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 Guy)   The gun was loaded, and so was the guy playing around with it at the gun show   (chicago.cbslocal.com) divider line 131
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

9981 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2011 at 4:05 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-10 09:37:31 PM  
We need a bigger Dumbass tag.
 
2011-04-10 10:04:38 PM  
AD's only happen in the "Make Believe" world.
 
2011-04-10 11:25:54 PM  
Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!
 
2011-04-11 12:05:18 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: unrestricted 2nd amendment


there is no such thing.
 
2011-04-11 01:17:23 AM  
2 Hurt When Man Accidentally Intentially Fires Weapon At Gun Show


ftfya

seriously
he picked up a loaded weapon and fired it.
it was not an accident.
it was intentional.
he should be locked up.
death penalty would be a good deterent to the next tard.
 
2011-04-11 01:49:58 AM  
Why you gotta make us non crazy gun owners look bad?

namatad: good deterent to the next tard.

Hasn't stared yet.
 
2011-04-11 02:34:12 AM  

baka-san: Why you gotta make us non crazy gun owners look bad?

namatad: good deterent to the next tard.

Hasn't stared yet.


nah
he doesnt make non-crazy people look bad.
he makes tards look like tards.

people who assume that because there are tards like this, that all gun owners are just like this are prejudiced and bigots.

sorry ...
this kind of blame/stereotyping is unacceptable at all levels.
if we use it against gun owners, people will use it against gun owners, educated people, religious people, blah blah blah

tards are TARDS.
the sooner we start accepting this and treating them correctly, the sooner we wont have to deal with them anymore.
 
2011-04-11 02:36:26 AM  
Reminds me of the safety instructor who shot himself in the foot in front of the class while trying to teach gun safety. Anyone got the link?
 
2011-04-11 04:06:49 AM  
Police say a man who'd been drinking accidentally fired his .45 caliber handgun at a gun and knife show inside the Evansville National Guard Armory

Rookie. I only drink on purpose.
 
2011-04-11 04:14:41 AM  
As someone who went to a gun show this weekend, I'm getting a kick I'd like to shoot this guy.
 
2011-04-11 04:19:33 AM  
I'm trying to imagine what it looks like when gunfire breaks out at a gun show. lol. Well, it ain't a gun hide!
 
2011-04-11 04:21:31 AM  
So this is one of those 'decent, law-abiding' gun owners we keep hearing about?
 
2011-04-11 04:29:46 AM  
Gun shows and monster truck shows. Two events at which I shall never be found dead.

Farking idiots.
 
2011-04-11 04:30:00 AM  
Police say Wilkinson had a 0.05 percent blood alcohol level. Indiana sets the level for drunkenness at 0.08 percent.

0.05 isn't exactly loaded, but I guess creative liberties must be taken for headlines.

As a gun owner, fark this guy, I'm glad he's being charged.
 
2011-04-11 04:36:18 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!


Nnnnnnnnnnnnno, it was restricted behavior and he will be prosecuted for it, dumbass.
 
2011-04-11 04:37:29 AM  
I do not see the problem with this. I would rather my countrymen be on the highest alert, shooting at what he perceives to be terrorists and Democrats, than allow them to slip idly through the cracks of liberty. So the man was drunk. Big deal. I think we have all shot somebody with a gun when we were drunk. I shot seven people last week while I was drunk. The cops were originally upset but then I explained that I was drunk. They understood the situation. That is the point I am trying to make. You want to claim that this is a matter of gun safety, but in reality, you just want to take my booze away from me. Well, I will be sitting on the front porch with my six-shooter and a six-pack. I may slur my speech during those moments, but you will not take my beer and you will not take my guns. Do you hear me, Nancy Pelosi? You may be funny in the funnies but you are no laughing matter when it comes to my booze. Beer was invented in this country for a reason: To keep the government of England out of our hops and barley. And that, my friends, is the Real American Truth™. Let us drink to that, and let us forgive this man for shooting innocent people. He was drunk. He did not know what he was doing.
 
2011-04-11 04:37:47 AM  
Well, at least now he knows what that zip tie was for. (The one he had to cut off in order to insert his magazine*.)

/TFA says clip, of course, but it was a .45 handgun, so *we* know it was a magazine.
 
2011-04-11 04:39:10 AM  

moralpanic: So this is one of those 'decent, law-abiding' gun owners we keep hearing about?


No, he committed a crime, actually, and gave dumb liberals like yourself flimsy justification to slander the vast majority of gun owners. You know, the exact sort of stereotyping you'd howl about if we extrapolated the bad behavior of a certain number of blacks or Muslims to the larger group.
 
2011-04-11 04:43:23 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!


It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.
 
