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.

(KOB4)   Not news: town has only two cops. Fark: neither of them can legally carry a firearm. Bonus: because they both have criminal records   (kob.com) divider line 5
    More: Amusing, New Mexico, New Mexico State Police, criminal records, firearms, town  
•       •       •

8508 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2012 at 4:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-29 10:28:16 AM  
1 votes:
Is one of them named Barney?
2012-06-29 09:03:12 AM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: AqueousBoy:
Yeah... it's spelled whose.

FTFA: Armijo, who's annual salary is less than $30,000, got five years probation and was ordered to start making monthly payments to help support his 10 and 12 year old sons.

Nope. Pretty sure they spelled it "Who's" there.


They did spell it "who's." That's the problem, because "who's" is a contraction. Who is or who has. Armijo, who is annual salary is less than... hmm, that doesn't work. Armijo, who has annual salary is less than. Nope, still doesn't work.

Ah, here we go - from Oxford Dictionary:

Whose. Pronunciation: /huːz/ belonging to or associated with which person

Spelling is too hard, even for journalists.
2012-06-29 05:47:15 AM  
1 votes:

OBBN: Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?


A significant fraction of "felons" prohibited from legally purchasing one class of weapon were convicted of non-violent crimes.

In general, if someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn't be driving (or doing a large number of things in public) ... but the idiots running our court systems and prisons fail to understand anything beyond "ooh ooh - gunz scary - gunz bad" ... they refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "dangerous people" as they fixate on "dangerous weapons"

===

As far as the article goes one of the following three options is my guess:
1- the town doesn't feel that their two law enforcement officers need firearms to do their job
- or -
2- the town hasn't gotten around to replacing these two
- or -
3- the town plans to arm them anyway through some kind of "government says it is OK" policy
2012-06-29 05:07:02 AM  
1 votes:
Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?
2012-06-28 09:38:43 PM  
1 votes:
It would look more convincing if they let them have the guns but have Sheriff Andy make them keep the bullets in their shirt pockets.
 
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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