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.

(TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Tim)   Unarmed father defends family from home invaders. "We got guns." "I got a newborn"   (tampabay.com) divider line 214
    More: Hero, St. Petersburg, Pinellas Park  
•       •       •

18999 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 06:58:25 PM

manimal2878: manimal2878: dittybopper: Romney didn't sign a weapons ban.

Romney and GOAL at the time certainly thought he did, but now they want to rewrite history.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318


Media Matters is full of fecal material.

They are correct that GOAL was pissed are Romney for his signing statement, but this part is blatantly false:

Edward's claim that a permanent assault weapon ban already existed in Massachusetts in 2004 -- a talking point that appeared in GOAL's 2004 press release -- is also false. In reality, the legislation updated Massachusetts' assault weapon ban, which mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, to ensure that state law continued to ban assault weapons even after the federal ban expired at the end of 2004.

First, the MA Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an expiration date, unlike the federal one:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.


Source: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140 /Section131M

Massachusetts defined assault weapons referencing the federal definition:

"Assault weapon", shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30), and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922,

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

When the federal Assault Weapons Ban expired, there was no more appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922. That left an ambiguity in the Massachusetts law, and as GOAL pointed out, such ambiguities almost never favor individual gun owners in Massachusetts.

Here is what Romney signed in 2004:

SECTION 2. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure "922", in line 21, the following words:- as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994.

Source: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

Cam Edwards, the NRA, and GOAL were correct, and Media Matters is wrong. Don't believe me, though, read for yourself.

Of course, Romney didn't have any idea what he was signing, based upon that stupid signing statement. That's why GOAL was pissed, because they perceived Romney was taking a shot at gun owners, even while he was signing into Massachusetts law that protected ownership of the following:

APPENDIX A

Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide

Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action

Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot

Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles

Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action

Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire

Shotguns--Autoloaders

Shotguns--Slide Actions

Shotguns--Over/Unders

Shotguns--Side by Sides

Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots


Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103IAgvAJ:e65580 5:

Media Matters is engaging in partisan hackery.
 
2012-12-11 07:03:28 PM

BronyMedic: I don't know. Where have you heard the sentiment that you owning your AK-74RPG8-Stinger G36 with the 120 round drum magazine those nifty holographic sites like the Call of Battlefield Black Medal of Honor 2 has is going to be the difference between you having rights and the government putting their jack boots to your throat?

Oh, yeah:


suburbansurvivalblog.com

FTFY.

Much better book, not in the least racist, but fortunately much of it is outdated, because since it was written in 1996 the pendulum of gun control/gun rights has swung the other way.
 
2012-12-11 07:42:27 PM
Anyone that compares a .22LR to an Airsoft is a retard. Anyone that thinks an Airsoft is a harmless toy is getting buttf*cked by the guy playing games with a .22LR. This is an indisputable fact. Unless of course both are the same person, in which case, the retard is fu*king itself up the ass.
 
2012-12-11 07:47:41 PM

BronyMedic: Compared with today, where nothing available to a civilian is going to be able to penetrate the outer armor of an M1A2 Abraham tank. Which can be anywhere it's needed along with a contingent of thousands of men in 12 hours time.


You still assume fighting an internal war is like fighting someone elses insurgency from half a world away (A practice that's damn near flattened our own treasury).

Governments at war with themselves hemorrhage money. The scent of blood in the water is what draws in outsiders and causes descension in the ranks. The difference here is the threat would come from people we'd otherwise call neighbors, and the cities being burned would be our own. We would absorb full cost for all damage wrought from the price of ammunition to the loss of infrastructure.

A modern revolution doesn't need the weaponry to crush armored divisions.
Most people don't own a tank to cower inside of anyway.

/Hopefully the election system will always help cooler heads prevail.
 
2012-12-11 07:53:48 PM
shiatty toy helicopters are the first to get put down by some "farmer".
 
