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.

(Denver Post)   Gun sales in Colorado have jumped more than 41 percent since Friday   (denverpost.com) divider line 619
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5859 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



619 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 03:38:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Verrai: ChrisDe: If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million 50 million people with two guns will!

FTFY.

Agreed.

This is Bubba using the tragedy to convince Maude he needs a new gun out of the household budget.


This reminds me that I have to go purchase another one to stash in my bathroom. Cause you never know when some robber is going to bust in through your bathroom while you are taking a crap.
 
2012-07-24 03:38:32 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.

You sound urban.

We're not all urban.

If' you think I'm a coward for taking a handgun into bear country, I challenge you to out-do me and go face a brown bear without one.

I'm from Montana. You fire a handgun at a bear and you'll piss him off enough to eat your gun and your hand. I don't carry... but I make noise. Could qualify as dinner noises, but I'm alive.

And more wary of moose anyway.

I'm from Alaska. Somewhere between round 1 and round 13, that bear will change its mind.


Good point... "but best block, no be there, Daniel-san". Just bring along someone slower than you.
 
2012-07-24 03:39:27 PM  

Giltric: Kit Fister: Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.

The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.

Ah well, I thought the Brady Bunch tested the five-seven and tried to get it banned based on it's AP properties when not using AP ammo.

I guess they lied again.


No, they offered to shoot somebody at the NRA with it to prove it wasn't armor-piercing.

/this from the same people who claim to be "reasonable" and fighting the extremists.
 
2012-07-24 03:39:48 PM  
Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...
 
2012-07-24 03:42:53 PM  

ongbok: Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.

So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.


And we'll all gather round and sing "kumbaya" and the world will finally know peace.

/And since you mentioned JC, WW(R)JD?
//Not republican
///Not Jesus either
 
2012-07-24 03:43:32 PM  

doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...


Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....
 
2012-07-24 03:44:38 PM  

Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.


armslocker.com
SS190 on left, SS109 on right. (Well the sizes, anyway)
SS190 Armor piercing ammo is only avaliable to LEOs. Were as SS109 AP is civie legal, but is not a pistol round.
Now regular 5.7 commercial ammo is fine, but doesn't have near the power as the SS190 AP round, and is basicly a more expensive .22.
 
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM  

doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...


Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg
 
2012-07-24 03:46:57 PM  

MythDragon: Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark



Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 620x461]
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
[www.blackhawk.com image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).


Vest : Body Armor :: Any Firearm : AK-47
 
2012-07-24 03:46:58 PM  
Are we even sure there weren't people carrying in the theater? Are we sure all the rounds embedded in various people came from the accused gun man and none from some hero wannabe?
 
2012-07-24 03:48:00 PM  
ronaprhys:Personally, any restriction of freedom of speech, the ability to vote, etc., is something I argue against just as much as I do restrictions on private firearm ownership.

So you're also a member of the ACLU then so you can cover all of the rights. Kudos.

But you are not the NRA. And I am not whatever you imagine the anti-NRA to be. I *am* however, a citizen that recognizes that the NRA is the only dog really in this fight and they are fighting primarily to fundraise and drive wedges around that goal and that goal alone. If Obama came out tomorrow demanding mandatory guns, they'd demand the right to cruise missiles. They are an issues organization and they're stopping any reasonable discussion.

I don't believe that, when we explore it, your position will be reasonable.

So despite the evidence of me asking simply to start w/ a position of asking if there is any situation at all when a "pro-gun" individual would recognize that a right to carry would/could be restricted you've decided I'm the boogeyman. I'm not a member of any group against guns and any position I hold is primarily that people are not "out to get your guns" at least not in the way that you think.

Can you demonstrate how a restriction on firearms is necessary to have a properly functioning democracy (though we live in a republic. Maybe society is a better word)

I did not require that restriction on firearms is it, but honest debate is. And the NRA is making that impossible for any public official to even start that discussion.

