Sweet. So she's cancelling her show?

/I thought I read "art" in there

News at 11: Madonna has a history of doing 'controversial' things to get free publicity.

Apparently, it works for her.

Madonna is a coont.
Always has been...always will be.

fireclown: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Hers?

Yea.


Ya know what? I'd rather talk about Madonnas tits than Holmes' guns.

THIS.

God love her for poppin' one out every now and again.

Confabulat: sithon: but if you are your concealex carry handgun would do exactly shiat to a guy in full body armor including helmet and groin protection. So Stfu

Whenever I read one of these gun nuts whine that if they'd have been there with their handgun, things would have been completely different. These people basically daydreaming about what awesome superhero Rambos they would be if only the stupid government would let them.

That's their daydream. In reality, they'd be the first little girls to start crying.

Well what if there's, say, five of these guys? I mean you have the virginia tech kid that walks in a classroom filled with 37 people, starts headshotting everyone, then leaves. Imagine you walk into a bar with 37 people in Kentucky, and start headshotting everyone, and then there's 35 alive and you and 27 of them pull out Desert Eagles or some other kind of prosthetic man-mojo to shoot back.

How close do you think you'll get to ringing up a couple dozen casualties, really?

Mike Chewbacca: Just so you know, proscribed is kinda the opposite of prescribed.

Also, Madonna is a classless dick.


Sorry. Auto-corrected.

Madonna has never been about class. For my two bits, her waving assault weapons around, even fake ones, makes the world better just by pissing people off.

"I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands, which are at the end of my very weird looking arms!"

Confabulat: sithon: but if you are your concealex carry handgun would do exactly shiat to a guy in full body armor including helmet and groin protection. So Stfu

Whenever I read one of these gun nuts whine that if they'd have been there with their handgun, things would have been completely different. These people basically daydreaming about what awesome superhero Rambos they would be if only the stupid government would let them.

That's their daydream. In reality, they'd be the first little girls to start crying.

Or, even worse (and perhaps more likely), they'd whip out their gun and start adding to the body count since their aim is shockingly not as good as that of the characters in their favorite movies.

feckingmorons: sithon: feckingmorons: Yet I can't carry a legally owned handgun with my permit issued by my state after a fingerprint FBI background check in a Caremark cinema like the one in Aurora because it is a gun free zone.

I don't patronize businesses that insist on disarming law abiding citizens and inviting the murder by establishing a 'gun free zone' where sociopaths can murder without a concern that a law abiding citizen might shoot back.

not sure if serious. but if you are your concealex carry handgun would do exactly shiat to a guy in full body armor including helmet and groin protection. So Stfu

Really, do you not think he would run away if one or two people started shooting at him. When the cops showed up he dropped his gun.

You do real that 'full body armor' is not actually a force field like in comic books.

I may not have to hit him, but one, or a few people shooting at him would sure give people more time to run away.

Why do you want to disarm law abiding citizens?

More likely, given the circumstances, you and the other tough guys would just end up shooting innocent people. Nobody can shoot straight in a dark room full of chaos and tear gas, even if they are thinking clearly, which you wouldn't be.

She don't wanna upset the apple cart, and she don't want to cause any harm. But if you don't like what she's going to do, you better not stop her 'cause she's coming through.

/Obscure?

I guess her idea work. The story is all over the net, people are talking about her & you've spelled her name right.

Perducci: Or, even worse (and perhaps more likely), they'd whip out their gun and start adding to the body count since their aim is shockingly not as good as that of the characters in their favorite movies

And just about nobodys aim is good under crisis circumstances. You can train for it, and some people are better at it than others, but it isn't going to be your best shooting.

In other news, Madonna is apparently still alive and trying to be controversial.

scubamage: Confabulat: feckingmorons: I've never murdered anyone, that is one of the questions on the background check form... have you committed any felonies?

And this guy hadn't. He had no criminal record at all.

Lets face it, gun nuts are just cowards at heart.

I'm not a gun nut, but I am a gun owner. Most of my guns are family heirlooms that you can't shoot (an 1850's cavalry pistol for example). I got my sole usable gun because I've been burglarized two times in a row. My fiance is frequently home alone, and as a side business, she teaches small children (7-8 years old) frequently. The burglars broke into our house during the day. I got it so A) I can protect the house, and B) she can protect herself and the child if there is one there at the time should the scum ever come back.