2011-04-11 04:45:36 AM  
Bleh. Must not post after drinking an entire bottle of champagne. It messes up messes my grammar.
 
2011-04-11 04:46:53 AM  
Police say he removed a round from the gun and applied a flex tie before entering. Show organizer Tom Allman says despite a sign banning loaded weapons, Wilkinson cut off the band and inserted a clip.

Will say this: This stupid moran deserves to lose his 2nd Amendment right because he is such a mother farking dumb ass.
 
2011-04-11 04:48:45 AM  
He should have called 911 and reported a wounding first
 
2011-04-11 04:49:01 AM  

Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.


Yeah, those founders with their weasel words like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". They sure left a lot of loopholes in that one. All we had to do was change the definition of "infringed" to exclude regulation, and we were good to go. Bonus: applies to other rights, too!
 
2011-04-11 05:04:35 AM  

hammettman: I'm trying to imagine what it looks like when gunfire breaks out at a gun show. lol. Well, it ain't a gun hide!


I think it'd look a little bit something like this...

img.villagephotos.com
 
2011-04-11 05:10:03 AM  

Old enough to know better: I think it'd look a little bit something like this...


I hope friendly fire is turned off.
 
2011-04-11 05:12:25 AM  
I know happy drunks and angry drunks. I remember the people, though, who seemed to lose 20 IQ points per beer. Wonder what happened to them.
 
2011-04-11 05:40:34 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.

Yeah, those founders with their weasel words like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". They sure left a lot of loopholes in that one. All we had to do was change the definition of "infringed" to exclude regulation, and we were good to go. Bonus: applies to other rights, too!


Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.
 
2011-04-11 05:44:34 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!


Um, you realize this is pretty highly illegal under current law, and no one in the history of ever has proposed revoking the laws against handling firearms while inebriated, yeah?
 
2011-04-11 05:48:17 AM  

namatad: 2 Hurt When Man Accidentally Intentially Intentionally Fires Weapon At Gun Show


ftfya


FTFY

/next?
 
2011-04-11 05:50:02 AM  

Mock26: Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.


Not really. Much of what we're experiencing right now they predicted. It's just that they expected it to happen a lot sooner. But then, Americans worked a lot harder back in those days. Just google "founding fathers quotes democracy" and you can verify what I've just said. Obviously, you'll have to take out the quotes or you won't get any useful hits.
 
2011-04-11 05:54:16 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Um, you realize this is pretty highly illegal under current law, and no one in the history of ever has proposed revoking the laws against handling firearms while inebriated, yeah?


Not true. I have proposed this very thing. I realize I'm not anyone special, but I am someone in the history of ever. See, my point is that it's already a crime to do anything bad with a gun, so there's no reason to make more crimes for possible outcomes. It's the same argument I have against drunk driving laws. Alcohol is already one of the factors which strengthens punishments for violating existing laws - so there's no need for a specific class of laws which don't punish actual crimes, but punish people for being in a situation which could potentially lead to a crime, whether it does or not.
 
2011-04-11 06:02:04 AM  
$100 says he was "drunk" off of Bud Light
 
2011-04-11 06:11:07 AM  
FTA: Wilkinson cut off the band and inserted a clip.

images.wikia.com

//hot
 
2011-04-11 06:16:18 AM  

untaken_name: Jim_Callahan: Um, you realize this is pretty highly illegal under current law, and no one in the history of ever has proposed revoking the laws against handling firearms while inebriated, yeah?

Not true. I have proposed this very thing.


Point ceded, I guess, but with the caveat that your post makes me suspect that you're trolling rather than genuinely a proponent of that position, since anyone who is actually that stupid wouldn't be able to figure out how yo work the "add comment" button.

Reasonable people (and even unreasonable people whose unreasonableness is mildly limited) understand that using dangerous equipment in conjunction with drugs whose selling point is impaired judgement is a bad idea, and that people who intentionally impair their judgement should be legally restricted from handling such equipment. No one's taken the opposite stance strongly enough to actually propose striking down the laws, etc, to my knowledge. So it's still a straw-man argument to posit that people of pro-gun inclinations would support such deregulation, when it fact it's a couple dudes trolling on the internet.

//This is essentially what I was saying before with the hyperbole removed, shoulda figured even a brick-to-the-head post was too subtle.
 
2011-04-11 06:25:05 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!


