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.

(CNN)   If the Vegas shooter had been trying to stockpile cold medicine instead of guns, he would have been sitting in jail long ago   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Methamphetamine, Mandalay Bay Resort, street drug methamphetamine, 30-day period, Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, federal act sets, National Precursor Log, Drug Diversion Investigators  
•       •       •

3647 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (41 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-06 04:21:33 PM  

capn' fun: Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


Let me ask you a counter question...

Suppose every time you needed to buy a car, you had to submit fingerprints and paperwork, and then wait 8 months for a green light. And if the paperwork got messed up, there's no service guarantee on when the feds will have it straightened out for you.

Would you be OK with that system, if you were reasonably confident that it would reduce traffic fatalities by say 10%? And this is a hypothetical - I'm not saying 10% is a correct number. I'm just asking if saving that number of lives every year would be worth the personal inconvenience to you.
 
2017-10-06 04:23:55 PM  

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  Papers or a couple hundred bucks please.  After all if you don't have the money, you probably can't be trusted.  Getting prosecuted for a crime?  Couple hundred bucks or no lawyer and you have to testify against yourself.

And votes, good God, how could we ever trust someone that come up with a couple hundred bucks with something as important as a vote.

Go on you do a couple now.
 
2017-10-06 04:26:04 PM  

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


Hey, and now we have reason to show people like you aren't to be trusted to decide mental health state.

If I'm unwilling to spend an extra $200 and wait 10+ months for something that will only be a feelgood measure for gun control supporters, that just makes me sensible.
 
2017-10-06 04:30:47 PM  

ZeroPly: Your question is incredibly insightful, and I really wish people would ask more questions like this in gun threads, because it brings out the difference in "gun culture" between someone like me and someone who doesn't shoot at all.

$1 million? Wouldn't take it. I like shooting, and honestly, there's not a whole lot that I need a million for. I pay all my bills on time, retirement is maxed each year, and the last thing I need in my life is more toys. I'm by no means rich, but I'm happy with where I am.

Plus, I actually have to do a lot of work on the guns at home. Things like boresighting, cleaning, dry firing etc. Consider my average range routine:

Day prior - strip, make sure everything works, light lube if warranted, dry fire
Immediately after range - clean, lube a bit on the heavy side, put into safe
1 week after - take out of safe and clean again, then very light lube
every 6 months - clean if I haven't fired it in that long

The range that I like is about 45 minutes away, and it's not feasible for me to drive there the day prior to shooting to make sure everything's ready to go. And to fire at 1000m distances, I have to drive for 2-3 hours. I have a big selection of tools and accessories that I use for cleaning (think solvent tanks), so it wouldn't be practical to transport all of that either.


Thanks for considering it, and you brought up points I hadn't thought about. As someone who thinks these mass shootings do indicate we have a serious gun problem in America, I want to find a way to solve it--but the current attempts of gun control, forcible confiscation, and banning is not the way to do it. Although clearly not something you would go for, I suspect there would be a non-trivial number of gun-owners who would give serious consideration to a voluntary, highly incentivized approach, if the money were truly game-changing. Not everyone would go for it, but I think it would reduce a LOT of the guns out there.
 
2017-10-06 04:33:26 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

Let me ask you a counter question...

Suppose every time you needed to buy a car, you had to submit fingerprints and paperwork, and then wait 8 months for a green light. And if the paperwork got messed up, there's no service guarantee on when the feds will have it straightened out for you.

Would you be OK with that system, if you were reasonably confident that it would reduce traffic fatalities by say 10%? And this is a hypothetical - I'm not saying 10% is a correct number. I'm just asking if saving that number of lives every year would be worth the personal inconvenience to you.


If I knew that buying a particular kind of car would involve fingerprints, paperwork, and an 8 month wait, and I still wanted that particular kind of car, then yes-I would be absolutely fine with it. Especially if I could trot on down to a dealership and buy my choice of many other types of car without any extra hassles or waiting.

