|
LeeMajors posted:Baked goods and cars aren't specifically designed to kill people. Looks like someone doesn't practice Extreme Baking. 
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
I mean, none of these measures were really any good. Least of all the one based on the super specious watchlist. If the dems get the senate something good might happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
emdash posted:I mean, none of these measures were really any good. Least of all the one based on the super specious watchlist. If the dems get the senate something good might happen Could you translate that into spanish
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
emdash posted:I mean, none of these measures were really any good. Least of all the one based on the super specious watchlist. If the dems get the senate something good might happen This is very true. They should've been voting on a nationwide ban and confiscation if our government had an entire brain among them. Otherwise we are stuck with Dead Reckoning lecturing us about how a school full of dead children isn't reason enough to deny an olympic target shooter his or her implements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Looks like someone doesn't practice Extreme Baking. Or isn't a big enough Titus Andronichus fan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Keep banging that drum. emdash posted:I mean, none of these measures were really any good. Least of all the one based on the super specious watchlist. If the dems get the senate something good might happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So if someone designed and sold a hunting rifle that happened to be really effective at killing people, that would be OK in your book? Negative. Guns exist for killing. They were invented to kill people and exist to either kill or practice killing. They are deadly weapons and are used as such. They should be regulated like the extreme public safety nuisance they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So if someone designed and sold a hunting rifle that happened to be really effective at killing people, that would be OK in your book? Aren't they all really effective at killing people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
greatn posted:Aren't they all really effective at killing people? He's caught up on whether a specific gun is designed to kill people, or animals or targets. The fact that they are all deadly weapons and are designed as such doesn't enter into the equation because he is a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Explosives, at least broad categories of them, are designed for industrial purposes. Incidentally, they're also really good at killing people. I'm not upset at all that there are regulations around the sale, use and transfer of explosives. The designer's intent isn't really relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Well, Pat Toomey is still a hypocritical gently caress.quote:Starting 11 a.m. yesterday through early this morning, Sen. Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut held the Senate floor to call for stricter gun control following the country’s worst ever mass shooting this past weekend in Orlando. http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/06/16/pa-senators-gun-control-filibuster/ Oh, but wait, when it came time for the vote, look who voted against background checks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't really a loophole though, that's the way the law works on most things. Holding a bake sale doesn't make your kitchen a restaurant subject to helath inspections, and selling your car doesn't make your garage a car dealership. We can still regulate private sellers though. If I sell my car, the buyer is still required to do title transfer and pay sales tax on it, for example. I don't see why anyone would object to requiring private sellers to ensure that they buyer isn't a criminal, since selling a gun to someone who isn't legally allowed to possess it is already against the law, why wouldn't we want to enforce that law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
MsJoelBoxer posted:Well, Pat Toomey is still a hypocritical gently caress. Remember how there were people here in this selfsame forum who refused to turn out for Joe Sestak in 2010, and let Toomey win? Yeah, that wasn't a good move. Take note, Sanders holdouts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Negative. Guns exist for killing. They were invented to kill people and exist to either kill or practice killing. They are deadly weapons and are used as such. They should be regulated like the extreme public safety nuisance they are. Agreed. Single round, bolt-action rifles are all anyone needs for hunting. Ban everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The designer's intent isn't really relevant. Sure, but with guns it's just a feather in the fedora of awfulness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We can still regulate private sellers though. It's such a hassle though. Do you know how long that paperwork takes to fill out? Like twenty minutes man. This is America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Agreed. Single round, There, like the founders intended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Oh good at least the No True Progressive chats over. If you think the gun measures were anything but political theater you're an absolute idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Oh good at least the No True Progressive chats over. Yeah they were all halfassed because the only thing that matters is legislation that falls on the spectrum between a zero-loophole/100% registration or a total ban.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Looks like someone doesn't practice Extreme Baking. Holy poo poo I laughed at a fishmech post 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Holy poo poo I laughed at a fishmech post Oh ho, he's got you for life now