What *is* required is that while we have rights that are protected, we accept, as a society, that the State has some level of ability to guide and restrict those rights in reasonable terms. If that simple assumption can be agreed upon then it all really gets down to details. This is where the arguments will take place, but it isn't about "banning guns" or "mandatory guns" for 99.9% of the people out there.

I do understand how/why you'd assume I'd be rabidly pro-gun because only a person who has some kind of dog in this fight would dare to stand up and even volunteer to be a part of this discussion. But I'm just some guy who gets tired occasionally of the ridiculous discussions on this and is stuck on conference calls today.

That's already been answered. Several times.

Uh, no. That was only recently answered from the other guy's question here. But at least we're starting at a point of agreement in that we both recognize that the State has the ability to constrain these rights in some basic form. The scope/scale here I think is always the question and one that I believe changes depending upon the society at large in some respects.

In most states, this already exists. In this particular tragedy, it would've not impacted the outcome in the slightest. So, in essence, you're using an example that has no bearing to try and advance your agenda.

Well, you're assuming a State vs. Federal discussion here first off (as the NRA has fought any federal db of this type repeatedly) and you're also dismissing recognizing a cross-border seller having to recognize an individual state's ability to have importers abide by their laws. So I don't get what you're saying.

Plus, your whole agenda paranoia is just feeding my default assumption which is that an individual who strongly fights for gun rights generally believes everyone's "out to get them". Let's not feed stereotypes, shall we?

And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis...

Never said that and wouldn't suggest it. Seems over burdensome let alone likely unconstitutional.

Regardless, welcome to the discussion. But please refrain from assigning boogeymen to me before I've at least shown some evidence of portraying. I know it's easier to argue w/ a caricature than a real person but I have no interest in it and have adjusted some of my points here to clarify any frustration I have is w/ the NRA as an organization vs. individual members.
 
2012-07-24 03:48:37 PM  
Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg




What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg
 
2012-07-24 03:49:49 PM  

Fark It: Giltric: Kit Fister: Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.

The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.

Ah well, I thought the Brady Bunch tested the five-seven and tried to get it banned based on it's AP properties when not using AP ammo.

I guess they lied again.

No, they offered to shoot somebody at the NRA with it to prove it wasn't armor-piercing.

/this from the same people who claim to be "reasonable" and fighting the extremists.


Woah, thats kind of an irresponsible offer to make to someone when regarding firearms. I'm even more convinced that people like the Brady Bunch know they themsleves can't be trusted to not shoot someone in cold blood therefore they are convinced everyone else would shoot someone in cold blood if the situation made itself available..
 
2012-07-24 03:50:08 PM  

thetubameister: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....


Do you work for the FBI or what?
 
2012-07-24 03:51:04 PM  

thetubameister: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens

 
2012-07-24 03:51:44 PM  

doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg


MANPADS = Man Portable Air Defense System.

In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.
 
2012-07-24 03:54:39 PM  

doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg


anti-aircraft weapon used by individual soldiers. It's basically just a more advanced rocket launcher, though I am probably grossly oversimplifying it.

/woohoo military channel
 
2012-07-24 03:54:39 PM  

Gleeman: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg


The way these winggun nuts talk, I imagine most of them are wearing manpads right now.
 
2012-07-24 03:55:59 PM  
Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:51:44 PM


doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg

MANPADS = Man Portable Air Defense System.

In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.




Geez, that Tom Hanks movie sure painted their struggle with the Russians that way, until we started helping them with billions of dollars of aid.

Then again, everything in Hollywood is bullshiat.

/not even a Shermer, Illinois.
 
2012-07-24 03:59:24 PM  

Gleeman: In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.


And if we were in revolution, advanced arms would be flowing in from all over the world, because we'd be in FARKING REVOLUTION and the government would not have stable policing abilities at its borders.

So what's your point?
 