So, am I a coward because I want the ability for either I or my kin to be able to protect themselves and guests occupying the house?

Maybe not a coward, but exceedingly stupid. Proper gun safety would require the gun to be secured, and if not then it is a risk to the children. Go look up home accidental shootings, maybe you will get my point.

Also exactly what will your wife do with that gun if someone invades the home? Does she wear it as a sidearm? Can she draw and fire accurately with speed under extreme stress? Has she ever fired it outside of a range? Giving the average person a gun is like giving that same person a crane. Both accomplish nothing constructive and they will seriously harm or kill themselves or someone else.

feckingmorons: Confabulat: feckingmorons: Do you feel safer in a 'gun free zone'?

I don't think I've ever noticed if I'm in a "gun-free zone" or not. Are there signs or something?

Yep, all sorts of them you can buy. I guarantee they will not make you any safer, if they did a "Do Not Rob this MiniMart" sign would work.

You'll probably see signs like this on department stores near you, this one is from a local Macy's
[img705.imageshack.us image 225x180]

You probably don't notice because you don't carry a gun. I don't usually notice no smoking signs because I don't smoke.

When I took my CHL class they went over signs that can be used to inform you that you can't concealed carry. There are only 2 signs that can legally tell you that you can't posses a firearm.



The 51% sign. So you can't carry a gun in a bar as you can't carry inside a business that derives at least 51% of it's sales from alcohol sales. The weird part is you can have a restaurant with a bar inside. The bar can be covered by the 51% while the rest of the restaurant isn't.



The 30.06 sign. For courtrooms, churches, amusement parks.

If you see these signs you cannot carry a gun. They must be in both English and Spanish with the exact wording in the correct font sizes to be considered valid. But just because a place doesn't have those doesn't mean you're in the clear. It just means if you're stupid enough to carry to court the DA have a harder time throwing your ass in jail. But they still will.

Here is a sample of signs you can ignore and people have taken pictures of. If you see these you can contact the CHL department to have the business investigated for posting illegal signage. They won't get in trouble, just get told they can't do that or to update their signage:







\Thanks to Practical Tactical for these. These laws also only apply to Texas.

I agree with Madonna on this one.


Dear God, what has happened to me!?????!

The dipshiat gungrabbers in this thread makes me laugh, and make me feel rather smug that the firearms on my current buy list tend to be what you bastards call "scary assault weapons". just to make you guys piss your pants.

/Actually, so I can still have them when they're inevitably banned again.
//Still, fear: You people are rank with it.

feckingmorons: optikeye: feckingmorons: But, why can't I carry my gun in the theater

Private property rights. The owners of the property make their own requirements...it's not a governmental rule. Don't like it..open your own theater to compete with them. Same for your HOA..don't like it..move; Surely aren't arguing for private owners to submit to something that limits their rights to use and allow access to their property on their terms are you?

I just don't go to places that don't allow guns. It most certainly is their right to do so, and I support them in that. It might change a bit when the lawyers get involved and start suing for their disarming legal gun users and not doing enough to keep criminals from using guns at their private property onto which they invite the public. I think there will be more risk in taking guns away than allowing guns. They cannot be expected to control all criminal behavior, but prohibiting legal behavior ... well I can see liability there.

So, if they are willing to take that risk I'm happy to support them in their property rights. I can put up a sign to keep guns out of my house, or the restaurant. I don't but I could.

The stupidity at play here is....staggering. So if they allowed people with guns in there, and for some reason a gun went off and killed someone at the theatre, they would sue the guy with the gun and not the theatre right? RIGHT?

Reality would like to speak with you sir, thank god you aren't a cop anymore. Hopefully just an intern at the NRA spraying pro-gun crap on fark.

As far as Madonna goes, stay classy!! And stay in Europe.

Cue "not-this-shiat-again.jpeg"

It's always "BAN ALL GUNS!!1!" vs "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A WORKING TANK!!1!"

IMHO, what we need is more training for gun owners. You need to go through drivers education in order to legally operate a vehicle and I see no reason why prospective gun owners should not have to go though a similar education and licensing procedure for gun ownership and operation

/gun owner
//don't aim at anything you are not willing to destroy
///treat all firearms as if they are loaded. No exceptions

Point:

"Her entire career, she has fought against people telling her what she can and cannot do. She's not about to start listening to them now."