Lets review 2nd amendment 101.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - this is a preamble which gives some context.

the right of the people - this means it is a right of the people and not one of the state or of congress (people,state and congress are used in several of the bill of rights and have distinct meanings)

to keep and bear Arms - this means to own, possess and use in defense. The phrase 'bear arms' goes back to the 1500s and meant the same basic thing that it did in the late 1700s when the 2nd amendment was written. To be clear it does not include using it to rob someone, get drunk and shot people, or anything other than for defense (of the nation/state as the preamble suggests as well as for self defense). Any use of a weapon that is contrary to the defense provision is fully allowed to be prosecuted by the appropriate government.

shall not be infringed - this means there is no infringement allowed. Any other interpretation of this phrase is contrary to the wording of the constitution and results in an unconstitutional law. While there are legally binding decisions from the oligarchy that all types of infringements are allowed, that oligarchy does not have the power to "modify without ratification" any part of the constitution as such it is legally binding but not constitutional. An infringement includes weapons bans, people bans, etc. The first gun laws occurred in the south right after the civil war, I think Georgia was the first to require a license, issued by a good-ol boy sheriff no less. Ahh the racist history of gun control.
 
2011-04-11 06:29:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: untaken_name: Jim_Callahan: Um, you realize this is pretty highly illegal under current law, and no one in the history of ever has proposed revoking the laws against handling firearms while inebriated, yeah?

Not true. I have proposed this very thing.

Point ceded, I guess, but with the caveat that your post makes me suspect that you're trolling rather than genuinely a proponent of that position, since anyone who is actually that stupid wouldn't be able to figure out how yo work the "add comment" button.

Reasonable people (and even unreasonable people whose unreasonableness is mildly limited) understand that using dangerous equipment in conjunction with drugs whose selling point is impaired judgement is a bad idea, and that people who intentionally impair their judgement should be legally restricted from handling such equipment. No one's taken the opposite stance strongly enough to actually propose striking down the laws, etc, to my knowledge. So it's still a straw-man argument to posit that people of pro-gun inclinations would support such deregulation, when it fact it's a couple dudes trolling on the internet.

//This is essentially what I was saying before with the hyperbole removed, shoulda figured even a brick-to-the-head post was too subtle.


I know it's common to accuse anyone on the internet who doesn't agree with you of stupidity, and also to state that (insert authority here) agrees with you, but that doesn't make you correct. There is nothing about drinking a beer or two that CAUSES someone to do stupid things with firearms. Sure, there are people who shouldn't have even ONE beer and be around firearms - but they're not EVERYONE. That's why it's up to the individual to know his or her own limits, and be responsible for him or herself. Making things which cause no damage and have no victims "crimes" is bad policy. Period. Accuse me of whatever you like, but if there is no victim and there are no damages, there should be no crime. And "society" does NOT count as a victim. Your point that impaired judgement is cause for criminalization is invalidated by the myriad of things which MAY lead to bad judgement but which are not criminalized. Things such as being tired, being angry, being depressed, stress - these can also lead to making poor decisions, yet no one in the history of ever (to borrow a phrase) has attempted to make "possession of a gun while stressed" a crime - yet the same justification could be used to do so. Is it, then, your considered opinion that "possession of a gun while depressed" and "possession of a gun while under stress" should also be criminalized? If not, why the disparity? If so, where does it end? There are many things in life which lead to poor decision-making. Should we criminalize them all?
 
2011-04-11 06:31:43 AM  

Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.


No, they ruled it is legally binding. We had this discussion before that the SCOTUS does not have the power to modify the constitution without ratification, and just because they rule making something legally binding does not make it constitutional, they just dont have that power. "shall not be infringed" was never touched in Heller other than to quote the 2nd amendment. And the dissent commented that if "the right of the people" in fact meant the right of the people then people will argue that there should not be any gun restrictions. What Scalia said in the majority opinion totally violates "shall not be infringed" but for fear of mass appeal of anyone convicted as in possession of an illegal weapon (NFA item or 18 USC 922(g)) they went ahead and said it is ok in a similar way they said that the federal government can violate due process rights when Booker and Fan Fan appealed after their Blachley ruling.
 
2011-04-11 06:36:32 AM  

Mock26:
Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.


Granted they never gave SCOTUS the power to change the constitution, but instead put in a ratification process that requires the approval of the people not just some oligarchy. To date there has never been a 28th or greater amendment that would alter the 2nd (process similar to how the 21st removed the 18th restriction on alcohol).

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -- Thomas Jefferson

I dunno, that seems to hold true to this day.
 
2011-04-11 06:41:00 AM  
honestly, what else can you say than
USA ! USA !

gun show + under influence + access to live ammo ???
 
2011-04-11 06:42:47 AM  

Jim_Callahan:
I know it's common to accuse anyone on the internet who doesn't agree with you of stupidity, and also to state that (insert authority here) agrees with you, but that doesn't make you correct. There is nothing about drinking a beer or two that CAUSES someone to do stupid things with firearms. Sure, there are people who shouldn't have even ONE beer and be around firearms - but they're not EVERYONE. That's why it's up to the individual to know his or her own limits, and be responsible for him or herself.


Why hold the person responsible when you can hold the gun maker or alcohol producer or national guard for having the gun show at their location responsible? Why demand personal responsibility when you can just pass a law and shift the burden on the police for arresting such people who are not responsible?

No I think that we have it right now, do away with personal responsibility and pass a ton of laws doing away with freedom at the same time. It is just easier if the government thinks for us than for us to think for ourselves.
 
2011-04-11 06:56:40 AM  
I had 8 slugs in me. One was lead the others were bourbon.
 
2011-04-11 07:05:38 AM  
Did everyone else at the show line up and slap the shiat out of him?

They must have been farking peeved.
 
2011-04-11 07:09:07 AM  

Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.


In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.

2. The right to own a gun is the only enumerated constitutional right that can be permanently revoked based upon conviction of a misdemeanor.

3. Carrying a firearm for lawful purposes (you know, the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms") is, in most states in the union, restricted to those who have received permission by the state to do so.

4. In some states, you must get permission to buy from the state, and in some extreme cases you need permission even to *GIVE* someone a gun as a gift, even an immediate family member.

Of all the enumerated constitutional rights, the right to keep and bear arms is the most highly restricted.
 
2011-04-11 07:13:01 AM  

WI241TH: I had 8 slugs in me. One was lead the others were bourbon.


what's up Tracer Bullet?
 
2011-04-11 07:23:25 AM  

dittybopper:
In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.


The original meaning of article I section 8 clause 3 (interstate and foreign commerce clause) did not use regulate as it is interpreted today. It did not give them the power they claim to now have, and if it did why impose any limits on the government when this so clearly is a loophole around all such limits (especially when you consider Filburn)?

Additionally the 2nd amendment came later, and as we know amendments that are later can and do preempt anything written prior, if that were not the case the 21st amendment could not undo the 18t's prohibition on alcohol.


2. The right to own a gun is the only enumerated constitutional right that can be permanently revoked based upon conviction of a misdemeanor.


Not constitutionally. In about 1782 Pennsylvania included wording to ban ex-felons from being able to have a 2nd amendment right, that failed and was not incorporated into the 2nd amendment. It was thought of and rejected for fear that the government could/would ban everyone eventually. If felons are so dangerous they cannot be trusted with a gun (but can with a knife, car, rock, stick, etc) then they should be monitored. While incarcerated you do lose certain rights, such as the right to assemble, the right against searches without probable cause, etc. House arrest, probation, parole, supervised release, etc are all modified forms of incarceration, and while incarcerated you can be so restricted. If this logic was not true you would not be able to run any jail.


3. Carrying a firearm for lawful purposes (you know, the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms") is, in most states in the union, restricted to those who have received permission by the state to do so.

Which I see as an infringement of the right. Any license or permit to have "arms" (which is more than guns, it is any weapon) infringes upon that right because you must first get permission to exercise that right. How many people would support a "permit to speech"? If one right can be taken through random interpretation then they all can.


4. In some states, you must get permission to buy from the state, and in some extreme cases you need permission even to *GIVE* someone a gun as a gift, even an immediate family member.

The brady bill made it illegal to buy a gun as a gift. Something the founder of the brady foundation (Sarah Brady comes to mind) found out about. She was a "straw man" buyer for a gun for her son, filling out the paperwork and getting the background check in her name with the full intent of giving the firearm to someone else.

There are temporary loans that are allowed under federal law but not all states allow it. Another infringement.


Of all the enumerated constitutional rights, the right to keep and bear arms is the most highly restricted.



To a point that it has become a privilege and not a right.
 
2011-04-11 07:26:36 AM  
I am so scared that someone, somewhere has the power to end my life quickly.

So scared...
 
2011-04-11 07:37:37 AM  
Its the kind of altercation that could have happened on any street corner on the world. Its only noteworthy because it happened at a gunshow.
Which speaks to how rare the combination is even tho weapons, ammunition, and questionable people are all jammed into a single room.

...and would you look at that, criminal stupidity is at the center of it but the situation didn't turn into a free for all bloodbath.
Its almost if the availability of weaponry was not a factor in human behavior.
 
2011-04-11 07:40:40 AM  

lewismarktwo: I am so scared that someone, somewhere has the power to end my life quickly.

So scared...


Welcome to the human race.
 
2011-04-11 07:56:59 AM  
FTFA:
Show organizer Tom Allman says despite a sign banning loaded weapons, Wilkinson cut off the band and inserted a clip.

Oh no, he didn't read the sign! Maybe they should send him a strongly worded letter.
 
2011-04-11 08:10:35 AM  
I'm sorry. If you had an unloaded, banded gun, and you deliberately cut the band and load it, then the discharge was not an accident. Should be charged accordingly.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report