2012-07-24 03:59:56 PM  

IQof20: DORMAMU: If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.

WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.

This isn't about banning guns. I'm no more for an outright ban than I am for mandatory firearms at conception with in-womb training.

The issue is that there are some reasonable restrictions on certain rights that are much more necessary for a properly functioning democracy. But the NRA (the organization) is vehemently, through completely unreasonable position, fighting any sane discussion on this.

As others and myself have asked, is it reasonable to consider restrictions for individuals who have been determined inadequate mentally to be sold a firearm? And is it a better use of our time to actually start working through how that framework might operate vs. just assuming it is all about taking your guns?

Yes a person could get it elsewhere (although a perhaps illegal elsewhere), but isn't this a better direction for the conversation given that other rights have reasonable (and yes admitted unreasonable in some cases) restrictions placed upon them by the State?


But in the already in place restrictions, there is a large political diversification of what is reasonable.

Whats worse, there are those that have no problem using said restrictions until it is against themselves, then its wrong.

My take, you are on the right idea, but we have to address the political side of it, particularly political correctness.

Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!

reasonable is so subjective currently.

/mental eval for all purchases, not reasonable
//check of existing medical & criminal records I see okay
///imo, highly subjective of coursee
 
2012-07-24 04:03:19 PM  

DORMAMU: Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!


So you're all for the TSA crotch groping.
Nice to know.
 
2012-07-24 04:07:11 PM  

ongbok: Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.

So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.


And you are here to tell me that innocent people were just huddling around this guy as he shot at people? Is that honestly what you believe?
 
2012-07-24 04:08:18 PM  

DORMAMU: But in the already in place restrictions, there is a large political diversification of what is reasonable.


Of that I completely agree. :) Of course I also feel that the political process of "sides" have caused part of this. Politicians have to prove they've "done something" this term and are out to show it. That's primarily where my beef w/ the NRA comes in because they're really jamming this down everyone's throats because the politicians can't stand up to them given the current method of election/funding/etc. (don't get me started).

...reasonable is so subjective currently.

I think that's kind of the beauty of the law in some respect. While it can be very frustrating for folks it is a wonderful caveat IMHO for judges and juries to play their part in the system. A way for folks to for once really feel involved "in the process" directly.

What pains me is that w/ education having really been dealt what amounts to a near-critical blow that we keep doubling down on, what is reasonable will now be judged in Desperate Housewives terms.

Ugh. Now I need a drink.
 
2012-07-24 04:12:37 PM  

IQof20: So you're also a member of the ACLU then so you can cover all of the rights. Kudos.


Nope - but I'm not a member of the NRA, either. Nor any other advocacy group.

But you are not the NRA. And I am not whatever you imagine the anti-NRA to be. I *am* however, a citizen that recognizes that the NRA is the only dog really in this fight and they are fighting primarily to fundraise and drive wedges around that goal and that goal alone. If Obama came out tomorrow demanding mandatory guns, they'd demand the right to cruise missiles. They are an issues organization and they're stopping any reasonable discussion.

As is MADD and several other advocacy groups, which is one of the primary reasons I don't join them. The problem with an advocacy group is that without something to rail against, they cease to exist. In the case of the NRA, there's no shortage of folks pushing to restrict private firearm ownership. Hell, even Obama has stated that it's politically unviable for him to pursue additional restrictions on firearms. I don't believe it's because he wouldn't welcome them, just that it's a non-starter so he's not even trying.

So despite the evidence of me asking simply to start w/ a position of asking if there is any situation at all when a "pro-gun" individual would recognize that a right to carry would/could be restricted you've decided I'm the boogeyman. I'm not a member of any group against guns and any position I hold is primarily that people are not "out to get your guns" at least not in the way that you think.

Based on your statements so far, I think my comment was reasonable. Now that you've put more thought into we'll see if it changes. As to the second portion of that, since you're unaware of what firearms I may or may not possess nor what I want to own, I don't think you can clearly state that there aren't people out there aren't out to get my guns.

