Thu April 18, 2013 2:11 am
Thu April 18, 2013 1:50 pm
simple schoolboy wrote:If I could trust them to actually destroy the records and not expand this at a later date it would be more palatable. Oh, and its total lack of relevance to any of the recent tragedies makes it questionable. If you live in a blue state this failure won't affect your fellow citizens anyhow, so you can sleep soundly, BI.
Thu April 18, 2013 7:03 pm
Thu April 18, 2013 10:08 pm
broken iris wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:If I could trust them to actually destroy the records and not expand this at a later date it would be more palatable. Oh, and its total lack of relevance to any of the recent tragedies makes it questionable. If you live in a blue state this failure won't affect your fellow citizens anyhow, so you can sleep soundly, BI.
I can assure you with 100% certainty that the information that would be derived from the background checks is already tracked and stored by the federal government.
Mon April 22, 2013 9:25 am
Mon April 22, 2013 9:27 am
Mon April 22, 2013 9:50 am
Mon April 22, 2013 10:11 am
Mon April 22, 2013 3:47 pm
WtOB? wrote:
Woah, that's pwnt.
Tue April 23, 2013 1:29 am
this is sorta the point, b.i.broken iris wrote:Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.
Tue April 23, 2013 1:40 am
elliseamos wrote:this is sorta the point, b.i.broken iris wrote:Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.
Tue April 23, 2013 1:48 am
simple schoolboy wrote:elliseamos wrote:this is sorta the point, b.i.broken iris wrote:Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.
I thought the point was arresting people for having the tenacity for bringing their (registered in their home state) handgun into New York. http://online.wsj.com/article/APe23c8ddd91004213ab81d1847767c46d.html
Tue April 23, 2013 1:56 am
elliseamos wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:elliseamos wrote:this is sorta the point, b.i.broken iris wrote:Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.
I thought the point was arresting people for having the tenacity for bringing their (registered in their home state) handgun into New York. http://online.wsj.com/article/APe23c8ddd91004213ab81d1847767c46d.html
what? I was referring to the point of the jon oliver/jon howard segment being discussed.
that story is just seems odd to me. if the gun was unloaded and he had no ammunition, what did he need the gun for?
Tue April 23, 2013 2:04 am
Tue April 23, 2013 2:07 am
i understand what he was trying to do, i don't understand why it's New York's fault that he's an idiot.simple schoolboy wrote:He was trying to check it as baggage at the airport for passenger air travel. For this he gets arrested, thanks to the strict gun control New York would like to export to the rest of the country.
since when is it acceptable to throw our hands up and quit before we even try to solve a problem?simple schoolboy wrote:The point is, the proposals so far would have very little, possibly no impact on the rare but spectacular mass shootings. What these proposals (and resultant laws) are good for is making felons* out of otherwise law-abiding individuals.
*or just misdemeanor level criminals, depending the severity
like i said above, why is it New York's fault that he's an idiot?simple schoolboy wrote:Edit:apparently you can check most ammunition in baggage but it must be in an approved container. Also, my understandin is that he was bringing it as a prop for an interview or something of that nature.
Tue April 23, 2013 4:13 am
elliseamos wrote:i understand what he was trying to do, i don't understand why it's New York's fault that he's an idiot.simple schoolboy wrote:He was trying to check it as baggage at the airport for passenger air travel. For this he gets arrested, thanks to the strict gun control New York would like to export to the rest of the country.since when is it acceptable to throw our hands up and quit before we even try to solve a problem?simple schoolboy wrote:The point is, the proposals so far would have very little, possibly no impact on the rare but spectacular mass shootings. What these proposals (and resultant laws) are good for is making felons* out of otherwise law-abiding individuals.
*or just misdemeanor level criminals, depending the severitylike i said above, why is it New York's fault that he's an idiot?simple schoolboy wrote:Edit:apparently you can check most ammunition in baggage but it must be in an approved container. Also, my understandin is that he was bringing it as a prop for an interview or something of that nature.
Tue April 23, 2013 4:27 am
simple schoolboy wrote:and at least those folks have probably funded Mexican cartels.
Tue April 23, 2013 10:36 am
right. not to mention one's carrying a small quantity of mary jane will never result in someone dying.cutuphalfdead wrote:simple schoolboy wrote:and at least those folks have probably funded Mexican cartels.
pfft, only if they're buying shitty mexican brick weed
Tue April 23, 2013 12:52 pm
elliseamos wrote:this is sorta the point, b.i.broken iris wrote:Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.
"... believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a Buy-Back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms; even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law."
Tue April 23, 2013 1:23 pm
broken iris wrote:...it's important to note that the starting point for the Aussie law and any future US laws are different.
From snopes.comAustralian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms; even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors.