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.

(KSL Salt Lake City)   Law-abiding citizen carries rifle into department store, minds own business, fails to murder anyone. It might take some effort, but we can all still feel threatened and outraged   (ksl.com) divider line 637
    More: Interesting, KSL, rifles, Riverdale, murders, J.C. Penney  
•       •       •

10742 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-17 11:54:20 PM
it's just JC Penney, it's not like there's anybody else in there.
 
2013-01-18 12:04:01 AM
Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.
 
2013-01-18 12:07:07 AM
Well, I'm sure that makes the families of 20 dead first graders feel better.
 
2013-01-18 12:08:37 AM
I'd like to return this thong.  It is stained.

I SAID I WOULD LIKE TO RETURN THIS THONG. IT IS STAINED!  DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

I didn't think so.
 
2013-01-18 12:08:43 AM
You must have to be a complete pussy to feel the need to carry a rifle just to go buy socks.
 
2013-01-18 12:08:43 AM
The store would have been entirely within their rights to require him to leave. The fact that didn't happen tells you something about the gun attitude in the area versus the woman. It also sounds like the reporter talked to the man, but doesn't ask the obvious question (Why are you carrying your rifle into a store?)

I know of a lot of people who don't like to leave their guns unattended in public (even in their car). Say you're out hunting or going to the range and if you need to stop for coffee or a bathroom or something.
 
2013-01-18 12:09:49 AM

TommyymmoT: You must have to be a complete pussy to feel the need to carry a rifle just to go buy socks.


I'll bet he's got a rock that repels tigers too.
 
2013-01-18 12:12:19 AM
THESE SIZE 13 PUMPS ARE FOR MY SISTER! DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
 
2013-01-18 12:23:54 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


It kind of was
 
2013-01-18 12:25:10 AM
Between him and these nitwits

tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com

Seriously guys, you're not helping your cause.
 
2013-01-18 12:26:31 AM
You're not helping, you jackass attention whore.
 
2013-01-18 12:28:07 AM
I'll bet if that happened with a few farkers shopping that the sale of under pants would increase dramatically. Oh wait three problems with that one farkers hardly leave moms basement so they would not be there, also it's not Tuesday so most farkers would not change their under garments under any circumstances. It takes money to shop and after bong food, chips and fudge brownies who has money for JCPenneys? Sorry guys I had a bad day found out that I am just having to get used to getting crippled as surgery is not an option. Well not everything can go my way. Still I would have loved to have been there to check out the guys guns.
 
2013-01-18 12:30:06 AM
This dude just doesn't understand tacky behavior. What woukd Miss Manners say?
 
2013-01-18 12:35:01 AM

maxalt: Sorry guys I had a bad day found out that I am just having to get used to getting crippled as surgery is not an option. Well not everything can go my way.


Are you being serious here? If so, that's awful.
 
2013-01-18 12:35:32 AM
Oh God, it wasn't a Black Panther, was it?

Or....well, a Black anything?
 
2013-01-18 12:36:58 AM
Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?
 
2013-01-18 12:37:53 AM
 
2013-01-18 12:40:12 AM

BunkoSquad: Oh God, it wasn't a Black Panther, was it?

Or....well, a Black anything?


If he were black, the SWAT team would have mowed him down just on spec.
I mean a black man, with a rifle, in a mall, in UTAH?
 
2013-01-18 12:41:21 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you troll.
 
2013-01-18 12:42:44 AM
Store employees said the man in the pictures is 22-year-old Joseph Kelley, an Ogden resident. They said he's done this before to garner reaction.

So he's a troll. Wow, I would not have guessed that. Ever. I just figured that he was a Patriottm.
 
2013-01-18 12:44:50 AM
I see people in stores with pistols on their belts fairly often and unless they look like they just got off a horse and are looking for new Levis I usually think ATTENTION WHORE. It doesn't bother me, it isn't news-worthy. But I know it bothers some people. And then there's these jackoffs who don't think a pistol is enough, they have to bring out the AR. Cocksuckers are so assholish with their rights that they would scare others into voting the rights away.
 
2013-01-18 12:45:19 AM
Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.
 
2013-01-18 12:46:42 AM

dickfreckle: Store employees said the man in the pictures is 22-year-old Joseph Kelley, an Ogden resident. They said he's done this before to garner reaction.

So he's a troll. Wow, I would not have guessed that. Ever. I just figured that he was a Patriottm.


Patriotroll.
 
2013-01-18 12:53:58 AM

violentsalvation: I see people in stores with pistols on their belts fairly often and unless they look like they just got off a horse and are looking for new Levis I usually think ATTENTION WHORE.