I did not require that restriction on firearms is it, but honest debate is. And the NRA is making that impossible for any public official to even start that discussion.

I disagree. If a politician were to put forth an actual policy based on any sort of factual evidence that could clearly show a marked benefit to society, then I think it would be up for debate. The NRA may still choose to attack it - just like MADD would attack any position that advocated science in the determination of blood alcohol levels and their differing effects on people. Just like the ACLU would go after anyone proposing some sort of restriction on free speech. The problem is that many, if not most, of the policies I've seen in my lifetime aren't particularly reasonable to start with and need to be pruned.

What *is* required is that while we have rights that are protected, we accept, as a society, that the State has some level of ability to guide and restrict those rights in reasonable terms. If that simple assumption can be agreed upon then it all really gets down to details. This is where the arguments will take place, but it isn't about "banning guns" or "mandatory guns" for 99.9% of the people out there.

I argue that committing a crime with your right is already illegal. As such, very, very few restrictions are necessary. If I libel someone, I've committed a crime. No restriction prevents me from speaking/publishing those words - just that I have to pay the piper if it's shown I committed a crime. Firearms are the same. I should be able to carry anywhere I want, dependent upon the wishes of the property owners (all public property, however, should allow carry). If I commit a crime, then arrest me and prove that I did so in a court of law. If so, then I should be punished according to the law. Until I've committed that crime, though, why bother with restricting me?

I do understand how/why you'd assume I'd be rabidly pro-gun because only a person who has some kind of dog in this fight would dare to stand up and even volunteer to be a part of this discussion. But I'm just some guy who gets tired occasionally of the ridiculous discussions on this and is stuck on conference calls today.

I understand that position. It's mostly an office day here, too.

Uh, no. That was only recently answered from the other guy's question here. But at least we're starting at a point of agreement in that we both recognize that the State has the ability to constrain these rights in some basic form. The scope/scale here I think is always the question and one that I believe changes depending upon the society at large in some respects.

What you're asking for, though, already exists. See USP .45's earlier response. It outlines the background check requirements and restrictions.

Well, you're assuming a State vs. Federal discussion here first off (as the NRA has fought any federal db of this type repeatedly) and you're also dismissing recognizing a cross-border seller having to recognize an individual state's ability to have importers abide by their laws. So I don't get what you're saying.

See above.

Plus, your whole agenda paranoia is just feeding my default assumption which is that an individual who strongly fights for gun rights generally believes everyone's "out to get them". Let's not feed stereotypes, shall we?

Since what you're asking for already exists, I'm failing to see how I'm paranoid. My assumption would be that your pushing for a further restriction of rights. I'm also supplying context that shows what you're asking for wouldn't have helped here, so I'm not sure why you'd be bothering. I wouldn't go into a discussion on cooking steak and start advocating for less steak usage unless I was pushing an agenda.

Never said that and wouldn't suggest it. Seems over burdensome let alone likely unconstitutional.

Fair enough - others have when speaking of the same issue with the mentally deficient. I lumped you in with that group.

Regardless, welcome to the discussion. But please refrain from assigning boogeymen to me before I've at least shown some evidence of portraying. I know it's easier to argue w/ a caricature than a real person but I have no interest in it and have adjusted some of my points here to clarify any frustration I have is w/ the NRA as an organization vs. individual members.
 
2012-07-24 04:12:47 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: ronaprhys: And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis prior to purchasing, then would you be comfortable with that same restriction on being allowed to speak or vote?

Conflate, conflate, conflate.

Shooting does not equate to voting.


Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Btw, shooting is part of responsible gun ownership. Kind of helps to know how to use a tool you own.
 
2012-07-24 04:15:18 PM  

DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.


Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.
 
2012-07-24 04:17:01 PM  

IQof20: What pains me is that w/ education having really been dealt what amounts to a near-critical blow that we keep doubling down on, what is reasonable will now be judged in Desperate Housewives terms.

