Nice news "article"...

It has come to my attention that some of you are stroking guns.

Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

Why don't they all drop trou and compare eachother's dicks. That will prove they're the biggest Swingin' Dicks in the district - & will show those damn commie Libruls who's boss.

I'll start the gun porn :-)

As cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."

I'm a hard-left liberal, but I have carry permits (including a PA LTCF) and I approve of their actions.

Banning guns only prevents legally-carried guns. If someone wanted to shoot up a meeting, a ban wouldn't stop them.

Looking forward to calm and rational debate on this subject.

TigerStar: As cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."

Unlike those places where people don't have guns and massacres of a dozen or so people are carried out with knives.

TigerStar: As cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."

Meh, failing access to guns people will just wire propane tanks to explode or something of that nature, beside even many of the strict gun control nations still allow hunting weapons so you'd just get the crazy with the shotgun instead of the Glock.

Needlessly bearing firearms at peaceful gatherings is the biggest sign of weakness. Put down the guns and fight like real men, pussies.

Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

LoL. I knew it was Toni the minute I saw it was York. Though I am surprised so many white people came to that meeting. Most of them won't go downtown after dark even with a platoon of soldiers.

In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

One more...

My pr0n name is Tom Seaview: I'm a hard-left liberal, but I have carry permits (including a PA LTCF) and I approve of their actions.

Banning guns only prevents legally-carried guns. If someone wanted to shoot up a meeting, a ban wouldn't stop them.

They were being self righteous pricks. Intimidating people to try to prove a point is low class. I personally never approve of low class shiat, but then again I'm not nitwit either.

Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

Why don't they all drop trou and compare eachother's dicks. That will prove they're the biggest Swingin' Dicks in the district - & will show those damn commie Libruls who's boss.

0.01/10

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

He never drew his weapon so he could never had pointed it at anyone.

Those of us that carry train just as much if not more than your local police. I myself have worked in law enforcement as well.

I don't care that you don't trust me. I know what it is like to point a loaded firearm at another person. I know how tunnel vision and adrenaline kicks in and yes I know how hard it is to hit a moving target when all that happens but again this is why we train and train some more.

I carry for my protection and the protection of my daughter and I don't care if you don't like it.

consciousNOT:

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

If they're packing heat to make the point that it's legal, I disagree with that but understand their view.

If they're using a gun to make officials 'represent their interests' then it's really about intimidation. They (that means YOU,consciousNOT) are uncivilized a**holes. They (YOU) get ONE vote per person. If that's not enough for them, then they should set up a commune somewhere where they can choose their own king. The USA is a Democracy. Respect the system or Fark off.

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

I'm a gun owner and I am legal to conceal carry, but I don't. Your reasons are part of it, I wonder if someone who carries regularly can come up with the other drawbacks?

I started to type them up, but the list got a little long.

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you.

You should really look into what the trained professionals shot to hit ratio is before putting too much trust in them. The ratio usually hovers between 9 and 40 percent.

Link

consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.


And it takes showing off a gun to achieve that? Damn.

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

pussy

theknuckler_33: Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I'm not a 'gun carrying farker',

He meant a Farker (ie, a person who uses this website) who also uses guns. It was not a derogatory label that needed to be put into quotation marks =)

I support their right to do that. Of course I also support the rights of everyone else to call them enormous douchebags. It should be an unwritten rule that you don't carry weapons to city council meetings.

Notice it's always guns too. It does say "bear arms", so why doesn't someone come in with a samurai sword. Or a halberd. I would laugh at the halberd guy.

The funny part is I'm pretty sure you can get arrested for carrying nunchucks.

Yeah, what jackasses! I can't believe they would protest against the government (new window)!

/I'm glad I live in a country where we can biatch about things like this.

WTF Indeed: LoL. I knew it was Toni the minute I saw it was York. Though I am surprised so many white people came to that meeting. Most of them won't go downtown after dark even with a platoon of soldiers.

Can I move in with you? Seriously. This town is batshiat crazy.

umad: Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

For one thing, they proved that exercising your rights doesn't automatically make you a threat. I didn't see anything in the article about anyone being shot. Quit freaking out over inanimate objects. You are more of a threat to my safety when you are driving your car than I am to your safety when I am carrying a gun.