Yup. This one's just another "AH GOTS A GUN! LOOKIT MAH GUN!" jerk.
 
2013-01-18 01:04:27 AM

GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.


Actually, it indicates that the people carrying the rifles take themselves and their role in society way too seriously.  This is what happens when they run too many trailer trash-based "reality" shows on cable TV.
 
2013-01-18 01:08:11 AM

Fark Me To Tears: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Actually, it indicates that the people carrying the rifles take themselves and their role in society way too seriously.  This is what happens when they run too many trailer trash-based "reality" shows on cable TV.


You don't carry a farking rifle around unless you want an excuse to use it.
 
2013-01-18 01:15:30 AM

GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.


Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.
 
2013-01-18 01:22:29 AM

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.


People like him are the reason I can't trust the rest of you, because there's probably quite a few of them to every responsible one. Pro bono publico dominates all.
 
2013-01-18 01:36:35 AM
What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.
 
2013-01-18 01:40:17 AM
Dumbass. I work retail - you bring the gun on Black Friday; by January, all the crowds are gone and most of the exchanges/gift cards are through the system.
 
2013-01-18 01:55:57 AM

Brontes: Will our next cause be to ban all fatty foods because heart disease kills 60 times as many people as gun homicides?


When the fatty foods that I eat kill others instead of just killing me, then perhaps we can consider it. If people only used guns for suicide, then perhaps that way the problem might be comparable, too.

Otherwise, false comparison is false.
 
2013-01-18 01:57:12 AM
Old and busted: "milking"/"wining"
New craze: "Mall gunning"
 
2013-01-18 02:13:06 AM
I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.
 
2013-01-18 02:13:24 AM

fusillade762: Patriotroll.


I might have to steal that for the football thread on Sunday.
 
2013-01-18 02:40:51 AM
This is a perfect example of why "open carry" laws are farking stupid.

ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.


Probably because a large, corporate store in Utah doesn't want to get boycotted for something that people like this asshat would decry as an "anti-gun political statement". My money says this guy was just aching to get kicked out, so he could run to the local rag with a story. If he had tried this nonsense back East, he would have been turned away at the front door by security.

violentsalvation: You're not helping, you jackass attention whore.


This. What a dickhead.
 
2013-01-18 03:06:58 AM

GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.


Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?
 
2013-01-18 03:09:52 AM

ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.


TFA says it took place in Salt Lake City... and Utah is generally pretty gun-friendly. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks?

I know places where it's unusual not to see a gun or two in stores at certain times of the year.
 
2013-01-18 03:10:46 AM

kingoomieiii: maxalt: Sorry guys I had a bad day found out that I am just having to get used to getting crippled as surgery is not an option. Well not everything can go my way.

Are you being serious here? If so, that's awful.


Thanks for the note.  Yea serious I am, but stuff happens and I will find out how to make the best of things. As my German Gramma would say " You can always poke a hole in your knee and pour warm milk in it.". I never understood what the fark that meant, but it always made me smile. So I guess I'll poke a hole in my knee and pour warm milk in it.
 
2013-01-18 03:10:57 AM
Oh dear, did somebody say "gun control" to Mr Kelley?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 03:21:54 AM

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.


digboston.com

/This is the facepalm of coded racial language
 
2013-01-18 03:22:52 AM

maxalt: So I guess I'll poke a hole in my knee and pour warm milk in it.


That's a sweet story, but I feel obligated to point out that the infection that would cause would probably require amputation.
 
2013-01-18 03:26:36 AM
I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.
 
2013-01-18 03:30:16 AM

cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.


Yeah, it's exactly the same. You walk into a Sears holding a black woman, it's probably because you're looking for an excuse to use her. A gun doesn't feel bad about itself and its relationship when you leave it at home.

Walk around with a $1,500, 10-lb loaded gun on your back all the time, people are bound to think you're an asshole. Because you're an asshole.
 
2013-01-18 03:32:28 AM
I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?
 
2013-01-18 03:34:44 AM

kingoomieiii: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Yeah, it's exactly the same. You walk into a Sears holding a black woman, it's probably because you're looking for an excuse to use her. A gun doesn't feel bad about itself and its relationship when you leave it at home.

Walk around with a $1,500, 10-lb loaded gun on your back all the time, people are bound to think you're an asshole. Because you're an asshole.


Different times back then, man.

A white woman walking around holding a black mans hand for the longest timed was extremely unacceptable. There would be people who would assault the couple. Hell, they may have ended up dead.
 
2013-01-18 03:42:15 AM

kingoomieiii: maxalt: So I guess I'll poke a hole in my knee and pour warm milk in it.

