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.

(Some Gun Nutjobs)   A group of gun enthusiasts plans on protesting a long-standing agreement between the city and an arts & crafts festival that forbids the presence of firearms. Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?   (candgnews.com) divider line 407
    More: Stupid, Royal Oak, carrying a firearm, Oakland County, city commission, firearms, city halls, festivals, arts  
•       •       •

3877 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2010 at 4:31 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-08 06:38:45 PM
ra-ra-raw: What a craft fair gun may look like:

Awesome...

Man w/ the golden gun anyone?

/nick nack
 
2010-08-08 06:39:35 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Again, the city can't outlaw state ccl's in the part while the part is a *public* park. As soon as it is rented out to an event, it's no longer a public park. It's not open to the part. It's only open to people who the renters want to enter.

And *they* are the ones who can prohibit weapons in the park for the duration they control access to it.

Again, ron. This is NOT the first time or place this has come up.



Show me the other times it's come up.

Secondly, you cannot say the city can ban firearms at this particular event because not even the city can say that. It's right there in the article. Plain and simple.
 
2010-08-08 06:39:57 PM
Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.

Lay a hand on my yarn and I WILL garrote you with my circular knitting needles.
 
2010-08-08 06:41:02 PM
Marcintosh: There was a murder of a young child (7-9 years old) at a 1980's street fair in Middletown CT. The murderer legally purchased a knife from a vendor and within moments plunged it into the chest of a nearby child that was standing with her mom. A police officer was less than 20 feet away.

So this murder took place while a guy with a gun was twenty feet away, but yet you think you need a gun to protect yourself from such a thing. I don't get it.
 
2010-08-08 06:41:34 PM
ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?

Nobody, unless you shot someone, which I am imagining isn't your intention. Or unless people didn't want some guy with a gun around them. Either way, only a complete dick would have tried to turn this into a legal extravaganza.
 
2010-08-08 06:42:41 PM
Speech cannot be financially burdened any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob

Jesus. Who's the twat?
 
2010-08-08 06:43:25 PM
Guairdean: You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up)

Your link says this:

True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

The term hoplophobe has been used to encourage constituent letter writing and to raise funds by at least one gun rights advocacy group. They have employed the term hoplophobe to characterize their opponents as outrageous fear-mongerers, and as being irrationally fearful.


So you are saying that although the condition you are pointing out does not actually exist you are going to insist that people you oppose are being irrationally fearful even though they are not because you provide a wiki link you hope they won't read.

Nothing like the smell of hypocrisy on a sunday afternoon.
 
2010-08-08 06:43:47 PM
ronaprhys: Show me the other times it's come up.

Yes, it is a pretty obscure issue (new window).
 
2010-08-08 06:44:00 PM
ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?

Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.
 
2010-08-08 06:44:43 PM
Salt Lick Steady: Speech cannot be financially burdened any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob

Jesus. Who's the twat?


Are you drunk?
 
2010-08-08 06:47:21 PM
CruiserTwelve: So this murder took place while a guy with a gun was twenty feet away, but yet you think you need a gun to protect yourself from such a thing. I don't get it.

Because it's quite possible that a family member who carries concealed might pay more attention to their family members than a cop who's likely out of eyesight, surrounded by hundreds of people, and might not even be able to hear or locate the source of the yelling in time to stop the crime.

Yes - I can definitely see how you've got this right.

thamike: Nobody, unless you shot someone, which I am imagining isn't your intention. Or unless people didn't want some guy with a gun around them. Either way, only a complete dick would have tried to turn this into a legal extravaganza.

Yeah - of all the events I'm not sure why they'd pick this one. However, if they prove their point and it's clearly demonstrated that CCW holders can't be legally barred, that's a huge win across the state (and potentially the country). Maybe they picked this one simply because they know it's the weakest possible case out there to attack?

However, if open and/or concealed carry are allowed in a state, I don't see any good reason to ban it at an event like this. It's an unreasonable position with no real reason to prevent legal carry.
 
2010-08-08 06:48:04 PM
Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?
 
2010-08-08 06:49:39 PM
ronaprhys: Which is a great argument on private property. This is not private property. This is public property where it's legal to carry concealed every other day of the year. What makes these days special?

Perhaps I should have said "property that I have jurisdiction over, for as long as I have jurisdiction over it." This would include property that I rent, be it from a private citizen or the government.

ronaprhys: No - they are different. At a fair like this anyone who pays the admission fee has to be admitted. At a wedding, that's completely different. One has to be invited.