It's harder for a half-dozen people to drive their cars into a meeting room, though.

Y'know, usually.

Also, guns are used for 2 things: Killing (or threatening someone with the threat of killing them), and being displayed as collectibles. So unless it was show-and-tell day, i'd be a little nervous about a bunch of people coming into a town meeting armed with weapons.

Everyone's just lucky one of those weapons didn't accidentally go off and hurt someone.... okay, a minor injury woulda been hilarious, but that's beside the point.

Guns don't kill people, 158 grains of lead traveling at 1860fps kill people.

Only a gun nut will truly appreciate this post.

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

If this isn't serious, it's an 11/10 trolling attempt.

I'll respond as if you're serious, and let the followup determine if I've been had.

1) You claim to trust "the trained professionals, not you." Who decides what makes someone a trained professional versus me? At what point do you consider a private citizen who has gone through training "professional", what about practice, and what do you do to ensure that the "trained professionals" have more skill or practice than the enthusiast or even hobbyist who shoots regularly?

2) You despise the argument. Why? An ex-police officer who hasn't been one for twenty years is given more rights to carry than any fellow citizen, yet there's nothing that dictates they have to upkeep their skills. They often carry "just in case", but nothing dictates that their skill is any better than another citizens'.

3) Doesn't the very fact the armed citizen DIDN'T shoot the wrong guy demonstrate that the blood on the streets/people accidentally murdered scenario you paint is bogus? In all these discussions, I've seen claims of "well if you have a guy you'll be shot as the bad guy," yet here we have a clear case where the person waited to be certain before firing, and didn't shoot the good guy. I can't say the police have done as well as citizens in this regard.

4) Why the comparisons to the OK Corral? Is that the only story you can come up with/anecdote you can draw? Something popularized by western movies and fictionalized television?

The Asshole Guy 2011-02-02 08:16:48 PM

Just make sure when the shiat hits the fan that you shoot your kids and not mine. Thank you.

kapaso: Guns don't kill people, 158 grains of lead traveling at 1860fps kill people.



mmmm.... tooooassst

So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

If they are supposed to, I'm quite pissed I didn't get mine.

This is typical.

It may be counterintuitive but every time someone suggests banning guns results in a tripling or quadrupling of weapon sales here at my gun store.

Conversely sales are depressed when Republicans are in office.

Oh how the money rolled in in the month before Obama was inaugurated. People came with shopping carts for ammunition. I sht you not.

The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

LOL! Thats great!

The Asshole Guy: Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

That's not a PA permit.

This is a PA permit:

robogun: Oh how the money rolled in in the month before Obama was inaugurated. People came with shopping carts for ammunition. I sht you not.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, everyone claims that ammo is going to be really hard to find once [insert Democrat here] gets into office. Once he has taken office everyone is going batshiat buying ammo and then there is an actual shortage.

Of course bullets are meant to fired, so repeat every 3 years or so.

And they made me take of my cowboy hat for the pic.

DuyougurtSorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you.

Our local "trained professionals" got their asses handed to them by the local SASS folks,the cops were allowed to use their modern weapons against people with 19th century guns.Most cops can't shoot worth shiat.

FYI: The latest 2nd amendment case to go to the Supreme Court upheld people's rights to bear arms, but the ever conservative Judge Scalia had this to say:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

So even HE said people shouldn't be going into meeting halls with guns. Let that stew. In this particular case, the woman wasn't trying to confiscate everyone's guns or stomp on their rights, she just didn't want people bringing them to the place where she works! That's hardly unreasonable.

Several of the people at the meeting were members of the Tea and Libertarian parties.

Excuse me? Exactly how did you know that, and what farking difference does that make?

Was there a Jew there, or a Homo?

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

That's not a PA permit.

This is a PA permit:

And this is a Maine permit.

So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

badhatharry: Emperorsteele: FYI: The latest 2nd amendment case to go to the Supreme Court upheld people's rights to bear arms, but the ever conservative Judge Scalia had this to say:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

So even HE said people shouldn't be going into meeting halls with guns. Let that stew. In this particular case, the woman wasn't trying to confiscate everyone's guns or stomp on their rights, she just didn't want people bringing them to the place where she works! That's hardly unreasonable.