That's a sweet story, but I feel obligated to point out that the infection that would cause would probably require amputation.


I guess I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
 
2013-01-18 03:47:05 AM

cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.


Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 www.driveforknowledge.com
 
2013-01-18 03:48:23 AM

cman: Different times back then, man.

A white woman walking around holding a black mans hand for the longest timed was extremely unacceptable


Dude, this subject has fark-all to do with gun rights. It's a stupid analogy that makes not a whit of sense. Let it go.
 
2013-01-18 03:49:08 AM

ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]


So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?
 
2013-01-18 04:02:58 AM

cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?


I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.
 
2013-01-18 04:04:52 AM

ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.


Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(
 
2013-01-18 04:06:32 AM

cman: So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?


You don't have the right to openly carry a loaded rifle in the mall.
This dickhead was "exercising" the tacit permission of the owner of the store (which could be rescinded at any time, for any reason), not his rights.
 
2013-01-18 04:13:41 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


Oh wow, look. A gun thread where people are talking about penises! That never happens.
 
2013-01-18 04:13:55 AM

Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?


As I stated earlier, there's every possibility that one might assume that the other is about to go on a shooting spree.
Armed security at the mall may very well think the same thing.

The only way to really protect these stalwart defenders of the 2nd amendment, is to give them a tattoo on the forehead that reads PATRIOT.
Though ASSHOLE would work just as well.
 
2013-01-18 04:14:13 AM

cman: A white woman walking around holding a black mans hand for the longest timed was extremely unacceptable. There would be people who would assault the couple. Hell, they may have ended up dead.


Yeah, I know that. It was a huge risk to take, particularly in former Confederate territory. You know, gun country.

The "Pro-gun" side of this debate is spending pretty much all of its time ascribing viewpoints and goals to its opposition without anything to back it up. Take the NRA blasting Obama for... letting the Secret Service have guns. Sorry, when did Obama say "LET'S BAN ALL THE GUNS?" (Never.) But, to the NRA, holding a viewpoint other than "NO GUN RESTRICTIONS, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS" in the vicinity of ANY gun makes you "Just another elitist hypocrite".

My point is, this asshole is out at J.C. Penny fighting for a "right" that isn't being threatened. If you ask me, "Publicly acting on delusions of victimization" is a good sign that maybe you shouldn't be carrying a weapon.
 
2013-01-18 04:20:39 AM

fusillade762: Between him and these nitwits

[tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Seriously guys, you're not helping your cause.


In VA, home of the NRA, that's illegal.  (Magazines in.  Gotta be out.)
 
2013-01-18 04:24:06 AM

kingoomieiii: Yeah, I know that. It was a huge risk to take, particularly in former Confederate territory. You know, gun country.


I wonder if this is some kind of new cutting-edge talking point in the gun debate. If so, it's even more hypocritical than usual.

Comparing marriage equality for gays to miscegenation laws = Apples to Oranges
Comparing open carrying an AR-15 in a crowded department store to miscegenation laws = Perfectly Cromulent
 
2013-01-18 04:24:11 AM

cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(


Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.
 
2013-01-18 04:26:37 AM

TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.


Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.
 
2013-01-18 04:31:50 AM

Pokey.Clyde: That never happens.


Of course not. What possible connection...
 
2013-01-18 04:40:42 AM

cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(


I hereby apologize for my insensitive man-gun-love bigotry...I...I need to reflect on this.
 
2013-01-18 04:46:45 AM
LOOK AT ME!!! I'M A REAL MURKIN HERO!!!

BUDWEISER'S DONE GUNNA DO ONENA DEM COMMERCIALS ABOUT ME!
 
2013-01-18 04:59:57 AM
I'm a firm supporter and believer of the Second Amendment, but he didn't have any business carrying around an assault rifle in public. The assault rifle. I don't have an issue with the handgun, but it should have been concealed. Seems like the guy was just trying to prove a point, but instead came off as the epitome of what is wrong with gun control. Also came off as an asshole.
 
2013-01-18 05:00:22 AM

cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.


No, you just voted for him TWICE, as per your own admission, in bygone threads.
You are part of the problem, not the solution, because your ignorance, and gullibility knows no bounds.
You sure aren't shy about it though.
People like you, are maybe not so slowly, but certainly surely, destroying the Republican party.

You guys don't represent the voters of the future, you represent the pre-dead.
If people like you had a stock symbol, selling short would be the way to go.
 
2013-01-18 05:03:16 AM
As a rifle owner, all I have to say is, that guy is a douche. A really stupid douche.
 
2013-01-18 05:03:22 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 05:04:55 AM

TommyymmoT: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.