That is not even a little bit true. Upon paying the admission fee, and upon agreement of certain terms and conditions, you are admitted. If you at any time fail to live up to your end of those terms and conditions, then your admission, "invitation" if you will, can be immediately revoked without recourse. You walk in, slam back six beers and start being obnoxous/violent/etc., the organizers can run you. Concert events at municipal venues across the country have dress codes that must be adhered to, and admission is routinely denied for people who do not meet these arbitrary regulations. Even if they bought a ticket in advance.

If one of those regulations is "no guns," then no guns. You can always carry you gun somewhere else.

At the risk of reducto ad absurdum, does a person who lives in public housing have the right to prevent people from bringing firearms into his home?
 
2010-08-08 06:52:14 PM
thamike: Yes, it is a pretty obscure issue (new window).

We're talking specifically about whether or not an organizer can ban firearms for their event when it'd legally be allowed at all other times, not whether or firearms-related cases have come up.

Unless you were attempting to support my point by showing that it's not come up before. If so, I retract my point.

CruiserTwelve: Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.

Seems that you're arguing they shouldn't be allowed to carry at the Fair.
 
2010-08-08 06:56:25 PM
CruiserTwelve: ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?

Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.


Well, I guess that's their privilege. reading TFA, it sounds like this really hinges on what the city decides. They are empowered to place any limitations they wish on the conditions under which they rent to Eats 'n Beats - or not. But if they decide that Eats 'n Beats can make that restriction during the time that they have legal possession of the venue, there's really no Constitutional issue. One of the gun enthusiasts did pointedly say that they are not planning any legal action, which indicates to me that they are aware of the legal situation - they seem to just want a clear enunciation of how the law will be applied. Which, I guess, is reasonable. I never criticize people for wanting what they want, as long as they are reasonable about accepting that they can't always have it.
 
2010-08-08 06:57:15 PM
CommiePuddin: Perhaps I should have said "property that I have jurisdiction over, for as long as I have jurisdiction over it." This would include property that I rent, be it from a private citizen or the government.

That would be better, but as a legal issue that's not decided.

That is not even a little bit true. Upon paying the admission fee, and upon agreement of certain terms and conditions, you are admitted. If you at any time fail to live up to your end of those terms and conditions, then your admission, "invitation" if you will, can be immediately revoked without recourse. You walk in, slam back six beers and start being obnoxous/violent/etc., the organizers can run you. Concert events at municipal venues across the country have dress codes that must be adhered to, and admission is routinely denied for people who do not meet these arbitrary regulations. Even if they bought a ticket in advance.

If one of those regulations is "no guns," then no guns. You can always carry you gun somewhere else.

At the risk of reducto ad absurdum, does a person who lives in public housing have the right to prevent people from bringing firearms into his home?


No - a wedding is a private event whereas a street fair is a public event. These are two distinct things. Where the events are occurring is irrelevant. I can legally restrict anyone I like at a wedding - anyone at all for any reason. I cannot refuse fare to anyone I like at a public event. I can refuse fare to those who are actively being disruptive or are actively breaking the law, but I can't stop anyone else.

As for the public housing, seriously? That's recognized as their domicile. Totally different than a public street fair.

The simple fact here is that, legally, it's an open question as to whether or not they can ban firearms at the fair. This is not in question - the matter has not been decided. As such, the appropriate question is should they be allowed, and if so, what reasoning can be given to support an overwhelming need to prevent legal carry at a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:02:43 PM
Ron, again, for the love farking god. Do you HONESTLY farking think this is the only festival on public land that bans fire arms? This is NOT the first time this has come up.

The private party running the event can ban SHOES if they feel like it, much less guns.
 
2010-08-08 07:03:41 PM
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

~Heinrich Himmler
 
2010-08-08 07:04:08 PM
ronaprhys:

Actually, you can't prove the private property point. That legal point has not been decided. In fact, the city openly admits that they've got to research it.

misanthropic1: The legality of banning firearms on private property is ironclad; the issue here is if the terms of the rental constitutes private property for intensive purposes, it would seem to me. I'm sure the local government can interpret either way. It seems it would make more sense to side with the festival organizers IMHO, but it's not our call, ostensibly.

I agree with you on private property. Absolutely the landowner's choice. No argument.

On public property, however, that's completely different. I disagree that they should side with the organizers here, though. No need has been demonstrated that shows there's any negative impacts. Hell, it's probably more dangerous to allow senior citizens to drive near there as they seem to have problems with farmer's markets and the like.

thamike: Not if it's on "public land" which is what we are talking about. Apt comparison. Just because it is public land doesn't mean a privately owned group that rents the space can't call the shots.

No - they are different. At a fair like this anyone who pays the admission fee has to be admitted. At a wedding, that's completely different. One has to be invited.