Ugh. Now I need a drink.


Gahhhh. You said it.
The stupid burns.
 
2012-07-24 04:18:23 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.


Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

Application of said right is implied and you're a moron if you think otherwise.
 
2012-07-24 04:23:20 PM  
Mercenary sensibilities.
For example, when full auto weapons were banned by the Hughes amendment, a gun that was worth 1k on May 19th, 1986 was suddenly worth double that on May 20th, 1986. Now? Even a crappy full auto will fetch 30k! The supply was fixed by the ban, but the demand is steady to increasing.

Right now a 75-100 round drum costs between $75-$200 (depending on brand and what weapon it fits). If they are banned, the cost will double overnight.

/nothing makes a person want something faster than telling them they can't have it.
 
2012-07-24 04:23:55 PM  

redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.


And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.
 
2012-07-24 04:24:24 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!

So you're all for the TSA crotch groping.
Nice to know.


No. I never said that. I find it a violation of the 4th without probable cause/warrant. Another right in the constitution, along with voting and firearms ownership.

What I said is politcal correctness is tainting arguments/discussions. Statements might offend, the the truth meter is tweaked so a group doesnt get whiny. It is an overall issue, not unique to firearms.

I do find it interesting you are selective quoting and injecting additional statements however. You seemed fairly reasonable for the politics tab. I now must question that appearance.
 
2012-07-24 04:26:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.


As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment
 
2012-07-24 04:27:21 PM  
Um, I thought we were derpscussing Sideshow Bob.

How did this turn into a WE SHALL KNOCK OVER THE 0BAMAG0VERNMENT WITH OUR SPARKLY INSURGENCY EAGLE JESUS BALLS derpscussion?

And who forgot about the teargas?

Which of you big bad studly ITGs in here is immune to teargas?
 
2012-07-24 04:28:57 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.


Okay, you have a right to own a dangerous tool, but you dont have a right to practice proficiency using said tool.

/have a right to own property, but not use it

//facepalm
 
2012-07-24 04:31:53 PM  

Kittypie070: Which of you big bad studly ITGs in here is immune to teargas?


Chuck Norris?
 
2012-07-24 04:33:54 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.


It took a bit, but you've now clearly shown you're just trolling. Good job on that, by the way.
 
2012-07-24 04:35:11 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.


and?

Do they prohibit me from driving to a range or rural area if I live in the city? No.

Probably a good thing not being normally legal to discharge a firearm in a densly populated area. I find that reasonable gun control.

Make it where it is illegal to shoot anywhere, we got an issue.
 
2012-07-24 04:35:32 PM  

ronaprhys: What you're asking for, though, already exists. See USP .45's earlier response. It outlines the background check requirements and restrictions.


What I was proposing was the start of a discussion on mental capacity which is only about guns in an ancillary term but has been restricted along the same lines as the "gun rights" argument. That individual rights are tantamount and as long as "no crime is committed" you get everything the Constitution grants you and a side of fries. You repeated that in your response in following the "as long as I don't do anything wrong" side of the discussion.

While I'm 100% in agreement on this for people of normal capacity, I am *NOT* for this when folks are having mental/drug/reduced capacity issues. What we just kind of gloss over time and again is that the reason this guy (and many others) are out interacting with society when they should be getting some form of treatment is that their family/loved ones/physicians have very restricted paths to "take away their rights" to select non-treatment. And when people choose that path there is no marker that exists in any national database for a person in such a mid-grade state.

For example, I report that my son needs mental evaluation. He puts on a show for X days at the facility and then hits the street. I can't just keep doing that and sending him back over and over. Regardless, the minute he gets out he can go buy a gun (and likely turn it on the person who signed him up for treatment perhaps against his will).

There are people who need mental health assistance here and the individuals who are closely involved in this have a very difficult path toward "taking away the rights" of someone while they have a very easy path toward retribution.

