Agents are GO! posted:

Yeah, that's why I was asking (google turned up nothing.)

EDIT:


I think I'm not doing to well on this one.

Interlude posted:

Most reasonable gun owners want that too. Problem is, how do you implement it? If you walk into a gun shop, they perform a background check on you before handing over that gun. If you have a clean record, what else can be done to ensure you're not going to kill seventeen people in a school? What if you prefer to kill your mother and use her gun to kill people in a school, like Newtown?

The time for compromise on this issue expired years ago, because for every reasonable person who just wants to reduce violence, there's someone else who wants to ban guns entirely, and another person that focuses on dumb things like assault weapons bans and microstamping that accomplish nothing of value other than to piss off gun owners, who then oppose anything reasonable because the well has been poisoned.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

I know that you're trying to argue in good faith, so please interpret any perceived argumentative tone in this post as an artifact of my just being blunt about the facts of the matter.

The only case in which a firearm can be legally sold by an unlicensed person to another unlicensed person without the use of an FFL is the private sale of a firearm to a resident of the same state as the seller. Long guns must be purchased out-of-state through an FFL, and direct possession can only be taken if such sale complies with the laws regarding purchase of a long gun in both the seller's and recipient's home state (meaning that if the seller's state denies sale to a non-resident, or the recipient's state denies direct receipt of a firearm from out-of-state, the sale must go through an FFL in the recipient's state of residence). Interstate handgun sales must always go through an FFL in the recipient's home state, no exceptions. I'm neither disagreeing nor agreeing with the concept of requiring that all firearm sales go through an FFL, just pointing out that there's only one case in which not doing so is legal to begin with by Federal law.

As far as "assault weapons" go, the biggest problem a lot of pro-gun people have with that term is that it's often defined by form and not function (as in, two firearms of the same caliber and magazine size may be in a situation where one is legal and the other illegal based on features that may only impact accuracy or ease of use, rather than the oft-stated "lethality" claim). Of course, if a lot of gun control were targeted at the guns most used in criminal acts, the primary target would be handguns (and Heller has already made that kind of targeting problematic).

For background checks, we have NICS. The problem with NICS is that it's only usable by FFLs (which wouldn't be an issue if all firearm sales went through FFLs), only gives a "go"/"delay"/"no go" response (so an FFL can't easily take action such as referring the purchaser to law enforcement), and relies on reporting of things that would prohibit someone from possessing a firearm by the states. Many states have failed both to implement their own background check system and to report indicators of prohibited possession (such as adjudication of mental deficiency or being involuntarily committed to a mental institution) to the Federal government. That's one of the biggest things that pro-gun people are talking about when they say "enforce the existing laws first".

Regarding training/safety courses, the primary concern is that it would be handled much the same way Voter ID laws have been implemented in some states (like having the course be held at one location, during one day each month, at hours that would require taking time off from one's job to go, if such location can be reached without undue burden by the person at all). If it were required that the implementation of such were done in a way that the training imposed neither an undue financial burden nor an undue burden of travel, it would be seen as a less problematic solution.

Again, I'm not pushing any position in either direction in response to what you're saying, only trying to get the facts out in the open, and point out the existing objections/problems that would have to be shored up before those solutions would be workable.

I appreciate the idea of trying to balance liberty with licentiousness when discussing what's currently a Constitutional right. It's a pity that so many people think that "sensible gun control" just means "make more types of guns illegal", "make it harder/more expensive for people to obtain firearms", or "only celebrities/politicians should be able to afford and/or navigate the system required to own/carry a firearm". And that's if people are even aware of the existing laws in the first place - I can't tell you how many people I've seen say "we need to make it illegal for someone who's involuntarily committed to own a firearm", when that's already in the laws.

hamster_style posted:

Cousin re-posted this from the Tea Party page. I've already hammered on the Hitler gun control thing every other time he's re-posted a "Hitler == Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and it never seems to sink in. Was King George III really in favor of gun control?

Discendo Vox posted:

To credit Jim Davis, his callous phoning in of it was impeccably executed, which requires a different sort of skill, and he hasn't used it to forward horrible ideas, or do anything proactive to destroy he medium. It would be interesting to find out what his favorite comics are.

RagnarokAngel posted:

You don't think it's a human condition that people will look out for their own interests?