With the exception of suicides, removing semi-autos from general use would reduce gun injuries and deaths a LOT more than 10%. It would also limit the damage in mass shootings. How many little kids in Newtown would still be alive today if that lunatic had been forced to work a bolt in between every shot?.

10% wouldn't even cover just the number of idiots who wouldn't accidentally shoot themselves or someone else when they're jerking off with their rifle or pistol (Excuse me; I meant "accidentally discharging it when they're loading a live round into the chamber on top of a loaded magazine and/or forgetting that they have a live round already loaded into the chamber and pointing it at themselves or someone else"). And, not for nothing, it would also drastically curb the number of small children who accidentally discharge a gun when they find one that an irresponsible adult left within their reach.
 
2017-10-06 04:41:05 PM  

Callous: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  Papers or a couple hu ...


This is what I meant about going straight to "stupid". Beginning with a few hundred dollars being "wealth".
 
2017-10-06 04:50:07 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

Let me ask you a counter question...

Suppose every time you needed to buy a car, you had to submit fingerprints and paperwork, and then wait 8 months for a green light. And if the paperwork got messed up, there's no service guarantee on when the feds will have it straightened out for you.

Would you be OK with that system, if you were reasonably confident that it would reduce traffic fatalities by say 10%? And this is a hypothetical - I'm not saying 10% is a correct number. I'm just asking if saving that number of lives every year would be worth the personal inconvenience to you.

If I knew that buying a particular kind of car would involve fingerprints, paperwork, and an 8 month wait, and I still wanted that particular kind of car, then yes-I would be absolutely fine with it. Especially if I could trot on down to a dealership and buy my choice of many other types of car without any extra hassles or waiting.

With the exception of suicides, removing semi-autos from general use would reduce gun injuries and deaths a LOT more than 10%. It would also limit the damage in mass shootings. How many little kids in Newtown would still be alive today if that lunatic had been forced to work a bolt in between every shot?.


It depends on how the shooter chose to do his massacre.  He may have just gone the route of the Bath School Massacre.

Literally a handful of people a year cannot be used to drastically reduce the rights of 10s of millions, especially when the restrictions have next to no chance of making a dent in what is already a very rare event that accounts for only a tiny part of overall firearm deaths.

Everyday murderers will carrying one more or revolvers or find one of the many semi-auto firearms still around and carry on largely unabated.

I realize you really like gun control, bureaucracy, and the rush of power from smugly proposing idiotic regulations, but it won't work.  It just won't.  It's not that it won't be perfect, it won't have much of an effect at all.

If you want to stop the daily murder toll, put your little ideas into reducing poverty.   If you want to stop the dedicated 1 in 30 million mass murderer while respecting the 2nd amendment,  you largely have to focus on target hardening.  Otherwise you end up closing a new barn door after another horse escapes, with a neverending series of barndoor types and styles to deal with.
 
2017-10-06 04:50:43 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

Hey, and now we have reason to show people like you aren't to be trusted to decide mental health state.

If I'm unwilling to spend an extra $200 and wait 10+ months for something that will only be a feelgood measure for gun control supporters, that just makes me sensible.


It wouldn't be about making gun control advocates "feel good"; it would be about keeping the most dangerous categories of guns out of the hands of people who can't-or won't-submit to a background check and the responsibilities of owning them. Or can't even be bothered to plan ahead in purchasing them.
 
2017-10-06 04:51:05 PM  

capn' fun: Callous: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  Papers or a ...


You feel free cough up all the extra money and wait all the months for something you want and let us know how that goes.
 
2017-10-06 04:55:13 PM  

capn' fun: It wouldn't be about making gun control advocates "feel good"; it would be about keeping the most dangerous categories of guns out of the hands of people who can't-or won't-submit to a background check and the responsibilities of owning them. Or can't even be bothered to plan ahead in purchasing them.


You are really bad at this.  Every mass shooter has planned ahead.   They're no the most dangerous category of weapons.

The people who can't/won't submit to a background check will just get another weapons; the black market will be full of pre-registry firearms to choose from.  NFA background checks are against the same NICS system that over-the-counter checks are done from.