Who cares if you have to pay? That's not even an issue here. Speaking of bad comparisons, let's take your parade. It closes down the street, right? Film and television shoots also close down the street. You don't have to pay to get in, they just won't let you. They have a PERMIT. Try walking into one of those unannounced carrying a piece. Same goes for parades.

Why shouldn't you be able to carry at a public event? If there's no law that prohibits carrying during normal times, it's unlikely that a law will prohibit viewing the parade while carrying concealed.


The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.
 
2010-08-08 07:04:37 PM
Just a couple of points to ponder (or not):

1. In some states, jurisdiction matters. If the state has a law setting state law supreme on the matter of firearms (such as in Nebraska), the city may not be able to enter into an agreement to disallow firearms at a public venue. The Nebraska CHP law goes as far as to say that ANY local ordinances pertaining to firearms is NULL AND VOID as applied to the holder of a state issued CHP. Since the venue is only privatized temporarily by an ordinance of the city, and the city cannot enforce a "no guns" ordinance on a CHP holder, this would probably not be an issue in a state with laws like Nebraska. It would be interesting to see how this particular state's laws read.

2. As a CHP holder, nobody should know that I am carrying a firearm anyway, so why make a big fuss over it. If your really think you have the right to do something, do it and STFU about it.

/ Big dick and small pistol.
// Keep both concealed lest people panic.
 
2010-08-08 07:06:10 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Ron, again, for the love farking god. Do you HONESTLY farking think this is the only festival on public land that bans fire arms? This is NOT the first time this has come up.

The private party running the event can ban SHOES if they feel like it, much less guns.


Unless you can prove this, it doesn't matter. It may have come up other times, but unless you can demonstrate that and the specific bearing on this instance, you've got nothing. It seems to me that the city itself is saying they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms at a public event.

Make no mistake - this is a public event, not a private party. The two are different. Quit arguing that they aren't because, simply put, you're wrong.
 
2010-08-08 07:07:33 PM
ronaprhys: Unless you can prove this, it doesn't matter. It may have come up other times, but unless you can demonstrate that and the specific bearing on this instance, you've got nothing. It seems to me that the city itself is saying they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms at a public event.

Make no mistake - this is a public event, not a private party. The two are different. Quit arguing that they aren't because, simply put, you're wrong.


If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:07:53 PM
ra-ra-raw: Guairdean: You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up)

Your link says this:

True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

The term hoplophobe has been used to encourage constituent letter writing and to raise funds by at least one gun rights advocacy group. They have employed the term hoplophobe to characterize their opponents as outrageous fear-mongerers, and as being irrationally fearful.

So you are saying that although the condition you are pointing out does not actually exist you are going to insist that people you oppose are being irrationally fearful even though they are not because you provide a wiki link you hope they won't read.

Nothing like the smell of hypocrisy on a sunday afternoon.


A misread and improper link on my part. Do a little more looking around, you'll find better references.
 
2010-08-08 07:10:51 PM
tirob: The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

If that's the amount, okay. It has no bearing on the issue at hand, though. It's a public event, not a private event. As such, it's open to anyone who pays admission.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

And here's where you've got it wrong. Bringing out the soap box is a disruption. You do not have the right to disrupt an organized event, public or private. Carrying concealed in no way causes any disruption. The two are not equivalent.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.

You may think that - but in many states you'd be wrong. Michigan may, in fact, be one of those states. It's a public event on public property. Banning a right that causes no disruption? On what grounds? Why do they need to ban those who are legally licensed to carry firearms from having them? Or what need exists to prohibit legal carrying?
 
2010-08-08 07:11:28 PM
I'm The Foot Farking Master: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

~Heinrich Himmler


Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
2010-08-08 07:11:38 PM
Satanic_Hamster:
If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.


This is the only post in the thread I need to read to know there is a bunch of idiot armchair lawyers spouting off.
 
2010-08-08 07:11:41 PM
You don't have to have a "need" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that.
 
2010-08-08 07:13:03 PM
Bermuda59: We have gun owners out here in CA who like to go around public with their guns on display. They say it's safe as their weapons are unloaded and they say that they don't even have ammo with them.

This is done by the lower end of the spectrum, they obsessively worship Rush, Beck and Hannity and for them the only way to "make their voices heard" is to be Narcissistic d!cks about it! Where I live in Cali if someone has a gun it's loaded and you won't see it unless you are doing evil. These guys are no different than the morons who showed up with ARs at Obamas Phoenix appearance.

Just because you can in many case is not a good reason, and in many instances will turn the very people you are trying to recruit to your cause against you Such as in this case.
 
2010-08-08 07:13:31 PM
Satanic_Hamster: If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.