The assumed fear is that I'll just decide not only that my ex- is crazy, but that she should be locked up. If I abuse it then there are paths for resolution by her that are legal including my own incarceration. But gun rights make the other side of this very dangerous for ANYONE involved.

You seem to be a gun rights advocate. Do a little reading and discovery on Schizophrenia for one. Particularly given that it is the kind of situation where you have a wonderful and intelligent child who suddenly one day is...something else. They're more than capable of faking normal where required, but when the guard goes down (and it does) those around them see a person in a very disturbed mental state. And given the age where this "disease" manifests it raises those same "rights" questions in spades.

I'll re-iterate, I don't think this is a "gun rights" issue per se, but it is seen as an assault on gun rights by advocates. Gun rights are only one of the rights that I feel need to be curtailable by medical and professional staff in such situations much better than they are today.

Waiting until a person in this state "does something" isn't advisable and is just pretending the problem doesn't exist. Far too many parents are sitting around right now just waiting like this woman for the phone call to come on what their child has done.
 
2012-07-24 04:38:12 PM  

Kittypie070: Um, I thought we were derpscussing Sideshow Bob.

How did this turn into a WE SHALL KNOCK OVER THE 0BAMAG0VERNMENT WITH OUR SPARKLY INSURGENCY EAGLE JESUS BALLS derpscussion?

And who forgot about the teargas?

Which of you big bad studly ITGs in here is immune to teargas?


Not me. Did have a guy in boot camp in my plaroon that was, kind of.

His eyes wateted and were red like a bad hayfever, but that it
 
2012-07-24 04:39:12 PM  

redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment


Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.
 
2012-07-24 04:40:15 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Galloping Galoshes: MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.

Well since the shooter had full body armor on, you'd have to carry around a rocket propelled grenade to take him out.


Turns out no armor.
Just a tac vest.

The media does love "assault weapon" and "body armor"! Sells well.
 
2012-07-24 04:44:30 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment

Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.


You know that the NRA has helped write all the significant gun legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years right? They've challenged plenty of bans for possession and bans of gun ranges. Chicago is a good example of that.
 
2012-07-24 04:49:29 PM  

redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment

Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.

You know that the NRA has helped write all the significant gun legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years right? They've challenged plenty of bans for possession and bans of gun ranges. Chicago is a good example of that.


Possession -- "Keep and bear."

They do not say, "The constitutional right to fire weapons is sacrosanct, and we must be able to fire those weapons at any time."

Nobody says we have a right to fire firearms, only that we have a right to keep and bear them. It would not be possible to make a complete ban on shooting, because the SCOTUS would say it goes to far, but there's nothing that says the use of firearms can't be regulated.
 
2012-07-24 04:52:39 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: HotIgneous Intruder: If that were true, then why the FARK didn't "they" drop the shooter?

Did you even bother to read the rest of my comment?


I guess that's a 'no'.
 
2012-07-24 04:53:36 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment

Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.

You know that the NRA has helped write all the significant gun legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years right? They've challenged plenty of bans for possession and bans of gun ranges. Chicago is a good example of that.

Possession -- "Keep and bear."

They do not say, "The constitutional right to fire weapons is sacrosanct, and we must be able to fire those weapons at any time."

Nobody says we have a right to fire firearms, only that we have a right to keep and bear them. It would not be possible to make a complete ban on shooting, because the SCOTUS would say it goes to far, but there's nothing that says the use of firearms can't be regulated.


Actually Chicago's ban on gun ranges was struck down with exactly "the right to fire firearms" in mind. You can legally own handguns and other firearms in Chicago but you can't legally fire them in city limits because of a lack of ranges open to the public.

