Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3904 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2010 at 4:31 PM (5 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 07:55:55 PM  

John Buck 41: 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.


when all you have is a hammer all you see are nails.
 
2010-08-08 07:58:11 PM  

ronaprhys: 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.


you really are very unaware of yourself? All you have in your life is your sexual attachment to your gun. When anyone tries to come between you and your fetish you get cold sweats don't you? You start shaking and feeling anxious. Seek psychiatric help.
 
2010-08-08 07:59:42 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.


Sheesh, all you have to do is read his/her bio to know sanity and decency has taken a permanent vacation.
 
2010-08-08 07:59:57 PM  

ronaprhys: 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.


You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...
 
2010-08-08 08:01:34 PM  

ronaprhys: 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.


What yelling? From the sounds of it, even if every person at that event were armed, including the little girl, the murder would still have happened. My point is that guns don't make you bulletproof.
 
2010-08-08 08:01:56 PM  

Swede: You don't have to have a "need" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that.


I am a lady, or at least a woman, and I am well aware of that. If your intent was to insult the anti-Second Amendment nuts by comparing them with women, then screw you.

However, I appreciate your comment as intended for others' benefit.
 
2010-08-08 08:02:32 PM  
http://abclocal.

ronaprhys: 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.


Well, these guys (new window) who had craft fair shootings seem to agree with you both.
 
2010-08-08 08:04:54 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.


And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.
 
2010-08-08 08:07:13 PM  
So at 6 flags I can't bring my own water.
It's open to the any of the public who pays admission.

Why is this craftfair any different with the ban of firearms?

antzinpantz.com
 
2010-08-08 08:09:56 PM  

misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...


Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.
 
2010-08-08 08:11:55 PM  

ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.


Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.
 
2010-08-08 08:12:59 PM  

ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.


so throwing a pout is your idea of having fun of my expense eh? The question isn't did your mom drop you on the head a as a baby but is it did she throw you down and how many times? Does you mother know about your sexual hang-ups?
 
2010-08-08 08:15:40 PM  

misanthropic1: Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.


Well, now that the game's started I'm off.
 
2010-08-08 08:16:46 PM  

ArkAngel: Hippies


This. Shooting hippies isn't just a hobby, it's a way of life.
 
2010-08-08 08:17:18 PM  
Remember, kids! If you see these nice fellows wielding firearms outside of, say, a courthouse or polling station:

newsone.com

Or these guys:

www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com

Or even these guys:

counterterrorismblog.org

They're just using their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms!
 
2010-08-08 08:20:30 PM  

ronaprhys: 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.


Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.
 
2010-08-08 08:21:00 PM  

ronaprhys: 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?


For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.
 
2010-08-08 08:21:00 PM  

trelane99: gay gay lesbians lesbians lesbian

CommiePuddin: Gay gay

paygun: gay



I think I need to go polish my gaydar.
 
2010-08-08 08:23:06 PM  

misanthropic1: ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.

Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.


It is kind of interesting, watching him and others expose themselves as the "sexual fetish"-obsessed bigots they are. It's like watching one of those cartoons where someone's mouth is actually frothing, sort of like the Tasmanian Devil.

Some people just will not accept that other people aren't exactly like them and don't march in lockstep with their thinking. It's xenophobia combined with prejudice, but in a form that's acceptable in their peer group (whose approval they crave), so they don't try to enlighten themselves or seek self-improvement in any way.

Or they're just trolls.
 
2010-08-08 08:24:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Any smart person who was involved in either wouldn't buy the notions brought up by NRA gerbil-feeder newsletters.
 
2010-08-08 08:25:42 PM  

thamike: Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.


I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

I've been very clear about that and haven't referenced or said anything to cast doubt on that.

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.


The argument isn't whether or not they bought the tickets - it's can they legally ban firearms. So, in your example, it's prior to the tickets being printed.
 
2010-08-08 08:26:20 PM  

ronaprhys: buwolverine:

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.


Apparently you don't know as many rednecks as I do. I live in a town where one out of every four people couldn't manage to get through public school- a really bad public school at that.

Swede:

When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.

When me calling you a douchebag can you leave you brain dead... sorry, I just realized that's what must have happened. My apologies.

John Buck 41
There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.


Just because cops need to be better trained doesn't make it ok for everybody else to not know how to use theirs.
 
2010-08-08 08:27:37 PM  

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.


One doesn't even have to do that. They pay for a ticket, the guy says, "no firearms allowed." Put that piece somewhere else. That's how it works. The only people who have a vocal problem with this are the kind of people who give gun owners a bad name.
 
2010-08-08 08:28:08 PM  
Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?

Honestly? You probably don't. But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?
 
2010-08-08 08:28:31 PM  

ronaprhys: thamike: Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.

I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

I've been very clear about that and haven't referenced or said anything to cast doubt on that.

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.

The argument isn't whether or not they bought the tickets - it's can they legally ban firearms. So, in your example, it's prior to the tickets being printed.


no, they can't. Buying a ticket the event is in effect signing a terms of agreement. And if one of the terms is no guns, then guess what, you are shiat out of luck. Besides why would any mook who owns a gun go to an art fair anyway? They think the highest form of art is a velevet painting of fat Elvis.
 
2010-08-08 08:28:39 PM  

ronaprhys: I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.


Oh for f*ck's sake.
 
2010-08-08 08:29:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?


So people don't get shot with one.
 
2010-08-08 08:31:50 PM  
thamike: So people don't get shot with one.

I'm not sure how making a rule that you can't have guns there would solve that.
 
2010-08-08 08:33:23 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: I'm not sure how making a rule that you can't have guns there would solve that.


Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.
 
2010-08-08 08:34:21 PM  
I'm offended at music festivals when I can't carry my DSLR, but point and shoot cmeras are permitted. I think that photography is a form of speech, and that it is pretty crappy to regulate it because I want to take a slightly better photo than I could with a point-and-shoot.

I think that prohibiting concealed carry at an art fair on public property is just as stupid.

I do wish that somebody would take both kinds of cases to court so I would be able to have a modicum of freedom to do as I please, without hurting anyone. I don't want to expend the time or effort or money, but if somebody else does, great.
 
2010-08-08 08:34:55 PM  
thamike: Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.

That's not the same thing as preventing a shooting.
 
2010-08-08 08:35:45 PM  

thamike: ronaprhys: I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

Oh for f*ck's sake.


No - you don't get off that easily. Not at all. Go back and look what I was replying to. It's very clear that I was referring to this event as was the person I was responding to.

Now, if you want to acknowledge that, we can move on and discuss whether or not there's been any relevant commentary regarding CCW and public fairs of this sort in the media. If so, find it and let's discuss.
 
2010-08-08 08:36:01 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: thamike: Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.

That's not the same thing as preventing a shooting.


No, it's not. What does that matter?
 
2010-08-08 08:38:00 PM  

ronaprhys: Now, if you want to acknowledge that, we can move on and discuss whether or not there's been any relevant commentary regarding CCW and public fairs of this sort in the media. If so, find it and let's discuss.


Why don't you find something other than your emotional appeals? I've supplied you with a diving board to information. Come back with something tangible, and yes, then we can discuss it.
 
2010-08-08 08:38:46 PM  

buwolverine: ronaprhys: buwolverine:

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.

Apparently you don't know as many rednecks as I do. I live in a town where one out of every four people couldn't manage to get through public school- a really bad public school at that.

Swede:

When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.

When me calling you a douchebag can you leave you brain dead... sorry, I just realized that's what must have happened. My apologies.

John Buck 41
There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.

Just because cops need to be better trained doesn't make it ok for everybody else to not know how to use theirs.


Hey, you're the one who brought up cops, not me.
 
2010-08-08 08:39:28 PM  

thamike: Noticeably F.A.T.: But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?

So people don't get shot with one.


Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.
 
2010-08-08 08:39:46 PM  

BobDeluxe: EmployeeOfTheMinute: Where's the gun porn?

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


Since I own that gun, I'm getting a kick.

Also, and I mean this in the most polite way possible:

When has a ban on firearms ever *prevented* a crime?
 
2010-08-08 08:39:55 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.


The voice of reason and moderation. This is why I come here to fark.
 
2010-08-08 08:40:42 PM  
thamike: No, it's not. What does that matter?

It matters because my question was "why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?" and your answer was "So people don't get shot with one.".
 
2010-08-08 08:41:32 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Well, you have experience that teaches you different. So do I, and I am painfully aware of how invulnerable and omnipotent a gun does NOT make you.
But if someone else actually feels that they are going to be safer if they are carrying, and are willing to respect my rights and the law - I don't feel comfortable questioning their right to want what they want.
And while I learned, at a very young age that, as a member of an organized, lawful society, I can't always HAVE what I want, I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to presume to question my right to WANT what I want.
 
2010-08-08 08:42:40 PM  

thamike: Why don't you find something other than your emotional appeals? I've supplied you with a diving board to information. Come back with something tangible, and yes, then we can discuss it.


Point out where I've made emotional appeals with regards to this particular point.

thamike: No, it's not. What does that matter?


Because your original point was that they should ban them to prevent a shooting. When called on how the ban might do that you responded with something completely irrelevant to that point.

Now, how would the ban prevent someone from carrying in a firearm and shooting someone?
 
2010-08-08 08:43:03 PM  

ronaprhys: Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.


None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.
 
2010-08-08 08:46:59 PM  

thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.


A public event on public property? It damn well does matter. If someone is going to restrict a person's rights at such an event, they must establish an over-riding need to do so.
 
2010-08-08 08:47:49 PM  

ronaprhys: Now, how would the ban prevent someone from carrying in a firearm and shooting someone?


It doesn't matter what someone could do. What matters is that they don't want guns there. If some maniac shoots up the place, well, that's what they were going to do. They would have shot the guy who would have asked you to please not bring any firearms inside before he got a chance to ask. What's your point, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure?
 
2010-08-08 08:48:25 PM  

Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.


Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.

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.

And I never said I was afraid of guns. I am simply wary of paranoid gun "collectors" who see danger in every shadow and seem to think that their manhood is only measured in what they have the power to destroy. Compared to other obsessive-compulsives, they have a much higher tendency of killing a lot of people who don't deserve it.

/stick that comeback in your barrel and smoke it, John Buck 41.
 
2010-08-08 08:48:27 PM  
thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.

Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.
 
2010-08-08 08:49:31 PM  

ronaprhys: A public event on public property? It damn well does matter. If someone is going to restrict a person's rights at such an event, they must establish an over-riding need to do so.


I retract my previous statement. Apparently you are one of those guys. Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?
 
2010-08-08 08:50:57 PM  
This is why.......
 
2010-08-08 08:51:02 PM  
Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!

static.tvfanatic.com
Dumbass!!
 
2010-08-08 08:51:07 PM  

jso2897: Well, you have experience that teaches you different. So do I, and I am painfully aware of how invulnerable and omnipotent a gun does NOT make you.


What's the old saying... 'Give a man a gun and he's Superman?'

There's another one I'm fond of: 'Get in the first shot. Boot to the head.' (Don't miss.)
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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