She works in a place that allows guns. She should get a different job.

I'd agree with you if she worked at a gun store or police station or firing range or an Army DPO or a Chuck-E-Cheez (Kids can be brutal), but a town hall is no place for a weapon. Things get heated enough in politics without worrying about someone losing it and putting a hole in your head because you're increasing the garbage collection tax by .5%

theknuckler_33: chairborne: So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

Bringing your gun and, apparently, making it visible to the people on the council (or whatever political body) is a clear method of intimidation and undermines the political process. Is there something that is difficult to understand about this? I mean, if you have a concealed-carry permit and keep your weapon 'concealed', then noone will know you have a weapon at these public meetings, so why the outrage? Obviously people made their weapon posession clearly visible in order for it to be an issue. How else would it have become a story/issue?

So the police officers that are present are unarmed too then? Oh wait, I'm pretty sure they were open carrying firearms too, with BULLETS and EVERYTHING. By your logic the mere presence of their firearms is nothing more than an intimidation tactic to cow citizens and prevent them from voicing their discontent.

Think of it this way, if they were trying to ban public assembly, another right safeguarded in the constitution, what would be the most obvious means of protest? Perhaps it would be *using* the right to freedom of assembly? Not hard to see where someone might protest an infringement of their right to carry a firearm by, you know, actually carrying a firearm.

And carrying concealed wouldn't work now would it? It's not a protest if no one is aware that you are protesting. And if they were truly so intimidating I assure you that they would have been charged with something, the fact that they weren't indicates that it was a peaceful protest.

Having the means to do violence doesn't make you violent, every one of us has the capacity to kill but that doesn't make every person out there a killer in their heart. Might as well ban people with genitalia from walking down the street because they possess the equipment to engage in prostitution

For everybody that has a problem with the weapons being visible.

http://paopencarry.org/

chairborne: So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

Well, seeing as how no one can read anyone's mind, you see someone with a gun, you have to assume they have some intention to use it (that intention is most likely self-defense, but you don't KNOW that). It's not like they slipped it on because the holster is the same color as their tie and it looks nice.

You do have a point, that automatically criminalizing anyone for carrying a gun is paranoid. But we live in a fearful society. Some people are afraid of Muslims. Or Homosexuals. Or the idea that every male is a potential rapist. Or anyone of any other given group. However, the "fear of people with guns" is slightly more rational. After all, being Muslim/Gay/Black/Male/whatever doesn't automatically enable that person to kill you. Having a gun, though? Being able to kill you faster than you can blink? If that doesn't scare you a little, you're either very brave or very stupid, or perhaps too complacent.

Also, if you're carrying a gun, that automatically signals that you're afraid of something, so a self-defense advocate really doesn't have a leg to stand on criticizing others for being afraid of THEM.

Finally, you're right that if someone's gonna break the law, they're gonna break the law. Still, in this specific case, the woman might feel safer and more able to do her job, and sometimes all you need is the illusion of safety. Certainly beats being surrounded by several armed individuals who're only there because you ticked them off.

Well I guess coughing as you casually pull your jacket back to show off the .357 stapped to your hip is one way to get moved to the front of the line, get the good seat at the restaurant, etc.

Hi Boys and Girls!


And this is why we can't have nice things any more. It used to be people had self-control. This meant that they weren't afraid of someone using a pocket knife to clean their finger nails, and at the same time that the person with the knife wasn't going to get all stabby. They had faith in this and it was even true.

Some time in the recent past people lost self control. Its observable by all the people absolutely convinced that anything from scratching your nutts to possessing a weapon was a clear sign of impending wrongdoing! How does that make any sense? Because its what they'd do!

Over a million people carry a weapon in this country every day. Many are federal, state, or municipal officers. Many more are just regular joe's. Frequently the regular joes are getting their training from the same people that the police get theirs from. I know mine was -- he was very forward about being one of the municiple police trainers.

The streets haven't ran red with blood. I'm sorry you have confused possession with intent. Perhaps for you they are the same but for responsible people its not. Responsible people, in particular men, have control over their emotions and understand their actions. This is the same mechanism that prevents men from exploiting superior size and strength and universally abusing women. We could. But we dont because its wrong. You know, the same way you don't tear someones throat out with your teeth if they cut in line at the movie theater.