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Negative. Guns exist for killing. They were invented to kill people and exist to either kill or practice killing. They are deadly weapons and are used as such. They should be regulated like the extreme public safety nuisance they are. I have no idea how you keep typing out "guns were designed for killing. They should be illegal because they are effective at killing people" and not realizing why those two ideas don't relate to each other. greatn posted:Aren't they all really effective at killing people? VitalSigns posted:We can still regulate private sellers though. As to the second part, we still have to square the question of how we're going to let private parties run checks on each others' warrants, convictions, restraining orders, immigration status, and no-fly-listed-ness. I explained upthread why the current state of affairs for private party sales actually isn't a significant problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
MsJoelBoxer posted:Well, Pat Toomey is still a hypocritical gently caress. what a gutless coward
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Keep banging that drum. Gotta love when gun nuts go on about all the other ways you can kill people when guns were invented because those other ways were not expedient enough. Gun nuts are stupid people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh, OK, so private ownership of RADAR, rockets, modern airplanes, and microwaves should be illegal. Because they were invented to kill people. all have other uses aside from ending life or practicing your aim so that you can more easily end life. don't mind me! just gonna cook some bacon on muh gun and then fly on it to another country or maybe into space!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:As to the second part, we still have to square the question of how we're going to let private parties run checks on each others' warrants, convictions, restraining orders, immigration status, and no-fly-listed-ness. I explained upthread why the current state of affairs for private party sales actually isn't a significant problem. Why is this question even a problem. The prospective buyer already has to sign and submit a Firearms Transaction Record form, you can't just run random NCIS checks on anyone you want even if you are a licensed arms dealer. I'm sure we could come up with appropriate penalties if, for example, an employer requires prospective employees to fill out a bogus form as a condition of employment (assuming those don't exist already for a licensed dealer who tries to abuse the system that same way) And from what I understand it just comes back confirm/deny with a process to appeal, I don't think the dealer gets all the dirty details on someone's warrants, convictions, restraining orders etc. Is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Agreed. Single round, bolt-action rifles are all anyone needs for hunting. Ban everything else. Quoting for context... Sport can be preserved by providing controlled access to public arsenals, there is no need to allow private ownership in the name of sport.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh, OK, so private ownership of RADAR, rockets, modern airplanes, and microwaves should be illegal. Because they were invented to kill people. Doesn't directly kill people, heavily regulated, heavily regulated, doesn't directly kill people. "Battleships exist, so I guess we should ban JOHN BOATS HUH? Your move libtard  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh, OK, so private ownership of RADAR, rockets, modern airplanes, and microwaves should be illegal. Because they were invented to kill people. Radar and microwaves are no use for killing people, and airplanes and rockets are more regulated than guns. Even radar, and any sort of microwave transmitter past the one in an oven, are more regulated than guns. also none of those things except maybe rockets were even invented to kill people 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Ah the good old kitchen knife argument. Why is everyone so uptight about nuclear proliferation, if terrorists stabbed everyone in New York City in the heart with a sharp knitting needle they'd be just as dead, libtard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:also none of those things except maybe rockets were even invented to kill people Thats my favorite part. Rockets were definitely invented to kill people and by the same group that later invented guns for the same purpose. None of the other items, including planes, were. All of the things he did list were more heavily regulated and controlled as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Yeah they were all halfassed because the only thing that matters is legislation that falls on the spectrum between a zero-loophole/100% registration or a total ban. Any that passed the Senate would immediately be poo poo on by the Tortilla Coast-infused bowels of the HFC. gently caress I bet even a paper bag test for guns would fail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
