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  
•       •       •

5853 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (1 year 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 03:07:18 PM

IQof20:
WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.


And is also something that many groups fight against. 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. There are differences in each so the restrictions have to be considered unique to each, but the general burden of proof revolves around whether or not the suggested restriction provides significant value to society.

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.

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

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.

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)

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?

That's already been answered. Several times. Short answer: sure, but not by the means of requiring a sanity check at time of purchase. Only as part of the background check if the person had been so diagnosed for some reason other than firearm ownership. There's nuances to that, but conceptually pretty close.

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?

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.

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?
 
2012-07-24 03:07:26 PM

give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.


Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.
 
2012-07-24 03:07:53 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 like wheelguns, but you might want to shoot a Taurus PT-809. Love mine, it has an actual hammer, and 17-round mags. I prefer my PT-709 for CC, though - about as thick as a deck of cards, but only 6-round mag.

/C'mon, Taurus-haters!
//They are pretty damn good nowadays (clean them well first - the ones shipped from Brazil have a ton of grease in them)
//Under $350.00 at Academy.
 
2012-07-24 03:08:20 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:08:34 PM
I'm just so happy to see that our government has pretty much done exactly what it has set out to do.

Make the general population so scared and dependent on them that most of you would curl up into a ball, piddle yourselves, and scream and cry for the government to come protect you.

This has become a nation of spineless pussies. YOU are to blame.
 
2012-07-24 03:09:59 PM

ronaprhys: thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.

You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.


No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. Some in my own family think it lunacy, but truly... I'm afraid of my community, and my nation of guns. But I'm brave enough to face it without a portable murder device.

Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.

The aforementioned douche, however, was used as an agreement that one person's speculation (guy with CCW could have a bad day and use his weapon in anger) can be another's reality (mine).

Let the shiat flinging continue.
 
2012-07-24 03:10:21 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.


I've already addressed your point. See below. Respond to that, why don't you?
 
2012-07-24 03:10:35 PM
What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?
 
2012-07-24 03:11:11 PM

Kit Fister: The poster I responded to seemed to be suggesting that owning guns and/or attempting to throw off a government was impossible, so no reason to try.

I was pointing out that it was a patently false assertion.

However, please feel free to beat off to whatever you wanted my post to say.


I'm thinking autism.
But go ahead, Corky.
Throw off that mean old gubmint.
 
2012-07-24 03:11:25 PM

thetubameister: large clip rifle


go away stupid
 
2012-07-24 03:11:57 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Regular citizens can afford tons of lawyers and so are compelled to follow the local laws.
Especially ho-ha law-and-order gun-toters.
Therefore they did.


They're not following the city laws, because they know those laws are BS. They did follow the state law, which says that if a business doesn't want guns on the premises, they have the right to ban them. Trust me, the people around here who carry tend to be well-versed on which laws are legal, and which are just still on the books but unenforceable. Even the cops will only go so far as to discourage you from carrying, they won't tell you it's illegal. I know that from personal experience, the cops who tried to kick me out of that very theater admitted that I was completely legal, but they just didn't want me carrying there.
 
2012-07-24 03:12:17 PM

JDAT: What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?


There was no tear gas in an enclosed space in Arizona.
Apples and oranges.
 
2012-07-24 03:13:24 PM

give me doughnuts: give me doughnuts: soup: Is keeping guns away from individuals who have been judged mentally disturbed and a danger to themselves and others by medical authorities and the courts reasonable? Yes, it is.


Then that's where this discussion should be taken. The NRA (the organization) again, however, fights against even such a discussion w/ the rhetoric of "who decides who's crazy and by what metric?" and discussions that while have some minor level of merit, these are items to be done by professionals in a medical discussion vs. a political or firearms one.

That a database of individuals who have some level of reduced medical capacity does not exist and that their status as citizens who might have some certain restrictions on their rights isn't there as well is just ridiculous.

We threw together a Terror Watch List w/ spit and a vague idea of what a database is overnight (and I'm sure it was just some big csv file on somebody's desktop for a number of years). Can't we just start down a road where this is not the biggest assault on freedom every conceived? And the answer of course is: not if the NRA (again...the organization) knows about it.

I mentioned this before, but when I or others say "the NRA" they aren't talking about you or other *members* so please don't take this personally. We're talking about the organization driven by the mouthpiece of LaPierre and those like him who simply cannot let one bit of potential fundraising misinformation get past him without trying to squeeze more money out of members to protect your freedom (...from reasonable discussion).
 
2012-07-24 03:13:27 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: They're not following the city laws, because they know those laws are BS.


If that were true, then why the FARK didn't "they" drop the shooter?
 
2012-07-24 03:13:50 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: UnspokenVoice: Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.

Especially is the attacker is completely up inside your OODA loop and you didn't even see him arrive there.
Perfect tactical surprise, out of the blue.


