, you are liable and can be prosecuted for doing so. Why shouldn't that be the same standard for someone selling guns over the Internet or at gun shows? If you sell a gun to someone who shouldn't be allowed to purchase one, you are liable in civil suits pending from that sale, and prosecutable for illegal sales.
 
2014-08-05 12:23:49 PM  

dittybopper: One is actually explicitly protected by the Constitution.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

eabod
 
2014-08-05 12:24:37 PM  
www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2014-08-05 12:24:53 PM  
I'd  kill  myself so I'd at least be out of Alabama.
 
2014-08-05 12:26:35 PM  

dittybopper: So you're only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not to self-defense?


How many different ways, and how many bullets do you need, to defend yourself?

With abortion it's (nearly) binary, can you legally get one or not? With guns, how are you realistically less capable of defending yourself with available shotguns, handguns, and rifles, but limited to less than 10 bullets per magazine? What is anti self-defense choice here, exactly?
 
2014-08-05 12:26:35 PM  

nmrsnr: cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.

[supertroll]

Well, how many fertilized eggs get thrown out during IVF?

[/supertroll]


I'm suddenly hungry for caviar.
 
2014-08-05 12:27:16 PM  
Ladies! Ladies! You're both pretty. Abortions and assault rifles for everyone!
 
2014-08-05 12:27:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.


One woman doctor gives a dose of mifepristone to 28 pregnant women. But it ain't murder. fark.
 
2014-08-05 12:28:11 PM  

dittybopper: Again, your complete lack of reading comprehension and of what individual Supreme Court decisions actually say surfaces in a most glaring manner.


Just because the Supreme Court has ruled upon something does not mean that the Constitutional question is settled. Were that the case, then Tea Party members who claimed the Affordable Care Act to be Unconstitutional could simply be dismissed as delusional idiots who are entirely out of touch with reality. Fortunately, those of us who have researched the subject are aware that those Tea Partiers are as rational and as reasonable as those who claim that the Second Amendment does not protect and individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
2014-08-05 12:28:26 PM  

nmrsnr: dittybopper: So you're only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not to self-defense?

How many different ways, and how many bullets do you need, to defend yourself?

With abortion it's (nearly) binary, can you legally get one or not? With guns, how are you realistically less capable of defending yourself with available shotguns, handguns, and rifles, but limited to less than 10 bullets per magazine? What is anti self-defense choice here, exactly?


If you don't let me purchase an auto-targeting gatling gun for my home's security system and fill it with depleted uranium ammunition, you are anti-self-defense.
 
2014-08-05 12:29:04 PM  

dittybopper: Dinki: dittybopper: What if you had to get a federal criminal background check to get an abortion from a federally licensed abortion provider, and you couldn't get one if you were a felon, fugitive from justice, under a restraining order, or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Further, what if that federally licensed provider was required to keep the records of that abortion for at least 20 years, and upon retirement give all the records to the federal government.

Call us when someone can use their abortion to maim or kill other viable human beings.

You mean like late term abortions?

Like I said, I'm pro-choice for both.

Also, as an aside, I'd like to point out to you that *ALL* substantial individual rights have a cost in terms of human lives.   Some of them are easy to see, like the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and some aren't as easy to see:  For example, we have no idea how many people are killed each year because the police are required to get a warrant in order to search a private residence, or because a suspect or potential witness can't be compelled to tell the police anything.


Federal regulation makes sense where the thing regulated can move in interstate commerce- like firearms.  Now if you can explain how abortions move in interstate commerce I'm all ears.
 
2014-08-05 12:29:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So in 2010, how many persons were killed by abortion? 0?


Correct. And that's including corporate persons.
 
2014-08-05 12:29:58 PM  

Dinki: Call us when someone can use their abortion to maim or kill other viable human beings.