Have the responsible people changed? I don't know. Probably not. But the amount of hand wringing and people feeling threatened sure has. As you haven't had a permit holder run amuck I'm not sure why.. in truth you've had more cops run amuck with automatic weapons on poor civies.

There are a few things in this life whos outcome you won't like if you outsource. Raising your kids, impregnating your wife, and self defense are all good candidates. 17,000 people each year discover self defense is a very personal problem that the police aren't there, and then they die.

42,000 die each year from bad drivers. Most of us took defensive driving classes in high school to train against that. 195,000 or so die in US hospitals each year due to medical errors -- screwed up a medication, pulled the wrong plug on life support, caught a flesh-eating infection while at the hospital, Doc was high when he did the surgery etc.. mostly stupid, preventable stuff.

Its funny that individuals fear something that can be used as a weapon and kills fewer than cars do in this nation.. yet find medical staff who each year accidentally/screw up and kill about as many as we lost in all of world war 2 a-ok.


in response to the dinosaur image.. its a cute play on words but when a drunk gets behind the wheel of a Mercedes and kills someone we don't arrest the car; and the news doesn't claim yet another horrible car-Crime occurred! It was another stupid DUI'er cutting lives short. We also don't say a gallon of kerosene burned down someone's house -- it was an arsonist.


Self control. Responsibility. These are the keys to a sane, safe future. Learn it, live it, pass it on. Have some faith in your fellow man. Saying possession of an arm is intent and being afraid makes about as much sense as saying a black man in a hoodie just has to be planning to rape you.

Very very rarely you'll be right. The rest of the time you are just being an ass and wrecking it for all of us. Your fear and lack of faith in your fellow man is the problem here. No one has threatened or harmed anyone. Nor is there any great history of this actually being a problem. I don't worry the black guy driving behind me is chasing me home to rape me; nor that your child is going to piss on my leg. Put your fears away and suddenly there isn't an issue.

Emperorsteele: chairborne: So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

Firstly, this.


Well, seeing as how no one can read anyone's mind, you see someone with a gun, you have to assume they have some intention to use it (that intention is most likely self-defense, but you don't KNOW that). It's not like they slipped it on because the holster is the same color as their tie and it looks nice.

So we should question the motivations of everyone I see? They could be just driving to work....or planning to run me down with their SUV! How will I ever function, constantly fearing that anyone I see will use one of their myriad tools or even their own body to murder me?

Don't you think it's a little narcissistic to imagine everyone has designs on killing you?


You do have a point, that automatically criminalizing anyone for carrying a gun is paranoid. But we live in a fearful society. Some people are afraid of Muslims. Or Homosexuals. Or the idea that every male is a potential rapist. Or anyone of any other given group. However, the "fear of people with guns" is slightly more rational. After all, being Muslim/Gay/Black/Male/whatever doesn't automatically enable that person to kill you. Having a gun, though? Being able to kill you faster than you can blink? If that doesn't scare you a little, you're either very brave or very stupid, or perhaps too complacent.


Quite frankly, their possession of a holstered firearm isn't frightening to me. There are lots of ways lots of people can kill me - practically an infinite variety of ways and means. A firearm is just a tool, nothing more. Do not ascribe supernatural abilities to it.


Also, if you're carrying a gun, that automatically signals that you're afraid of something, so a self-defense advocate really doesn't have a leg to stand on criticizing others for being afraid of THEM.


Why would you wear a seat belt in a car? A helmet on your bike(or motorcycle)? Do you have a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher?

Do these objects represent a fear?

Perhaps - a fear of harm in an accident, of burning alive. Are these fears irrational? I propose they are not irrational, nor are the safeguards enacted, imperfect as they are.

A firearm exists in a similar dynamic - animal attacks, crime, etc can and do happen. A firearm can be an invaluable tool in such circumstances, allowing even a frail individual to defend themselves from harm.


Finally, you're right that if someone's gonna break the law, they're gonna break the law. Still, in this specific case, the woman might feel safer and more able to do her job, and sometimes all you need is the illusion of safety.


Unfortunately for her, the rights of others are not subject to her perceived comfort.