Heh... I never went nor would I have been patient enough (I don't think) but I knew some snipers. One of the things they passed on to me, that has stuck - though I really have no use for it and never will, is that the best time to shoot someone is when he's shooting someone else. A bunch of the driveling goobers in here are advocating civilians responding with a firearm and a good portion is spouting off inaccuracies, assumptions, and advocating stripping my rights. *sighs*

There are more logical fallacies in this thread than there are in most. What's worse is that these people are normally much more logical. I have to wonder why these people think that laws prohibiting firearms are going to be helpful. I know that the weed in my pipe is also prohibited and you can be pretty sure that I don't have a problem getting that. I have access to Uncle Henry's (a local swap/trade magazine) and every last single firearm in there from a private party can be purchased by a felon and the seller isn't obligated to check anything unless they're an actual dealer. There is no way you can take the ones already in homes. There is no valid reason to attempt it.

I don't believe that those who have a history of mental illness (recent) or those who've committed violent felonies should be allowed to own a firearm without some additional labor but I think even they should be allowed to. In Maine I understand that a felon can apply for their right to bear arms back and the governor may permit that on a case-by-case basis. I agree with that. I also think that if you have no recent mental health history you should also be vetted and considered for such.

Anyhow, it is amazing how many stupid people think that they have a valid opinion. What is more amusing is that these same people will complain when judges judge or politicians enact laws concerning the internet because those people don't know anything about the subject. It's funny, really. I don't have much choice but to laugh at some of the comments in these threads though I've avoided responding to most of them until today.
 
2012-07-24 03:14:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


In the US insurgency fantasy/nightmare I would expect even stronger arms to be smuggled in from China, Russia, Iran, etc.
 
2012-07-24 03:14:52 PM

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?
 
2012-07-24 03:15:31 PM

USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid


Brilliant retort.
 
2012-07-24 03:16:54 PM

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 need to go to work for the TSA at the very least because you talk just like either a wannabe LEO or a rookie LEO.
 
2012-07-24 03:16:57 PM

thetubameister: No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. Some in my own family think it lunacy, but truly... I'm afraid of my community, and my nation of guns. But I'm brave enough to face it without a portable murder device.


If you want to hold that opinion, I'm okay with it. It's your opinion. I definitely disagree - but then again, I see a firearm as a tool. I've got bunches of different tools all designed to do different jobs. This allows me to pick the most appropriate tool for the situation at hand, whether it be repairing something on my or my wife's vehicle, our house, fighting a fire, or defending us should the need arise. This in no way means I'm running around looking for a chance to use any of them (okay - I am with my Xterra. I like modifying it to make it more capable for off-roading and serving as a basecamp), just that I recognize their utility and prepare appropriately.

Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.

I also know many and they are very scrupulous about obeying the law. In fact, many of them won't shop at a store that prohibits firearms. Hell, they'll drive out of their way. Part of that is voting with their dollars and part of it is practicality. Who wants to have to leave the firearm out in the car just to go in when they can go somewhere else. Much less chance of it being stolen, etc.

The aforementioned douche, however, was used as an agreement that one person's speculation (guy with CCW could have a bad day and use his weapon in anger) can be another's reality (mine).

Let the shiat flinging continue.


Personally, I think you phrased it poorly but that's just me.
 
2012-07-24 03:17:32 PM

thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.

You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.

No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. ...


You're doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
 
2012-07-24 03:18:03 PM

thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.


banana clip large rifle pants
 
2012-07-24 03:18:32 PM

thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.


well your entire effort here is pretty much summed up by "I'm ignorant, yet I continue to comment." cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle

there's no better way to shoo away a tard than a rolled up newspaper of gtfo
 
2012-07-24 03:19:52 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: JDAT: What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?

There was no tear gas in an enclosed space in Arizona.
Apples and oranges.


The canister was not enough to saturate the theater. Had minor effect.
 
2012-07-24 03:20:49 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.
 
2012-07-24 03:21:35 PM

thetubameister: Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.


I've found that if you treat people respectfully they'll usually reciprocate.
Maybe you're having a mirroring problem.
 
2012-07-24 03:21:42 PM
"Now, Bob, you already have enough guns, we have to save for back-to-school clothes for the kids."

(insert news of shooting)

"Honey? Can I get the new gun now? Huh? Can I get it now? C'mon, we neeeeeed it!"
 
2012-07-24 03:21:54 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.

banana clip large rifle pants


With spaghetti. Don't forget the spaghetti.

(I don't know much about neurology either; but thought one could discern "rifle which can fire numerous rounds without reloading" but it's so much more fun this way.)
 
2012-07-24 03:23:22 PM
launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
 
2012-07-24 03:24:01 PM

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.

Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.


You remember all the derp about Obama using American assets to "help" with Libya, right?
My general point is that the average fat fark tough guy would last about the amount of time it take for a Hellfire to arrive from a drone at 30K feet.
That is all.