No, you just voted for him TWICE, as per your own admission, in bygone threads.
You are part of the problem, not the solution, because your ignorance, and gullibility knows no bounds.
You sure aren't shy about it though.
People like you, are maybe not so slowly, but certainly surely, destroying the Republican party.

You guys don't represent the voters of the future, you represent the pre-dead.
If people like you had a stock symbol, selling short would be the way to go.


You are confusing me for someone else.

I wasnt even of age at the 2000 elections. Yes I did vote for Bush in 04, but I was a different person then. This past election I voted for Gary Johnson.

I am for gay marriage, drug legalization, increased immigration, and ignoring illegals in America that just keep to themselves. Does that sound like a Republican trying to destroy the party?

No

/PS, I aint even Republican
 
2013-01-18 05:06:00 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.


Actually i think a chainsaw full of gas would be against fire codes
 
2013-01-18 05:07:03 AM

kingoomieiii:
Yeah, it's exactly the same. You walk into a Sears holding a black woman, it's probably because you're looking for an excuse to use her. A gun doesn't feel bad about itself and its relationship when you leave it at home.


Open carry, huh?
With how fat people are getting these days, concealed carry of (normal, human-shaped) person could be possible.
 
2013-01-18 05:09:18 AM
If you feel the need to carry a rifle while you shop you are not a Real American defending our freedoms.


You are a giant farking paranoid asshole with a small penis who is trying to show how tough you are.
 
2013-01-18 05:12:45 AM
"He was in the wrong place and shouldn't be doing this at this location," Yorgason said.

Funny, people say the same thing about gays kissing and women breastfeeding in public.

/The guy may be an attention whore, but if no laws were broken and no one felt threatened then I shall proceed to move this into the "do not care" portion of my brain.
 
2013-01-18 05:14:28 AM

GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.


you're gonna be sorry when the zombie apocalypse comes and everyone left their ARs at home...
 
2013-01-18 05:15:12 AM
Whatever else you can say about it, it's just tacky.
 
2013-01-18 05:15:53 AM

cman: TommyymmoT: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.

No, you just voted for him TWICE, as per your own admission, in bygone threads.
You are part of the problem, not the solution, because your ignorance, and gullibility knows no bounds.
You sure aren't shy about it though.
People like you, are maybe not so slowly, but certainly surely, destroying the Republican party.

You guys don't represent the voters of the future, you represent the pre-dead.
If people like you had a stock symbol, selling short would be the way to go.

You are confusing me for someone else.

I wasnt even of age at the 2000 elections. Yes I did vote for Bush in 04, but I was a different person then. This past election I voted for Gary Johnson.

I am for gay marriage, drug legalization, increased immigration, and ignoring illegals in America that jus ...


i915.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 05:16:02 AM

crab66: If you feel the need to carry a rifle while you shop you are not a Real American defending our freedoms.


You are a giant farking paranoid asshole with a small penis who is trying to show how tough you are.


www.biography.com

/please continue...
 
2013-01-18 05:16:50 AM

thamike: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.

No, you just voted for him TWICE, as per your own admission, in bygone threads.
You are part of the problem, not the solution, because your ignorance, and gullibility knows no bounds.
You sure aren't shy about it though.
People like you, are maybe not so slowly, but certainly surely, destroying the Republican party.

You guys don't represent the voters of the future, you represent the pre-dead.
If people like you had a stock symbol, selling short would be the way to go.

You are confusing me for someone else.

I wasnt even of age at the 2000 elections. Yes I did vote for Bush in 04, but I was a different person then. This past election I voted for Gary Johnson.

I am for gay marriage, drug legalization, increased immigration, and ignoring illegals in America th ...


I'm stealin that for my profile
 
2013-01-18 05:17:11 AM

Fubini: The store would have been entirely within their rights to require him to leave. The fact that didn't happen tells you something about the gun attitude in the area versus the woman. It also sounds like the reporter talked to the man, but doesn't ask the obvious question (Why are you carrying your rifle into a store?)

I know of a lot of people who don't like to leave their guns unattended in public (even in their car). Say you're out hunting or going to the range and if you need to stop for coffee or a bathroom or something.


Why did he even need to have it with him on a trip to the store? It's an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-18 05:19:05 AM

Abacus9: Why did he even need to have it with him on a trip to the store? It's an assault rifle.


It's an affront rifle in this instance.
 
2013-01-18 05:21:24 AM
This is great news for any crazed gunmen who want to go kill a bunch of folks. He can just walk in and nobody will blink an eye, figuring hes just another proud 'merrican exercising his 2nd 'menment rites.
 
2013-01-18 05:22:14 AM
Well, you can ALWAYS be outraged...

Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

My martial arts instructor was once challenged by a "gun nut" (actually just a nut) who felt gunz were better than karate: "What are you going to do when someone sneaks up behind you and hits you over the head? What good's your karate gonna be then, huh?" My instructor replied, "Well, what good is your gun going to be when someone sneaks up behind you and hits you over the head?"

So, again: If you've got your legal, responsibly owned rifle slung over your back, and you're standing at the jeans rack at JC Penney's, your back to the rest of the store, comparing prices or whatever, ignoring all the other shoppers and hurly-burly going on around you, and some crazed fool suddenly opens fire with HIS assault rifle behind you--what good is your gun going to do you then?
 
2013-01-18 05:22:23 AM

GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.


^
 
2013-01-18 05:24:28 AM

TommyymmoT: Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?

As I stated earlier, there's every possibility that one might assume that the other is about to go on a shooting spree.
Armed security at the mall may very well think the same thing.

The only way to really protect these stalwart defenders of the 2nd amendment, is to give them a tattoo on the forehead that reads PATRIOT.
Though ASSHOLE would work just as well.


Glad to see you know how use of force works. Someone just walking around with a gun doesn't constitute the use of deadly force.
 
2013-01-18 05:25:27 AM
I am very happy indeed to live in a country where he would have been arrested and imprisoned for a long time for this stunt.

/civilised countries don't need guns.
 
2013-01-18 05:27:03 AM
Imagine that. A guy doing nothing illegal wasn't arrested or asked to leave a store. That's certainly newsworthy.
 
2013-01-18 05:27:12 AM
I see from the video screenshot in the article that the rifle is pointed kind of downward, but not very much. Wouldn't that violate the gun safety rule of never point your gun at anything you aren't willing to kill?
 
2013-01-18 05:29:50 AM

JSam21: Someone just walking around with a gun doesn't constitute the use of deadly force.


White people problems.
 
2013-01-18 05:29:57 AM

orbister: I am very happy indeed to live in a country where he would have been arrested and imprisoned for a long time for this stunt.

/civilised countries don't need guns.


I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls
 
2013-01-18 05:31:51 AM
 
2013-01-18 05:31:55 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


Nothing to see here
 
2013-01-18 05:33:03 AM

Fubini: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?


No, I effin don't, but this dorkus isn't the police. Furthermore, the rest of these wannabe's aren't the army or the malitia, or the police either. Their a bunch of short dicks that haven't got anything better to do. The majority of these turdblossoms have about as much situational training as a can of vienna sausages. Knowing how to fire a weapon does not equal knowing when to fire it.
 
2013-01-18 05:34:44 AM
I don't see the problem. I see untrained civilians with minimal-to-zero firearms experience open carrying handguns all the time...

maxcdn.fooyoh.com

... and don't even get me tarted on their "gun as penis" psychological profile. The only difference between this guy accidentally shooting you & some vigilante doing the same is the vigilante will actually get in trouble for it.
 
2013-01-18 05:34:48 AM

JSam21: TommyymmoT: Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?

As I stated earlier, there's every possibility that one might assume that the other is about to go on a shooting spree.
Armed security at the mall may very well think the same thing.

The only way to really protect these stalwart defenders of the 2nd amendment, is to give them a tattoo on the forehead that reads PATRIOT.
Though ASSHOLE would work just as well.

Glad to see you know how use of force works. Someone just walking around with a gun doesn't constitute the use of deadly force.


No, it just implies the threat of deadly force.
What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?
Do people point and laugh?
I know I sure would.
 
2013-01-18 05:34:55 AM

Freezer: Fubini: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?

No, I effin don't, but this dorkus isn't the police. Furthermore, the rest of these wannabe's aren't the army or the malitia, or the police either. Their a bunch of short dicks that haven't got anything better to do. The majority of these turdblossoms have about as much situational training as a can of vienna sausages. Knowing how to fire a weapon does not equal knowing when to fire it.


And it's your contention that police have mastered the "when to fire it" thing? Really? What non-Earth planet do you reside on?
 
2013-01-18 05:35:38 AM

cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls


So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?
 
2013-01-18 05:36:57 AM
Actually, this is a good thing. When an armed madman attacks, he'll make sure he first shoots this guy giving the others just that little extra time to escape/hide.
 
2013-01-18 05:37:02 AM
Gotta go to work. I'll reply later.
Time to be bootstrappy and all.
 
2013-01-18 05:37:04 AM

VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?


Trust no one but yourself
 
2013-01-18 05:37:27 AM

TommyymmoT: What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?


Ask one of the guys with his hands up:

www.warsaw-life.com

They weren't allowed to have guns, only officials. So they must have been perfectly safe, right?
 