The Asshole Guy: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

That's not a PA permit.

This is a PA permit:

And this is a Maine permit.



And this is an Alaska permit.

Well played wiregeek, well played.

wiregeek: The Asshole Guy: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

That's not a PA permit.

This is a PA permit:

And this is a Maine permit.



And this is an Alaska permit.

Wow! That looks just like a Vermont permit!

wiregeek: And this is an Alaska permit.


Hey.... your Alaska permit looks just like my Vermont permit.

Still can be a bad deal in reciprocity states...

theknuckler_33: Noting in the Constitution says that you can bring your gun wherever the fark you want.

You're looking at it the wrong way.
The Constitution is a document limiting the authority of GOVERNMENT. It places no restrictions on CITIZENS.
If the constitution doesn't give the government the authority to do something, then the government CANNOT do it.

via Hansensdisease in photoshop thread http://www.fark.com/comments/5912681/Photoshop-theme-Add-insult-to-injury

consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

or else!

Funny, I don't see any guns in this picture.

theknuckler_33...This is the same thing as someone trying to ban gay public displays of affection and a group of gay people going to the meeting and holding hands. It's open defiance of what's being proposed, it's relevant. If they all brought their guns to a meeting that had nothing to do with their right to have them on their person then you'd have a case. As this is not the case in this scenario it's very hard for me to take you seriously.

kapaso: Guns don't kill people, 158 grains of lead traveling at 1860fps kill people.

Only a gun nut will truly appreciate this post.

That's a stout load for a .357

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

You make the erroneous assumption that somehow police are better than/above an average citizen. They are average citizens. Being a cop is just what their job is, it doesn't automatically make them of the best judgement, and it certainly doesn't make them a good shot. Talk to em next time you get a chance. You'd be suprised how many of them only shoot once a year to re-qualify with their pistols (and they're typically a joke of a test at that).

Expecting a police officer to make perfect decisions and perfect shots is like expecting someone to win the Van Cliburn with a couple days practice a year.

You seem to enjoy the phrase "trained professional" so much, why don't you take into consideration that many CHL holders receive more firearms training than police? How about the fact that many of us practice on a weekly basis and shoot thousands of rounds per year more than they do?

Why do you despise people possessing the means to protect themselves? You think we run around itching for an opportunity to shoot things? What about the 10+ minute response times the police you want to rely on have? Say someone was threatening your wife's life. Gonna call the cops and chat it up with the farker for that time? Your inability to comprehend statistics and probabilities is a poor thing to ground your decisions upon, and an equally poor reason to speak down upon others who would rather shoulder the responsibility for their own lives than leave it to someone likely of lesser skill who won't be there until long after it matters. God help your wife if the police don't get there in time and she has to rely on you.

You don't own a firearm yet you consider yourself an authority on using one for self defense. This is curious... would you trust a weatherman who never studied meteorology? Or a trainer who's athletics experience consists of peewee football when he was 10? Congratulations, you have passed judgement on millions of people who know way the hell more on the subject than someone who got to go stand there and shoot at a gun range a couple times. Next time just say "I don't really know what I'm talking about, but here's what I think"... It comes off the same way, and it takes a lot less energy to write than that paragraph you made.

Another gun thread. May as well copy and paste from any other gun thread!

/I carry

Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

Why don't they all drop trou and compare eachother's dicks. That will prove they're the biggest Swingin' Dicks in the district - & will show those damn commie Libruls who's boss.

That was quick, only 3 posts before the Penis fetish to showed up. He must have been lurking all day for the chance.

consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

Or what, they'll illegally shoot the officials?

mcjam: Needlessly bearing firearms at peaceful gatherings is the biggest sign of weakness. Put down the guns and fight like real men, pussies.

"Gabby" Giffords went to a "SAFE" event unarmed and with no armed security, probably to avoid offending a crowd of PC sheep whose hobby is being offended and intimidated. Apparently the lunatic didn't call ahead and make an appointment to shoot her. Hoping to hide behind someone else or escape unharmed in the confusion and panic is not much of a plan for self defense.

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.