So go ahead. Fight that fight, heroic freedom fighter.
 
2012-07-24 03:24:32 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:25:46 PM
Dear everyone who's rushing out to buy a gun in a knee jerk reaction without sufficient and proper training in their use:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-24 03:25:57 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Giltric: You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch

That's why those vehicles are, ya know, armored.

Assymetrical brains and eyeballs are a summabiatch, aren't they?


In iraq, we lost million dollar pieces of armored machinery/vehicles to around maybe a couple hundred bucks worth of chemicals and steel pipes.

If it werent for a couple seconds, my brother would have been killed in his bradley while driving it when it got blown to scrap.

Do I think a armed isurrection is smart or would succeed... No. would the vehicle "armor" be end all be all.... Fark no.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:32 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Kit Fister: HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.


I think the smart person who wants to go it alone moves himself as far off the grid as possible.

No one man can overthrow a government, but with enough voices in agreement, it can be done. Look back at our own revolutionary war.
 
2012-07-24 03:27:48 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:27:59 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.


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.
 
2012-07-24 03:28:11 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:29:39 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:30:26 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


You do know that in each of the countries he named, a large chunk of the government forces fought on the side of the rebels? How do you think soldiers are going to respond when they are told to gun down civilians?
 
2012-07-24 03:30:36 PM

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


FTFY.
 
2012-07-24 03:31:50 PM

Bendal: Galloping Galoshes: Monongahela Misfit: If Dumb Dumb the Red had been unable to acquire the firearms he used,

Illegal guns are always available. They're just illegal. They'll still kill you just as dead.

Two or three citizens returning fire would have terminated this incident very quickly.

I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark, smoke filled theater means inaccuracy, hitting other citizens, perhaps even firing at each other thinking there are two or more gunmen, and attracting the attention of the gunman to yourself. Unless you're 5' from him and he doesn't see you (doubtful since you're choking on tear gas and he isn't), you are a target. His body armor stops your rounds unless you get incredibly lucky and shoot him under the helmet or arm.

/all more guns in the theater would have done is up the body count


We are making the assumption that no one in the crowd was packing.
 
2012-07-24 03:32:32 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.

Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.

You remember all the derp about Obama using American assets to "help" with Libya, right?
My general point is that the average fat fark tough guy would last about the amount of time it take for a Hellfire to arrive from a drone at 30K feet.
That is all.

So go ahead. Fight that fight, heroic freedom fighter.


The point is to make it politically and/or economically unfeasible. Win a pitched battle against the US military? No. Make life a living hell for service members? Yes. For politicians? Yes.

You've also got the whole issue with whether or not folks in the military would actually even fight citizens.

Really, it boils down to what sparked said revolution. A huge and sudden push from the government that's clearly facist, authoritarian, or otherwise anti-American? That might get it going. A slow and gradual restriction of rights? Probably wouldn't even spark one.

Also, are you ever going to get around to trying to address why I think your argument that restrictions in voting rights and speech aren't equivalent to firearms is patently false?
 
2012-07-24 03:34:24 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:34:29 PM

dk47: We are making the assumption that no one in the crowd was packing.


By the ITG logic here, if they were, they were cowards because they didn't shoot.

/Like I said, if there were there, they were rubbing themselves to the violence porn on the movie screen.
 
2012-07-24 03:35:40 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:22 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.


Seconded. I get a kick out of these "BOOM HEADSHOT" ITGs who think it's easy to make an accurate shot quickly in any high stress condition, much less in a room full of teargas with friendlies running about willy-silly.

It's pretty common knowledge (can't find a link online but predates the intertubes) that in WW2 for every enemy KIA our infantry expended around 10,000 rounds of ammo. And that's in a situation where innocent bystanders usually weren't running around in front of you.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:53 PM

NightOwl2255: MythDragon: Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.
Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.
Feels naked when not strapped.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

Just had to add a few to even things out for ya.


Fair enough.
Believes Obama is coming to get his guns - Eh, it's possible, but I think he got our message that we won't put up with that.
Feels naked when not strapped. - Um, true. But I also feel the same way when not weaing a watch.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills. - A good number of them, anyway.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy. - Yes, but we will still do our best to protect you.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:07 PM

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.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:31 PM

Gleeman: Seconded. I get a kick out of these "BOOM HEADSHOT" ITGs who think it's easy to make an accurate shot quickly in any high stress condition, much less in a room full of teargas with friendlies running about willy-silly.


But... But... movies wouldn't lie to me!
 
2012-07-24 03:38:06 PM
HotIgneous Intruder Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:05:15 PM


doubled99: While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.

My belly button was originally used for attaching me to my mom with a placenta.
I don't use it any more.




Cool! The government wants to cut it out and use it. No problem
 
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