2013-01-18 05:39:37 AM
22. High and tight haircut. AR-15 strapped. And you're not overseas serving your country, why?

somethings shoot back
 
2013-01-18 05:39:57 AM

Freezer: Fubini: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?

No, I effin don't, but this dorkus isn't the police. Furthermore, the rest of these wannabe's aren't the army or the malitia, or the police either. Their a bunch of short dicks that haven't got anything better to do. The majority of these turdblossoms have about as much situational training as a can of vienna sausages. Knowing how to fire a weapon does not equal knowing when to fire it.


Correct... But do we know what his training level is? Technically, as a licensed armed security officer in my state, I am a civilian with police poiwers only on duty. But I do have extensive firearms training, including shoot/don't shoot live fire and FATS machine training. I'm also on the Rapid Response Team at my hospital and am trained to deal with active shooter situations as well as building clearing situations.

All of that being said, nothing illegal was done here. Is he an obvious attention whore? Yes. Criminal? No.
 
2013-01-18 05:41:00 AM

cman: VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?

Trust no one but yourself


What does any of this have to do with trust?
 
2013-01-18 05:41:20 AM

untaken_name: TommyymmoT: What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?

Ask one of the guys with his hands up:

[www.warsaw-life.com image 467x300]

They weren't allowed to have guns, only officials. So they must have been perfectly safe, right?


The guy with his hands up, most likely didn't vote with paranoia in his heart.
The guys with the guns, did.

gotta go
 
2013-01-18 05:42:46 AM

untaken_name: And it's your contention that police have mastered the "when to fire it" thing? Really? What non-Earth planet do you reside on?


And of course that gives you the right to pretend you're the tough guy in the movies you watch.
 
2013-01-18 05:42:58 AM

Freezer: No, I effin don't, but this dorkus isn't the police. Furthermore, the rest of these wannabe's aren't the army or the malitia, or the police either. Their a bunch of short dicks that haven't got anything better to do.


How did you even get a keyboard permit?
 
2013-01-18 05:42:59 AM
Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

So often the best lobbyists for greater gun control are the gun nuts.
 
2013-01-18 05:43:20 AM

TommyymmoT: As I stated earlier, there's every possibility that one might assume that the other is about to go on a shooting spree.
Armed security at the mall may very well think the same thing.



FTA: "She never felt threatened, but she believes a place like JC Penney is an inappropriate place to bring a weapon."

What part of "She never felt threatened" are you missing? This is a non-story.
 
2013-01-18 05:45:13 AM

VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?


Maybe not, but it's rather amusing to see you wetting your pants over this.
 
2013-01-18 05:45:52 AM

TommyymmoT: JSam21: TommyymmoT: Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?

As I stated earlier, there's every possibility that one might assume that the other is about to go on a shooting spree.
Armed security at the mall may very well think the same thing.

The only way to really protect these stalwart defenders of the 2nd amendment, is to give them a tattoo on the forehead that reads PATRIOT.
Though ASSHOLE would work just as well.

Glad to see you know how use of force works. Someone just walking around with a gun doesn't constitute the use of deadly force.

No, it just implies the threat of deadly force.
What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?
Do people point and laugh?
I know I sure would.



If you are implying that I live in constant fear you would be incorrect. I carry a gun at work. When I clock out my gun comes out of the holster on my duty belt, into a locked case, and then placed into a locked locker along with my duty belt. I don't "play" with guns. Just as much as a carpenter doesn't play with power saws. My gun is a tool of my job and I train with my tool on a regular basis for the unfortunate instance if I have to use my weapon while on duty. I train for my safety and the safety of everyone around that incident. I don't want to put holes into another human being that isn't threatening the life of myself or another.
 
2013-01-18 05:48:00 AM
Why is it that gun nuts are, in fact, also nuts in many other ways?

Oh, right, they're nuts.
 
2013-01-18 05:48:04 AM

Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?


What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.
 
2013-01-18 05:49:52 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-18 05:50:56 AM

thamike: cman: VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?

Trust no one but yourself

What does any of this have to do with trust?


Everything

By entrusting weapons to someone else you take a big defensive tool away. You gotta have trust that when someone breaks in the police will be there.
 
2013-01-18 05:51:09 AM

Abacus9: Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.


Because the President is near and I am mad as hell. So it's time to act like I'm 12.
 
2013-01-18 05:54:11 AM

TommyymmoT: untaken_name: TommyymmoT: What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?

Ask one of the guys with his hands up:

[www.warsaw-life.com image 467x300]

They weren't allowed to have guns, only officials. So they must have been perfectly safe, right?