In your average police department only about 3% of the officers who have been on the job more than 3 years practice outside of annual qualification requiring less than 50 rounds. Most, not all, civilians with permits practice as often as they can afford. Police shoot the wrong person or an innocent bystander 5 times as often as civilians. If the armed civilian that helped subdue the shooter in Tucson had been a uniformed cop do you think he would have decided not to empty his 19 round Glock? You are worried about the wrong thing. When you or your wife is the target of a violent crime you can be certain that one or both of you will be right there, no cop in sight and there will be no doubt in your mind who the bad guy is. You might have a chance to prevent it if you're armed, no chance at all if you choose to be helpless.

theknuckler_33: badhatharry: theknuckler_33: consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

Unlike the people who don't own or carry guns into public meetings, right? If your elected officials don't 'represent your interests', you vote against them. You don't bring your farking gun into the next public meeting, jackass. What function does the gun serve in that situation?

It seemed pretty clear to me. They are not going to give up their right to carry a gun.

Not sure if that was snark or serious, but I was under the impression that people want the right to carry a concealed weapon for an actual purpose, not just for the sake of being able to carry it. I was also under the impression that that purpose was for personal protection and, if I'm not mistaken, most public meetings take place with a police presence, so the need for personal protection at those meetings is pretty minor. Finally, considering that having your weapons at a public meeting, presumably visible to the voting members of the council (or whatever), the purpose of having those guns there is meant more for intimidation purposes rather than just 'exercising your rights'. So, thanks for your input, but in the circumstance (at a public meeting), I find the reason to be utterly ridiculous. For some reason, gun owners don't get their panties in a bunch when they can't bring their guns to the farking office when they go to work, but being prevented from bringing them into meetings with politicians is some kind of outrageous infringement on their 'rights'... even though their 'right to bear arms' has not actually been infringed upon at all since noone is forcing them to go the public meeting and they are allowed to own and possess their gun in the first place. Noting in the Constitution says that you can bring your gun wherever the fark you want.

I wasn't aware that lunatics and criminals called ahead and made appointments so you could know you needed to be armed, or that the Constitution specified where you could Keep and Bear Arms, I only read the part that said the government did not have the authority to infringe on the right. And no, I don't think the Supreme Court (the Government) had a leg to stand on when they made up their "reasonable restrictions are OK" out of previous "Laws" that were unconstitutional on the day they were passed. But we can only take them down (the laws) one at a time. When Obama decides to make his statement about more gun control "in the coming weeks" and finishes handing the Government back to the Republican party the way Clinton did maybe we can see some PROGRESS towards recovering our rights. If not we will just have to keep trying, they are not going to just give them back.

Ordinary Genius: Yeah, what jackasses! I can't believe they would protest against the government (new window)!

/I'm glad I live in a country where we can biatch about things like this.

And the Government can't just "turn off" the Internet. They would never do that, so it's perfectly safe to give them the authority. And really, only the pro-government people NEED to be armed.

This is fun, the weather is crappy today, freezing rain, no work and a gun thread. Life is good when you're easy to amuse.

theknuckler_33: chairborne: So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

Bringing your gun and, apparently, making it visible to the people on the council (or whatever political body) is a clear method of intimidation and undermines the political process. Is there something that is difficult to understand about this? I mean, if you have a concealed-carry permit and keep your weapon 'concealed', then noone will know you have a weapon at these public meetings, so why the outrage? Obviously people made their weapon posession clearly visible in order for it to be an issue. How else would it have become a story/issue?

Yes there is something very difficult to understand about that. Open carry is LEGAL. How does she, or anyone else deciding of their own free will to appear in a public place totally helpless and ineffective make what I do intimidating when I have made no overt action towards anyone.

She works for the citizens in a building that they paid for and receives a salary that they pay, the law as it stands says the citizens may bring guns there if they so desire, she wants the law changed and the people who attended with their guns don't. That part is pretty easy, it is not up to her, she just works there and if she doesn't like the conditions of her employment she is free to change jobs.

She chose to be defenseless through no word or action of mine. Actually I encourage you and her to be armed and competent with your weapon so that we can interact as equals, I have no advantage over you and you have none over me. It doesn't really matter which one of us is a lot bigger, smaller, stronger, weaker, younger, older, male or female. Being PC and pretending to morale superiority because someone is afraid of taking responsibility for their own actions doesn't score them any credibility. Neither she nor you has the right to demand that everyone else be helpless so they can FEEL safe.