Counterpoint:

Good idea, everyone should just stop listening to this insensitive biatch.

TheAlmightyOS: Cue "not-this-shiat-again.jpeg"

It's always "BAN ALL GUNS!!1!" vs "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A WORKING TANK!!1!"

IMHO, what we need is more training for gun owners. You need to go through drivers education in order to legally operate a vehicle and I see no reason why prospective gun owners should not have to go though a similar education and licensing procedure for gun ownership and operation

/gun owner
//don't aim at anything you are not willing to destroy
///treat all firearms as if they are loaded. No exceptions

That already exists in most states. You don't need any special license or certification to BUY a car, just to drive one. You actually have to have some scrutiny (albeit minor) to purchase a gun but you do have to go through training to carry one.

"Madonna would rather cancel her show than censor her art"

Geez subby talk about stretching it.

optikeye: feckingmorons: But, why can't I carry my gun in the theater

Private property rights. The owners of the property make their own requirements...it's not a governmental rule. Don't like it..open your own theater to compete with them. Same for your HOA..don't like it..move; Surely aren't arguing for private owners to submit to something that limits their rights to use and allow access to their property on their terms are you?

I think it would be wholly reasonable to require privately-owned public space to allow anything legal in publicly-owned public-space. If you can walk in there without a membership card, you can bring your legal-to-carry firearm. If we're talking a yacht club or a reservation-only place (hall, restaurant) or a Costco, you know the rules. If we're talking about the mall or a theater, sorry, people can enter here freely and you're effectively excluding them from an open-to-the-public place for exercising their rights. Theaters are a funny corner case: ingress into the theater proper is ticketed, so under this definition they could force you to check your weapons.

The problem here is the state passes a law by which they claim that people are allowed to carry weapons for self defense, but you can't actually go anywhere. The street's full, you can't park in the parking garage because no weapons allowed on the premises. You have to walk 3 blocks through the shiatty part of town where people get murdered, at night, but you can't carry because when you get to the upscale restaurant that's here for whatever godawful reason they tell you you can't bring your gun in and they won't hold it. You can't enter the mall you biked/busrode to because you have a firearm.

Essentially, if you want to be a part of society, you have to relinquish your rights well away from where these places have control. If the working class tends to say "I want to carry" and the upper class (business owners) tend to say "guns are bad," the upper class is much smaller but can effectively block the rights of the working class. I think it's your right to keep out folks you don't want under terms you specify; however if you're going to allow common-man ingress then you need to accept common-man rights. If you want to filter, then make them sign a contract before entering your place of business.

(I've actually had bullets fired around me, it didn't bother me but none of the shooters were concerned with me so I figured nobody cared enough to shoot at me),

fireclown: feckingmorons: No, he wasn't a law abiding citizen does not murder movie goers. He may have been a law abiding citizen up until that point, but I think killing people for fun crosses the line.

[irrev-black.com image 300x284]

I get what you're going for here, but the reason "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy is because "True" Scotsman is an arbitrary, eye of the beholder, position. This does not apply because laws are clearly codified, and being law abiding or not is a simple fact.

i.e. No true Scotsman is an attempt to distance a particular Scotsman from a larger group of Scots by declaring in one's opinion "Not a True Scotsman", Law abiding and non law abiding are facts not opinions.

Hahahhahahahaha they had to give THOUSANDS of tickets away because so few were sold. Good luck on your tour of desperation. When people become so used to "shocking" things people like Madonna have less value.

probesport: TheAlmightyOS: Cue "not-this-shiat-again.jpeg"

It's always "BAN ALL GUNS!!1!" vs "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A WORKING TANK!!1!"

IMHO, what we need is more training for gun owners. You need to go through drivers education in order to legally operate a vehicle and I see no reason why prospective gun owners should not have to go though a similar education and licensing procedure for gun ownership and operation

/gun owner
//don't aim at anything you are not willing to destroy
///treat all firearms as if they are loaded. No exceptions

That already exists in most states. You don't need any special license or certification to BUY a car, just to drive one. You actually have to have some scrutiny (albeit minor) to purchase a gun but you do have to go through training to carry one.