The guy with his hands up, most likely didn't vote with paranoia in his heart.
The guys with the guns, did.

gotta go


You obviously don't know anything about the image I posted, so go on, run away, just like a coward always does.
 
2013-01-18 05:54:55 AM
There's nothing redeemable about this guy's actions and he's an embarrassment to all level-headed and responsible gun owners. Simply because you have the right (or permission) to do something, doesn't mean you should -- that's part of being a grown-up.

To those that attempt to justify his actions by suggesting he had one or more of the firearms with him and did not want to leave them unattended in his car -- sorry. Firearm responsibility includes planning where you will be traveling with them.

The idea that he was armed to this degree of personal protection is also laughable. An obvious weekend warrior, suited up with his tactical gear, and loaded for bear. At best this guy did this because, "Damn't I'm allowed to and people will see the light if I just show them the way." At worst he was doing this for attention and/or to intimidate.

Regardless, all that he accomplished was making any number of people feel uncomfortable (and yes, I do feel equally uncomfortable around *any* armed individual(s) in such settings especially if they are armed to this degree), and reinforcing that there are a large number of asshats who legally own firearms.

/gun owner
//anti gun-control legislation
///blah blah blah
 
2013-01-18 05:55:00 AM

Gyrfalcon: If you've got your legal, responsibly owned rifle slung over your back, and you're standing at the jeans rack at JC Penney's, your back to the rest of the store, comparing prices or whatever, ignoring all the other shoppers and hurly-burly going on around you, and some crazed fool suddenly opens fire with HIS assault rifle behind you--what good is your gun going to do you then?


Depends on why the other guy wants to open fire.
A murderer out to get you (specifically) may not be swayed by the fact you have a gun, But the presence of one obviously complicates their plans.
Attacking a visibly armed man in a sears full of witnesses makes for a very poor opportunity.

A mugger, rapist, car jacker or someone out to simply assault you cause they've got a chip on their shoulder, these guys are looking for easy marks and easy crimes. Its the reason they use guns themselves, to gain quick compliance.
The presence of a weapon on their target says "this customer might escalate the situation pretty quickly...".
A lazy criminal doesn't want to risk being under someone elses muzzle. Unless his plan starts with a loud and violent murder, he's probably going elsewhere.
Many people who open carry are thinking about these guys. Their intent is to discourage the attack by carrying around a big stick.

Its why cops not only carry exposed weapons, but easily recognized uniforms that say "I have firepower and the authority to use it". Because it demands respect with a hint of fear and keeps people with evil thoughts at bay.
...Unless the would-be criminal is insane, but all bets are off in those cases anyway.

/Cops do get hit over the back of the head from time to time.
/But someone who would do that probably wouldn't be encouraged to not-do it just because the cop didn't have a gun.
 
2013-01-18 05:59:01 AM

crab66: untaken_name: And it's your contention that police have mastered the "when to fire it" thing? Really? What non-Earth planet do you reside on?

And of course that gives you the right to pretend you're the tough guy in the movies you watch.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're correct. Let's say that I enjoy pretending to be a tough guy from the movies. What do you have against that, exactly? Lots of people want to be things they aren't, and they like to pretend. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, why do you care? The guy going around dressed up like Batman is pretending to be a tough guy from the movies, but he doesn't use a gun. So wanting to be a tough guy from the movies doesn't seem to be synonymous with liking or using guns. Is it guns that you have a problem with, or people who enjoy pretending to be tough guys from the movies? Or do you just hate anyone who's different from you because the tiny little mushy ball of crap that you call a brain can't handle it?
 
2013-01-18 05:59:04 AM
WHY U NO POST PICTURES?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 06:00:46 AM
1. It's not a new pair of shoes
2. If he was black or south asian, he'd be dead right now
3. I would never go back to that store ever again
4. I might not go to JC Penney ever again
5. I would've called the cops, not taken a picture and called the news. Notice how no one took a picture of his face?
6. You guys already have concealed carry, which is frightening enough
7. Wouldn't be seen wielding a Grenade
8. Knife
9. Sword
10. or Bomb
11. Shooting at no one is equally dangerous
12. The gun is pointed at someone, I don't care if his finger's not on the trigger.
13. The death of the 4th amendment invalidates the 2nd
14. Never going to Utah
 
2013-01-18 06:03:16 AM

untaken_name: Or do you just hate anyone who's different from you because the tiny little mushy ball of crap that you call a brain can't handle it?


I have reasonable suspicion that the police have passed some kind of course telling them not to murder people. And it's still pretty farking scary.

Oh and 15. He'd be dead if he went into a bank
 
2013-01-18 06:06:42 AM

cman: thamike: cman: VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?