"The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Ezell court pointed to the Supreme Court having "quoted at length from the 'massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations' by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: '[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them . . . ; it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order'." In addition, "'No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.' (quoting BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT, JUDGE AND JURY: A POPULAR EXPLANATION OF THE LEADING TOPICS IN THE LAW OF THE LAND 333 (1880))."
 
2012-07-24 04:54:05 PM  

snocone: Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.


I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?
 
2012-07-24 04:55:54 PM  

spacelord321: snocone: cuzsis: chandler_vt: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.
Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.

You're basing this statement on what exactly?


training sir!
what kind of training?
HOAARRRMMYY TRAINING SIR!
 
2012-07-24 04:57:00 PM  

IQof20: ronaprhys: What you're asking for, though, already exists. See USP .45's earlier response. It outlines the background check requirements and restrictions.

What I was proposing was the start of a discussion on mental capacity which is only about guns in an ancillary term but has been restricted along the same lines as the "gun rights" argument. That individual rights are tantamount and as long as "no crime is committed" you get everything the Constitution grants you and a side of fries. You repeated that in your response in following the "as long as I don't do anything wrong" side of the discussion.

While I'm 100% in agreement on this for people of normal capacity, I am *NOT* for this when folks are having mental/drug/reduced capacity issues. What we just kind of gloss over time and again is that the reason this guy (and many others) are out interacting with society when they should be getting some form of treatment is that their family/loved ones/physicians have very restricted paths to "take away their rights" to select non-treatment. And when people choose that path there is no marker that exists in any national database for a person in such a mid-grade state.

For example, I report that my son needs mental evaluation. He puts on a show for X days at the facility and then hits the street. I can't just keep doing that and sending him back over and over. Regardless, the minute he gets out he can go buy a gun (and likely turn it on the person who signed him up for treatment perhaps against his will).

There are people who need mental health assistance here and the individuals who are closely involved in this have a very difficult path toward "taking away the rights" of someone while they have a very easy path toward retribution.

The assumed fear is that I'll just decide not only that my ex- is crazy, but that she should be locked up. If I abuse it then there are paths for resolution by her that are legal including my own incarceration. But gun rights make the other side of this very dangerous for ANYONE involved.

You seem to be a gun rights advocate. Do a little reading and discovery on Schizophrenia for one. Particularly given that it is the kind of situation where you have a wonderful and intelligent child who suddenly one day is...something else. They're more than capable of faking normal where required, but when the guard goes down (and it does) those around them see a person in a very disturbed mental state. And given the age where this "disease" manifests it raises those same "rights" questions in spades.

I'll re-iterate, I don't think this is a "gun rights" issue per se, but it is seen as an assault on gun rights by advocates. Gun rights are only one of the rights that I feel need to be curtailable by medical and professional staff in such situations much better than they are today.

Waiting until a person in this state "does something" isn't advisable and is just pretending the problem doesn't exist. Far too many parents are sitting around right now just waiting like this woman for the phone call to come on what their child has done.


To do what u r sayin, we also need to address the stigma regarding seeking mental health services.

Csb

I was put on a mood stabilizer because, for a period when I was going days with out sleep and my physical health was suffering. I was exhausted, but couldnt sleep, and sleep aids did little other than make me groggier.

Some co workers found out and filed a union grievance to have me removed from duty (nevada casino security) for mental instability. They then complained to the state gaming board to try to get my gaming license suspended.

While I kept my job, I still had to go through BS that I didnt need at the time. The medication was working till the above hit the fan, then they upped the dose. On it 4 months, taken off, was more ir less fine, but still labeled "crazy" by others.

All I needed was a little reset via medixation and therapy to monitor the meds during the divorce (mostly civilized except regarding the credit cards)and I was fine.

/end csb
 
2012-07-24 04:59:36 PM  

Muta: I want to know when the gun owning community will start policing themselves to prevent nutjobs from getting guns and killing innocent people.


Having worked on a gun counter for many years, It happens more often than you think, I just never makes the news is all.
 
Displayed 50 of 619 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report