Nice Davis posted:

Fulchrum posted:

Theyr'e pretty loving happy in Indonesia, the largest Muslim population on Earth.



Isn't it amazing how all these talks about Muslim countries miss the worlds biggest Muslim country?

PUGGERNAUT posted:

Why do middle aged family members always insist on tagging everyone they know in unrelated pictures/statuses

I got a notification and thought someone wanted to talk to me

Folding Bear posted:

Everything can be about Obummer. If only you try hard enough.

1stGear posted:

On the other hand, it's nice when people admit the American Revolution was more about taxes than FREEDOM

vyelkin posted:

He's a Minnesota State Representative, I believe. Still elected, but hardly on the same level.

Elder Postsman posted:

I saw this billboard on the way to work today:



And apparently the same organization has a few of these ones around, too:



So, of course, I gotta check that website out.



I'm pretty sure, like, none of those are true. So basically this Council for Health Freedom is encouraging people to go without or pay more for health insurance... for freedom? They really are grasping at straws trying to defeat Obamacare at this point.

Elder Postsman posted:

The one I saw was on 94 West, right after 280. That's definitely not Bachmann territory.

Jabarto posted:

Forget about putting armed guards in schools, just give the school librarians guns. The mass-shooters will never see it coming.

VideoTapir posted:

You have to move the actual sourcing to where it can't be easily cropped out. Probably over the photo, too.

McDowell posted:

I'm also curious what they mean by immigrants 'grazing' on the nation.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

It's a fairly common meme to either massively cut or straight remove salaries for lawmakers yea. The logic behind it is that lawmaking should never be seen as a way to make a living but should be some noble calling, which totally works as long as Congress got renamed to The Monastic Order Of Law or whatever and I didn't hear about it.

SedanChair posted:

How many of those characters have pointlessly colossal tits?

Discendo Vox posted:

Sadly, I believe that in many cases the tits in question are in fact quite pointed.

Fulchrum posted:

Are you referring to the Metroid vaccine? That was more like just getting a cowpox shot.

Mooseontheloose posted:

The whole Ukraine thing is bitching for the sake of bitching. Realistically, what are the US's options? Start a hot war? Threaten to bomb anyone who disagrees with us?

Quite frankly, why do you even want to let Russia get the satisfaction of thinking they are a global power anymore by playing their game of making them look bigger than they are? Conservative foreign policy just makes no sense to me and I can't even figure out the logic.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I'm all for 'Supportin' the Troops"™ but I don't think that even the loss of a limb should unconditionally mean that you never have to work for the rest of your life.
Sure, we should continue to cover medical expense, sure we can continue to pay some sort of compensation payment, but at some point you need to put down the Pacifico and enter the workforce.

Inspector Hound posted:

Really the only thing it's missing is driving home the point that in all these post-apocalyptic gunscape fantasies the bad guys getting shot are all American servicemen.

Doctor Butts posted:

It even has GOD in it!

Swan Oat posted:

While This Land is Your Land would own as the national anthem, the actual Correct choice is The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

It actually kind of sucks that so much American patriotic music just so lovely. Like, The Star Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful and God Bless America just aren't good songs and wouldn't be good even if they were about patriotic American peasants rising up to eat the rich and institute full communism.

LeJackal posted:

I think that she works better. We even have some preliminary artwork for the album cover!

E-Tank posted:

Prick for much of his life or not, a senile old man is a senile old man.

I lived with my grandmother who suffered from dementia for years. She said things that I don't understand, and she at times didn't even know where she was. The real her was long gone, only showing up in fragments of lucidity. Even *if* Charlton Heston was lucid at that moment, it was still a bit of a dick move.


That said, if he was still president of NRA at the time and they hadn't quietly had him resign or something, he sort of had it coming. I'm not sure how to stand on the issue.

Bloodnose posted:

This part made me double take. It's seriously disturbing that an American patriot could write this unironically. "Support the junta or go before a firing squad" -conservative American values

Edit: I wonder if these military fetishists realize that B. Hussein Obama is the commander in chief of the military. He's the number one military guy. Super king of the military. Every soldier from top to bottom has the ultimate duty to enact the will of our Marxist Muslim Emperor.

Mister Bates posted:

http://youtu.be/A5ra9cXx1-o

Also, why does no one ever use any of the actual Confederate flags? Like, is there any particular reason their naval ensign became a rightist political symbol but their real flag didn't?