What sort of stats do you have to show that people who commit crimes with semi-auto weapons do so shortly after buying their gun, or even just months later?

We're not going to wait 10+ months, spend an extra $200, and leave ourselves open to confiscation and inability to buy new ones just to let people like you play out some silly, poorly thought out test.
 
2017-10-06 04:57:53 PM  
Compromise is possible, but not so long as the actual and perceived goal of every so-called compromise is "Concede on a partial ban now, get nothing in return except maybe we'll hold off on confiscation... until the next exploitable tragedy".


ZeroPly:   Politically it would never work, but restricting weapons to ranges is still a good idea. The problem is that it might not meet second amendment requirements due to availability - if sh*t hits the fan next Thursday at 2am, what guarantee do I have that I can get to my weapons before the government locks down all the authorized ranges?

I agree, "restricting weapons to ranges" sounds like a good idea to non-gun-owning urbanites.   It sounds patronizing to people who live on multiple acres out in the boonies where police response time runs from 30 minutes to "We'll have a state trooper there in about hour, if the roads are clear".   And it definitely sounds unconstitutional.

2A rights aside, when it's 2AM and I've got a pack of coyotes tearing their way through the chicken coop or a carload of yutes kicking down the front door after confusing my house number with that of my (now former) neighbor the meth cook, I need a semi-auto right then and there, not restricted to a range or waiting at the dealer for BATFE to approve the transfer paperwork.   And when I was working nights and my car was the last one left in the parking lot at our low-rent office on the south side of Chicago at 2AM, having been forced to store my handgun at the range an hour away (there are none within the city limits) seemed like a really bad idea.
 
2017-10-06 05:02:44 PM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Has any of you Farkers started this yet? I think we need this.

"A well regulated Health Care System, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and buy ___________ [fill in the blank, let's start with Sudafed], shall not be infringed."
 
2017-10-06 05:08:10 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: Callous: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  P ...


The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.
 
2017-10-06 05:15:42 PM  
Well yeah.  People making drugs or alcohol?  Those are evils that can be regulated.   Weirdos stockpiling guns, ammo, and bombs to use on civilians?  Nothing anybody in the world can do about that.  Just have to live with it.  Til one of them kills us, I mean.  Price of freedom and such.
 
2017-10-06 05:21:31 PM  

chuggernaught: Well yeah.  People making drugs or alcohol?  Those are evils that can be regulated.   Weirdos stockpiling guns, ammo, and bombs to use on civilians?  Nothing anybody in the world can do about that.  Just have to live with it.  Til one of them kills us, I mean.  Price of freedom and such.


What are your suggestions for regulation, and why?
 
2017-10-06 05:35:07 PM  

capn' fun: The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.


And this is a big part of the problem. When the healthcare debate was going on, no one would have agreed to a system where you mailed paperwork to the government, and then 6 months later you'd get something mailed back to you, then you have insurance. No, let's make an online system, because we're not in 1982 any more.

But for guns, it's completely cool with people if gun owners have to put up with that, because it's not THEM that's being inconvenienced. That contributes significantly to the rift between the two sides.

I'm not agreeing to any system that involves a 6 month turnaround time for an approval. I work in IT, and if someone can't do better than that, they're f*cking logistically incompetent, and not worth dealing with.
 
2017-10-06 05:44:07 PM  

Corn_Fed: As for the black market--it would make guns, especially semi-automatics--prohibitively expensive for most people. That might not have stopped a multi-millionaire like Paddock, but if such guns are $40,000 like fully-automatic black market guns are, that would eliminate access for 99.9% of mass shooters. I'm all for it.


Where do you get that 40K price tag?   An AK-47 goes for a fraction of that on the black market.

For $40,000 I can do the paperwork, wait a year, and take home a legal ATF-approved fully-automatic machine gun (maybe two if I am willing to settle for well-used WWII rifles or something chambered for an uncommon cartridge).  The price of legal, transferable fully-automatic firearms is mostly driven by the lack of supply due to the 1986 registration cutoff --  BATFE says there are 175,977 transferable machine guns on their books, and few have owners interested in selling at any price.