You could kill a lot of people with RADAR, by messing with civilian airliners or air traffic control. Which is why there are a bunch of regulations to restrict you from doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Radar and microwaves are no use for killing people, and airplanes and rockets are more regulated than guns. Even radar, and any sort of microwave transmitter past the one in an oven, are more regulated than guns. A naval radar can totally toast your rear end, but on the other hand the government might ask some questions about you acquiring one even if you don't use it as a hilariously impractical weapon. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We can still regulate private sellers though. Sure, but the amendment today would have essentially required you to get licensed as a car dealership to sell your old hooptie on craigslist. I mentioned it earlier, but I'd like to see something where provisions were provided for individuals to use a license holding business as an intermediary to sell guns for a legislated fee, and where license holding businesses were compelled to preform that service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:A naval radar can totally toast your rear end, but on the other hand the government might ask some questions about you acquiring one even if you don't use it as a hilariously impractical weapon. I can't even count the number of times I stood on a bridge wing absently staring at the ocean when I suddenly realized that, that big loving multi mega-watt radar array is radiating right through me. Im never having kids
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Actually, I want a public official who can adapt and change. I don't want a person running the country who is so married to the ideology that they can't see another person's perspective. And again, it has nothing to do with "wanting someone who can adapt and change" or any of these personal character issues that have nothing to do with democracy. We know that Hillary Clinton is well aware of the standard elite views on because she's held them in the past, as has her husband, and the political faction of the Democratic party they represent. The question is to what degree they'll respond to the popular demands of their party. The idea that you don't want a party candidate who actually represents the popular views of their party in a democracy is kind of bizarre to me. These seem like contortions to portray a weakness as a strength. quote:Also, you're entirely wrong about "endlessly pressured to make the slightest acquiescence," but that's a semantic issue. Also wrong on her views on min-wage and UHC, but again whatever. How? On minimum wage, for example, she supported legislation for what would be an 11 dollar minimum wage in 2007 in today's dollars, then a 12 dollar minimum wage in the primary, and has now come around for a 15 dollar minimum wage. In 2008, this was her stance: quote:OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes. As of her last Presidential run, she was still repeating supply side dogma in the primary. Reminder: she was the conservative to Obama's more left-leaning approach, and that was a significantly more right-wing Democratic primary. Now, you can't go without a speech of hers lambasting tax avoiding corporations that won't pay their fair share. Just look at some of her positions in 2008, versus those in 2016. Then look at the positions she supported as First Lady, versus her positions in 2008. It's certainly positive that she's walking back the supply-side conservative Democrat nonsense, but framing it like it's a positive thing she started there in the first place is silly. Self-deception is not a pre-requisite for supporting Clinton against Donald Trump. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Boon posted:I can't even count the number of times I stood on a bridge wing absently staring at the ocean when I suddenly realized that, that big loving multi mega-watt radar array is radiating right through me. I'm not as up to snuff on my radar frequency vs intensity but I'll go ahead and assure you anyway: you likely get orders of magnitude more low frequency waves pumping through you just standing in the sun. It's the high frequency light you don't want. X rays, UV, z rays etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Sure, but the amendment today would have essentially required you to get licensed as a car dealership to sell your old hooptie on craigslist. I mentioned it earlier, but I'd like to see something where provisions were provided for individuals to use a license holding business as an intermediary to sell guns for a legislated fee, and where license holding businesses were compelled to preform that service. I'm pretty sure this is actually the case in California, private sellers are required to sell through a licensed dealer, although I don't know whether dealers are compelled. E: Yes it's the case https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#3 They exempt transfers from parent/grandparent to child/grandchild but not step relations, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc. I'm sure someone is about to show up and explain how this is all an affront to freedom and liberty and apple pie and America tho VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:all have other uses aside from ending life or practicing your aim so that you can more easily end life. VitalSigns posted:Why is this question even a problem. The prospective buyer already has to sign and submit a Firearms Transaction Record form, you can't just run random NCIS checks on anyone you want even if you are a licensed arms dealer. I'm sure we could come up with appropriate penalties if, for example, an employer requires prospective employees to fill out a bogus form as a condition of employment (assuming those don't exist already for a licensed dealer who tries to abuse the system that same way) James Garfield posted:Radar... [is] no use for killing people Boon posted:All of the things he did list were more heavily regulated and controlled as well. VitalSigns posted:I'm pretty sure this is actually the case in California, private sellers are required to sell through a licensed dealer, although I don't know whether dealers are compelled. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:13
|
|