True. Call that a bad example. I am saying gun ownership should be subject to a license. But then again, thinking about it more, it would be completely unconstitutional and there would be alot of room for abuse by the states wanting to reduce gun violence.

I think I might have just trolled myself?

sirgrim: feckingmorons: Why do you want to disarm law abiding citizens?

Your right to own guns does not trump my right to go to a movie theater without fear of being shot.

/same argument for anti-smoking

Well to play Devil's Advocate, the point he is poorly making, but that Aurora points out is true none the less, having a no guns policy in an establishment doesn't mean those fears vanish. Why do so many people think a "no guns" sign does a DAMN thing to protect them. You think someone who is ready to ignore a law against killing people is going to pay ANY attention to a no guns policy?

TheAlmightyOS: probesport: TheAlmightyOS: Cue "not-this-shiat-again.jpeg"

It's always "BAN ALL GUNS!!1!" vs "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A WORKING TANK!!1!"

IMHO, what we need is more training for gun owners. You need to go through drivers education in order to legally operate a vehicle and I see no reason why prospective gun owners should not have to go though a similar education and licensing procedure for gun ownership and operation

/gun owner
//don't aim at anything you are not willing to destroy
///treat all firearms as if they are loaded. No exceptions

That already exists in most states. You don't need any special license or certification to BUY a car, just to drive one. You actually have to have some scrutiny (albeit minor) to purchase a gun but you do have to go through training to carry one.

True. Call that a bad example. I am saying gun ownership should be subject to a license. But then again, thinking about it more, it would be completely unconstitutional and there would be alot of room for abuse by the states wanting to reduce gun violence.

I think I might have just trolled myself?

9/10

medanzig: Hahahhahahahaha they had to give THOUSANDS of tickets away because so few were sold. Good luck on your tour of desperation. When people become so used to "shocking" things people like Madonna have less value.

THIS!

Add "Wayne Gacy" to the name and then you may have an edgy show on your hands.

thefatbasturd: sirgrim: feckingmorons: Why do you want to disarm law abiding citizens?

Your right to own guns does not trump my right to go to a movie theater without fear of being shot.

/same argument for anti-smoking

Well to play Devil's Advocate, the point he is poorly making, but that Aurora points out is true none the less, having a no guns policy in an establishment doesn't mean those fears vanish. Why do so many people think a "no guns" sign does a DAMN thing to protect them. You think someone who is ready to ignore a law against killing people is going to pay ANY attention to a no guns policy?


Berkeley, CA has signage that indicates it is a "nuclear free zone," and it has not been destroyed by nuclear weapons. Coincidence?

/though, it is the place where plutonium was discovered

sithon: feckingmorons: Yet I can't carry a legally owned handgun with my permit issued by my state after a fingerprint FBI background check in a Caremark cinema like the one in Aurora because it is a gun free zone.

I don't patronize businesses that insist on disarming law abiding citizens and inviting the murder by establishing a 'gun free zone' where sociopaths can murder without a concern that a law abiding citizen might shoot back.

not sure if serious. but if you are your concealex carry handgun would do exactly shiat to a guy in full body armor including helmet and groin protection. So Stfu

i can't imagine this has gone uncommented on, but just in case it has, a) find a buddy with some kevlar (if you have one) and don it b) have him/her empty a clip on you at 15, 20 feet.

c) stfu

sithon: Unless you are a soldier or a cop you should have no need to carry a gun around in public.

We have armed robberies in my town.
I carry concealed and legally.
Show me a knife and demand my wallet.
Joke's on you.
I don't carry a wallet.

The nearest cop is an hour away.
The hospital is an hour, round trip, after they've been dispatched,
The local thug, seconds.

After he's been dispatched.

/not an ITG.
//retired cop.
///sick of crime.

vudukungfu: sithon: Unless you are a soldier or a cop you should have no need to carry a gun around in public.

We have armed robberies in my town.
I carry concealed and legally.
Show me a knife and demand my wallet.
Joke's on you.
I don't carry a wallet.

The nearest cop is an hour away.
The hospital is an hour, round trip, after they've been dispatched,
The local thug, seconds.

After he's been dispatched.

/not an ITG.
//retired cop.
///sick of crime.

This fantasy scenario happens how often? Maybe once or twice for every couple of hundred accidental shootings, panicked bad aimings, Zimmerman-type incidents, etc.?