You do realize you're wrong, don't you? A public event is one that's open to anyone. There may be a fee, there may not. A private event is, by definition, exclusionary. There may still be fees, but just because you pay the fee (or can pay the fee) does not mean you'll be granted admittance. Two separate things.
 
2010-08-08 07:17:38 PM
ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster: If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.

You do realize you're wrong, don't you? A public event is one that's open to anyone. There may be a fee, there may not. A private event is, by definition, exclusionary. There may still be fees, but just because you pay the fee (or can pay the fee) does not mean you'll be granted admittance. Two separate things.


It IS exclusionary, numbnuts. It excludes anyone without four damn dollars to get it or anyone not agreeing to play by the rules of the event runners.

Open TO the public is NOT the same thing as a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:18:06 PM
Yay, gun control flamewar!

I'm a gun owner but have never carried in public and don't even own a pistol yet. But I support the right of others to do so if they choose. They should be able to carry wherever they want as long as it is legal and it sounds like they are pursuing a legitimate issue here. The event is on a public street, but is fenced off with an entrance fee. Does that mean they can make their own rules, or do basic constitutional rights still apply? I honestly don't know and think the courts should decided.

But the question "Why carry at an arts and crafts fair?" is stupid. Sure, you probably don't need it there, just like you probably don't need it most other places. But if you want to have it and can do so LEGALLY and RESPONSIBLY, there is no reason to deny that right.

Or are "free speech zones" ok because you can always go someplace else to speak? If you want to support the constitution you should support all of it, not just the rights you like. (this goes both ways, I support the 2nd and am an ACLU member, fark those tards going after the 14th)
 
2010-08-08 07:19:10 PM
You don't have to have a "reason" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that, too.
 
2010-08-08 07:21:44 PM
Satanic_Hamster: It IS exclusionary, numbnuts. It excludes anyone without four damn dollars to get it or anyone not agreeing to play by the rules of the event runners.

Open TO the public is NOT the same thing as a public event.


Wrong. They cannot turn down anyone unless it's for lack of payment. At a private event, I can turn down anyone I want regardless of ability to pay. You can say it as many times as you want, but you're wrong. If you think I'm wrong - prove it. Find a legal definition that states a street fair the requires an admission fair is a private event. Go ahead. Find a link.
 
2010-08-08 07:26:07 PM
feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?


Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:12 PM
buwolverine: Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:16 PM
buwolverine: feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?

Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:22 PM
buwolverine: feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?

Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.
 
2010-08-08 07:32:39 PM
Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?


My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.
 
2010-08-08 07:33:35 PM
ronaprhys: buwolverine: Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.

Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.


sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.
 
2010-08-08 07:36:40 PM
Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.
 
2010-08-08 07:39:25 PM
ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.


no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.
 
2010-08-08 07:43:38 PM
Jakevol2: ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.

no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.


Try harder. You don't have enough in there and it's too plainly obvious that you're trolling. You can't contradict yourself within three posts and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And that position that you're taking? Obvious troll. You need to tone it down a bit. Your second position is a bit closer to a workable troll, but still not there.
 
2010-08-08 07:44:30 PM
Where's the gun porn?
 
2010-08-08 07:47:51 PM
ronaprhys: Jakevol2: ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.

no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.

Try harder. You don't have enough in there and it's too plainly obvious that you're trolling. You can't contradict yourself within three posts and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And that position that you're taking? Obvious troll. You need to tone it down a bit. Your second position is a bit closer to a workable troll, but still not there.


if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.
 
2010-08-08 07:49:49 PM
Jakevol2: if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.

Still an obvious troll. I'm done with you.
 
2010-08-08 07:51:16 PM
Why would you "need" to wear underwear at a craft fair? Why would you "need" to wear earrings at a craft fair? Why would you "need" your sunglasses? Why would you "need" that emery board you always carry in your purse? Why would you "need" your lipstick? Why would you "need" to take every credit card in your wallet? Why not leave some of them at home? Do you really NEED all of that stuff?

You stuff-nuts really freak me out with this NEED you have to feel secure by carrying around nail files and wearing underwear.
 
2010-08-08 07:52:19 PM
ronaprhys: Jakevol2: if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.

Still an obvious troll. I'm done with you.


You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.
 
2010-08-08 07:52:41 PM
EmployeeOfTheMinute: Where's the gun porn?

Now leave them alone, they are busy trying to be superior to each other. But since you asked:

antzinpantz.com
 
2010-08-08 07:55:09 PM
Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?

My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.


Nice comeback.
 
2010-08-08 07:55:30 PM
Jakevol2: You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.

I know I said I'm done - but here's your other problem. You've tried this sort of thread-shiatting in many other threads and been exposed as a troll. Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you'll be good enough to get bites.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report