Even where legal semi-auto rifles are unobtainable, there is generally a robust black market in military guns like select-fire AK-47s, at prices that are anything but prohibitively expensive for most people:
img.fark.netView Full Size

Handguns are easier to smuggle than rifles, black market handgun prices are lower.
 
2017-10-06 05:47:39 PM  

mrsleep: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.

Cars kill FAR more people than guns. ~35k a year. And that's pretty heavily regulated too.


Yo, I bought a car just for killing people.
 
2017-10-06 05:52:30 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.

And this is a big part of the problem. When the healthcare debate was going on, no one would have agreed to a system where you mailed paperwork to the government, and then 6 months later you'd get something mailed back to you, then you have insurance. No, let's make an online system, because we're not in 1982 any more.

But for guns, it's completely cool with people if gun owners have to put up with that, because it's not THEM that's being inconvenienced. That contributes significantly to the rift between the two sides.

I'm not agreeing to any system that involves a 6 month turnaround time for an approval. I work in IT, and if someone can't do better than that, they're f*cking logistically incompetent, and not worth dealing with.


Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?
 
2017-10-06 05:55:11 PM  

Fark You Buddy: mrsleep: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.

Cars kill FAR more people than guns. ~35k a year. And that's pretty heavily regulated too.

Yo, I bought a car just for killing people.


You could do it, no background check or anything.
 
2017-10-06 05:57:59 PM  

capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?


Sorry, still no.  The registry was closed in 1986 for machineguns despite assurances throughout the history of the NFA that it was merely a tax and minor registration measure.

Given the repeated deceptions by gun control supporters and politicians, compliance for your little test would probably be under 20%.
 
2017-10-06 06:10:59 PM  

capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?


If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".
 
2017-10-06 06:39:29 PM  

give me doughnuts: ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.


Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.


We must do something!
This is something.
We must do This!

Great logic there. No way it could fail.
 
2017-10-06 06:49:33 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".


The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification happened Remington would start pumping them out), they're going to go with the on-the-spot check and save the cost of the tax stamp and walk out with the bolt gun. They still walk out with a gun-just not a semi-auto. If they really want one, then they can plan ahead and still be able to buy one, as long as there are no issues with the comprehensive background check.

As for the overall process, it is archaic by design. Any attempt to digitize, streamline, or simplify it is immediately shouted down as a "slippery sloap" to confiscation. Because some people don't want to simply be able to own guns-they want to own them secretly. And that is another part of the overall problem.
 
2017-10-06 07:08:27 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification h ...


There is no difference between an NFA background check and a standard background check. They both use NICS.
 
2017-10-06 07:13:14 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification h ...

There is no difference between an NFA background check and a standard background check. They both use NICS.


I guarantee you that the background check to get a Class III permit is more in depth than buying a .22 Cricket at Bass Pro, starting with the fingerprints.
 
2017-10-06 07:20:07 PM  

pedrop357: If you want to stop the daily murder toll, put your little ideas into reducing poverty.


Dude, the shooter was loaded. Big bucks relative to general population.
 
2017-10-06 07:21:28 PM  

capn' fun: I guarantee you that the background check to get a Class III permit is more in depth than buying a .22 Cricket at Bass Pro, starting with the fingerprints.


You guarantee, huh?

Also, it's not a permit.  Class 3 is the type of Special Occupancy Taxpayer that the FFL is.

The thing to be approved that we need a tax stamp attached to is the ATF Form 1 for manufacturing an NFA firearm or a Form 4 for transferring one.
 
2017-10-06 07:24:01 PM  

zepillin: pedrop357: If you want to stop the daily murder toll, put your little ideas into reducing poverty.

Dude, the shooter was loaded. Big bucks relative to general population.


I don't think he's going to be contributing anything to reduce the poverty that seems to be at the root of most violence in this country.
 
2017-10-06 07:29:42 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: I guarantee you that the background check to get a Class III permit is more in depth than buying a .22 Cricket at Bass Pro, starting with the fingerprints.