I think that this statement also adequately answers this post:

Trivia Jockey: I think this is a perfectly good analogy.  Both guns and abortion are legal and Constitutionally protected.  Gun advocates fight tirelessly to prevent the government from enacting restrictions on who can buy guns, where they can buy guns, and what types of guns and ammo they can buy.  Well abortion advocates feel the same way - women who are legally entitled to an abortion should not have to suffer all these cumbersome restrictions (which are nakedly designed to prevent abortion, not "make them safer").


/quit comparing my womb to your toys, dammit
 
2014-08-05 12:30:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.


Funny you should say that:  With just a bit of practice,  you can reload and shoot a musket in about 15 seconds, and there are 600 seconds in 10 minutes, so in theory even with a Revolutionary War era gun you could shoot 600/15 = 40 times in 10 minutes.  It's actually 41, because  fence-post error.

It takes me about 25 to 30 seconds to reload my rifle, but that's because a rifle is different than a musket:  There is more resistance due to the closer fit between a patched round ball and the rifling in that case than there is to an undersized musket ball in a cartridge with the musket.  And you've got to "short start" the ball down the muzzle before you can use the ramrod with a rifle, so that adds another step.  Rifles, too, because of their closer tolerances, foul quicker.

Certainly, with even a single shot break open shotgun, you could do even worse:   This video shows a guy shooting, reloading, and shooting one again in 4 seconds.

That's potentially 600/4 = 150 shots in 10 minutes.
 
2014-08-05 12:31:25 PM  
I can't link to The Onion right now, but this discussion is a perfect example of:

"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"
 
2014-08-05 12:31:34 PM  

ZAZ: I don't have the right permits to buy guns at any place in my state. If I want a permit for a handgun I would need all sorts of indoctrination and checking and the permit could still be denied on the whim of the police chief or restricted to a degree that would make it useless. Depending on some last minute political negotiations the same rules might be applied to long guns. With no change to current law the chief would have to come up with a legitimate reason to do more than stall issuance of a permit for a long gun. All to exercise what the U.S. Supreme Court has called a constitutional right.


I guessed 'Massachusetts' while reading your post, and what do you know: your profile says 'Boston area'.

Move a few miles north to NH, we can buy anything up here!  Also, CC permits are 'shall issue', so fark the po' po'.
 
2014-08-05 12:31:44 PM  
This thread needs more derp.

blogs.houstonpress.com
 
2014-08-05 12:31:53 PM  

moothemagiccow: cameroncrazy1984: This analogy only works if a woman could use an abortion to murder 28 kids in ten minutes.

One woman doctor gives a dose of mifepristone to 28 pregnant women. But it ain't murder. fark.


I agree with you. Doctors who give abortions should be charged with first-degree murder, and women who get abortions from these doctors should be charged with felony murder. In fact, I so agree with you that I think we should pass a federal law mandating that all doctors turn over their records relating to their executing abortions and make non-compliance with this law a felony punishable by death.
 
2014-08-05 12:32:16 PM  
Solution: give guns to every woman arriving to get an abortion.

Hormones+assholish protestors=2nd Amenment win!
 
2014-08-05 12:32:19 PM  

doglover: vpb: I think he is pretending that the second Amendment to individuals and not militias as it clearly states.

Are you a non-native speaker?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment, like many parts of the constitution, clearly applies to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It is a limitation on the powers of the government that prevents them from infringing "the right of the people" to have weapons along with a subordinate clause that preemptively explains the reasoning is that without arms the people could not form a functional militia.


It applies to neither the people nor the militias they may or may not form. It's strictly a prohibition on government interference.


user@darkstar:~$ links -dump http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htm l | grep -i "the people"
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
or to the people.

Why is it that one of these "the peoples" isn't considered to be The People?
 
2014-08-05 12:32:26 PM  
Sounds like reasonable restrictions to me. Abortion would still technically be legal, which is good enough.
 
2014-08-05 12:33:10 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Solution: give guns to every woman arriving to get an abortion.


I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2014-08-05 12:33:28 PM  

theorellior: [www.mindhuestudio.com image 600x337]


How about one of those for automobiles?  A lot more people die that way.
 
Displayed 50 of 444 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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