2012-12-11 09:30:24 PM
I'm glad he didn't need a gun. Sometimes you get lucky. Other times the repeat felons with guns who burst into your house shoot you. I'd rather rely on a gun than luck. I can't aim my luck nearly as well and it's so hard to tell when my luck is out of ammo.
 
2012-12-11 10:39:06 PM
OK, enough with the farking guns, already. Let's get back to the Times Staff Writer's unsuccessful sublimation of his urge to pen prose and consider the text. For example:

"Pepe wandered outside and sniffed nervously at a fierce-looking police dog."

Why did Pepe "wander" out of his own house? Was he drunk? Is he that stupid that he can't "charge forcefully" to confront that fascist lapdog who invaded his turf, or simply walk? Sound like he found the exit by pure chance.

"Sniffed nervously?" Seriously? How the fark can you tell when a Chihuahua is nervous? I mean, they are always shaking and twitching anyway.

Does this Times Staff Writer have the potential to advance beyond Times staff writing?
 
2012-12-12 12:53:38 AM
Hopefully, Florida has a 44 strikes law.
 
2012-12-12 03:10:57 AM
That's a guy who'll get a lot of bjs and free pass for butt stuff for a long time.
 
2012-12-12 03:39:01 PM

BronyMedic: while the colonists often used cover and wooded areas, and targeted officers rather than rank and file troops.


I thought that we won the war through guerrilla tactics has been exploded as a myth. We fought the majority war with the common tactics of the time, while there may have been some guerrilla tactics, that's not how the war was won.
 
2012-12-12 03:41:51 PM

dittybopper: manimal2878: manimal2878: dittybopper: Romney didn't sign a weapons ban.

Romney and GOAL at the time certainly thought he did, but now they want to rewrite history.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318

Media Matters is full of fecal material.

They are correct that GOAL was pissed are Romney for his signing statement, but this part is blatantly false:

Edward's claim that a permanent assault weapon ban already existed in Massachusetts in 2004 -- a talking point that appeared in GOAL's 2004 press release -- is also false. In reality, the legislation updated Massachusetts' assault weapon ban, which mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, to ensure that state law continued to ban assault weapons even after the federal ban expired at the end of 2004.

First, the MA Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an expiration date, unlike the federal one:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

Source: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/General ...


So your defense of Romney is that, even though he thought he was signing an anti-gun bill, and made statements to that affect, since he is a moron that accidently signed something good he is actually pro-gun?

Yeah, either way the NRA should not have endorsed him, and doing so proves they are partisan.
 
2012-12-12 03:43:27 PM

dittybopper: BronyMedic: I don't know. Where have you heard the sentiment that you owning your AK-74RPG8-Stinger G36 with the 120 round drum magazine those nifty holographic sites like the Call of Battlefield Black Medal of Honor 2 has is going to be the difference between you having rights and the government putting their jack boots to your throat?

Oh, yeah:

[suburbansurvivalblog.com image 350x485]

FTFY.

Much better book, not in the least racist, but fortunately much of it is outdated, because since it was written in 1996 the pendulum of gun control/gun rights has swung the other way.


I both loved and hated that book. The history of gun culture was awesome, the mastabatory civil war fantasy made me roll my eyes. While it may not have been racist it certainly was sexist and homophobic. Their plot to discredit congressman was to plant semen on them, WTF?
 
2012-12-12 03:55:58 PM

Ed_Severson: ITGreen: Ed_Severson: I saw the photo, subby. The guy clearly has arms.

Technically, the rifle belonged to the woman.

Who said anything about a rifle?


Reed ran back to the bedroom and emerged with a .22 rifle belonging to Soto.

FTA
 
2012-12-12 05:14:34 PM

MythDragon: Well, a baby does make good ablative armor....

And with one of thos baby carrier things that your wear on your chest, it's like a grow-your-own SAPI plate


Have you checked the stopping power of those diapers?
Remarkable!

Not to mention toxic containment.
 
Displayed 14 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report