Emperorsteele: chairborne: So the felony charge for murder isn't going to dissuade someone from shooting up the place but a misdemeanor and a fine for carrying is?

I mean, you can only make a crime *so* illegal, trying to stop murder by making it a double secret felony and in the process making otherwise law abiding citizens who had no intention of murdering anything into automatic criminals sounds a little warped and pathetic.

Well, seeing as how no one can read anyone's mind, you see someone with a gun, you have to assume they have some intention to use it (that intention is most likely self-defense, but you don't KNOW that). It's not like they slipped it on because the holster is the same color as their tie and it looks nice.

You do have a point, that automatically criminalizing anyone for carrying a gun is paranoid. But we live in a fearful society. Some people are afraid of Muslims. Or Homosexuals. Or the idea that every male is a potential rapist. Or anyone of any other given group. However, the "fear of people with guns" is slightly more rational. After all, being Muslim/Gay/Black/Male/whatever doesn't automatically enable that person to kill you. Having a gun, though? Being able to kill you faster than you can blink? If that doesn't scare you a little, you're either very brave or very stupid, or perhaps too complacent.

Also, if you're carrying a gun, that automatically signals that you're afraid of something, so a self-defense advocate really doesn't have a leg to stand on criticizing others for being afraid of THEM.

Finally, you're right that if someone's gonna break the law, they're gonna break the law. Still, in this specific case, the woman might feel safer and more able to do her job, and sometimes all you need is the illusion of safety. Certainly beats being surrounded by several armed individuals who're only there because you ticked them off.

Do you think when you see a cop with a gun that he came into the donut shop to use it? The only reason to think so of the average citizen waiting in line at the grocery store is the propaganda pushed by the MSM and the paid shills of the Brady Bunch. The fear of someone with a gun is the result of being brainwashed into thinking that by surrendering your rights and making your self helpless you are being SAFE. Why do they feel unsafe if it isn't because they realize just how much they are at the mercy of any lunatic or criminal who may not have any. The illusion of safety is wonderful right up until the time it runs into the reality of it being an illusion. Rose colored glasses will be a real comfort when that happens.

Old enough to know better: Well I guess coughing as you casually pull your jacket back to show off the .357 stapped to your hip is one way to get moved to the front of the line, get the good seat at the restaurant, etc.

Arrested, fined, lose your permit, lose your gun, go to jail, yeah that sounds like a plan. You go right ahead and let us know how that works out for you.

If she had been brainwashed into thinking, really believing, that every male above the age of 12 was a violent rapist she would be quite within her rights to lock herself into a chastity belt or an iron cage. She would have no right to demand that every male above the age of 12 be chemically neutered before being allowed to enter a public building where she works. Her safety is her responsibility and her delusions are her problem, no one is, or should be, required to humor her.

ex-nuke: mcjam: Needlessly bearing firearms at peaceful gatherings is the biggest sign of weakness. Put down the guns and fight like real men, pussies.

"Gabby" Giffords went to a "SAFE" event unarmed and with no armed security, probably to avoid offending a crowd of PC sheep whose hobby is being offended and intimidated. Apparently the lunatic didn't call ahead and make an appointment to shoot her. Hoping to hide behind someone else or escape unharmed in the confusion and panic is not much of a plan for self defense.

So your suggesting that Jared Loughner was just like these small-balled gun slingers?

mcjam: ex-nuke: mcjam: Needlessly bearing firearms at peaceful gatherings is the biggest sign of weakness. Put down the guns and fight like real men, pussies.

"Gabby" Giffords went to a "SAFE" event unarmed and with no armed security, probably to avoid offending a crowd of PC sheep whose hobby is being offended and intimidated. Apparently the lunatic didn't call ahead and make an appointment to shoot her. Hoping to hide behind someone else or escape unharmed in the confusion and panic is not much of a plan for self defense.

So your suggesting that Jared Loughner was just like these small-balled gun slingers?

No no no, our balls our huge, it's the penis that's small? Haven't you read the latest "comparing a person's choices to their penis size" article in ITG monthly?