You guarantee, huh?

Also, it's not a permit.  Class 3 is the type of Special Occupancy Taxpayer that the FFL is.

The thing to be approved that we need a tax stamp attached to is the ATF Form 1 for manufacturing an NFA firearm or a Form 4 for transferring one.


You got me, there. I'm typing from memory on cell phone in a bar. But I still argue that simply just adding a few hoops to owning a semi-auto in one hand, and a simple, on-the-spot check for a non semi-auto on the other hand, and most people will go with the non semi-auto and still walk out of the store as a gun owner. It's a reasonable compromise; nobody who can't even pass the most basic check can have a gun, and anyone who feels strongly about having a semi auto has a defined process they can plan for accordingly.
 
2017-10-06 07:32:42 PM  

capn' fun: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (an ...


Just because you send in fingerprints doesn't mean they actually do anything with them. It's more about inconvenience than anything else.
 
2017-10-06 07:37:09 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: capn' fun: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (an ...

Just because you send in fingerprints doesn't mean they actually do anything with them. It's more about inconvenience than anything else.


Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.
 
2017-10-06 07:53:54 PM  

capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.


The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?
 
2017-10-06 08:05:09 PM  

capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.


The answer is a definite and final NO.

When people start using those other guns to commit mass murders, it's a given that you or someone like you will come along and start playing nice and suggesting that we need to add those guns to the list now and it's OK because people can still  get whatever guns are left without a bunch of unnecessary hoops and added expenses.

So, no.  We're not foolish enough to go down this road with you.
 
2017-10-06 08:06:12 PM  

ChicagoKev: capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.

The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?


I'm talking about a specific type of firearms. Not voting rights or anything else. Along with an alternative to purchase and own other types of firearms while still making the first available with a few more steps towards ownership. That is a rasonable plan that could make a genuine difference and still respect the 2nd Amendment.
 
2017-10-06 08:12:27 PM  

capn' fun: ChicagoKev: capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.

The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?

I'm talking about a specific type of firearms. Not voting rights or anything else. Along with an alternative to purchase and own other types of firearms while still making the first available with a few more steps towards ownership. That is a rasonable plan that could make a genuine difference and still respect the 2nd Amendment.


No.  You feel free to buy all the alternatives you want, add them to whatever lists you want, pay extra for them whenever you like.  Count everyone else out.

The rest of us don't consider your plan reasonable, and we also know it won't make much of a difference, and is obviously disrespectful of the 2nd amendment.
 
2017-10-06 09:15:41 PM  

capn' fun: The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification happened Remington would start pumping them out), they're going to go with the on-the-spot check and save the cost of the tax stamp and walk out with the bolt gun. They still walk out with a gun-just not a semi-auto. If they really want one, then they can plan ahead and still be able to buy one, as long as there are no issues with the comprehensive background check.

As for the overall process, it is archaic by design. Any attempt to digitize, streamline, or simplify it is immediately shouted down as a "slippery sloap" to confiscation. Because some people don't want to simply be able to own guns-they want to own them secretly. And that is another part of the overall problem.


It's not the casual shopper who would oppose adding semi-autos to the NFA-regulated list. It would be experienced gun owners. I don't want to wait 6 months for the federal bureaucracy to grind along. And I only have 2 semi-autos right now - it would be a nightmare for a collector.

I'm not against a deep background check for an NFA-regulated firearm. That's totally reasonable. But if I'm going in to buy a Beretta, I really don't want to wait 3 months for federal paperwork. Instead of proposing a system that no gun owner will go for, come up with something that's fast.

I don't personally know any gun owner who's against a tracking system, as long as the government can't abuse the data without a warrant.
 
2017-10-06 11:10:16 PM  

question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


I get a prescription for it once a year with a couple refills. It's not a big deal. Cold medicines on the shelf work for shiate.
 
2017-10-07 04:10:54 AM  
I went up to Canada a few weekends ago and forgot (AGAIN) to buy the full strength cough syrup. A week later I got sick and was so pissed.
 
Displayed 39 of 289 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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