Trust no one but yourself

What does any of this have to do with trust?

Everything

By entrusting weapons to someone else you take a big defensive tool away. You gotta have trust that when someone breaks in the police will be there.


You're on a completely different level. I meant about this situation. Having to trust that a guy with a rifle at JC Penney is non-threatening is like having to trust that the guy who rubbing my Big Mac on his ass has good hygiene.  Neither guy should even exist, let alone be a necessary existential quandary in my everyday life.
 
2013-01-18 06:08:13 AM

Abacus9: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

^


We should make it a crime for any action that anyone thinks might imply a crime.

Did you get into a car with a completely unnecessary v8 engine? That implies you're gonna go street racing or will gleefully run down some school children.

Did you carry a knife? Implied stabbing!

Eye patch? Implied pirate.
 
2013-01-18 06:12:18 AM

Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?


THIS. How are we to know?
 
2013-01-18 06:13:26 AM

untaken_name: TommyymmoT: untaken_name: TommyymmoT: What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?

Ask one of the guys with his hands up:

[www.warsaw-life.com image 467x300]

They weren't allowed to have guns, only officials. So they must have been perfectly safe, right?

The guy with his hands up, most likely didn't vote with paranoia in his heart.
The guys with the guns, did.

gotta go

You obviously don't know anything about the image I posted, so go on, run away, just like a coward always does.


I, quite sadly, don't know the back story behind every photo ever taken.
I'm still waiting for my car, so why don't you enlighten me?
Are you one of those imbeciles that think the Holocaust happened because the Jews were denied guns?
Or are you one of those imbeciles that think that slavery in the Americas would have never happened, had the black people been armed?

/not a coward, just not willing to miss work to explain myself to some anonymous douche nozzle that thinks I should
 
2013-01-18 06:13:41 AM
There is not a single civilized country left in the world where this is acceptable or even legal.
 
2013-01-18 06:16:09 AM

thamike: cman: thamike: cman: VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?

Trust no one but yourself

What does any of this have to do with trust?

Everything

By entrusting weapons to someone else you take a big defensive tool away. You gotta have trust that when someone breaks in the police will be there.

You're on a completely different level. I meant about this situation. Having to trust that a guy with a rifle at JC Penney is non-threatening is like having to trust that the guy who rubbing my Big Mac on his ass has good hygiene.  Neither guy should even exist, let alone be a necessary existential quandary in my everyday life.


I was replying to orbister's post about how there are no guns in Scotland and he likes it that way
 
2013-01-18 06:17:33 AM

cman: thamike: cman: thamike: cman: VarmintCong: cman: I envy you

Trusting those who you do not know implicitly takes balls

So you're saying I shouldn't implicitly trust the guy with the AR-15 strapped to his back?

Trust no one but yourself

What does any of this have to do with trust?

Everything

By entrusting weapons to someone else you take a big defensive tool away. You gotta have trust that when someone breaks in the police will be there.

You're on a completely different level. I meant about this situation. Having to trust that a guy with a rifle at JC Penney is non-threatening is like having to trust that the guy who rubbing my Big Mac on his ass has good hygiene.  Neither guy should even exist, let alone be a necessary existential quandary in my everyday life.

I was replying to orbister's post about how civilized society like Scotland doesn't need guns


Wrong choice of words for me. Fixt
 
2013-01-18 06:20:45 AM
Well, that's just peachy.

But another rational, law-abiding citizen just happened to lose his gun while patrolling his neighborhood on his Hoveround of Justice...

Link
 
2013-01-18 06:21:26 AM

moothemagiccow: 6. You guys already have concealed carry, which is frightening enough


Only to you because while people who own and carry guns are accused of being "paranoid", it is people like you who actually are paranoid.

When I lived in an apartment in that grey area between the 'good' part of town and the 'bad' part of town the level of security I felt comfortable with was a locked door and a small baseball bat like club. If I were a small person or a female I might have felt more secure with a deadbolt and a small caliber pistol.

I don't wear a seat belt because its the law or because I'm just absolutely terrified that at ANY MOMENT I could be in a car accident. I wear one because it could happen and it's better to be prepared than not. When I ride my mountain bike, I wear a helmet not because I'm terrified of falling off and hitting my head... If I was, I wouldn't ride the bike, the helmet is there just in case. If I choose to arm myself, it is not because I'm convinced that there are people out to get me, or because I expect to need to take out a mass murdering psycho, it's because I'm prepared on the extremely unlikely off chance that it's needed. Just like the seat belt. Just like the helmet.
 
2013-01-18 06:25:10 AM
I felt threatened, so stand your ground laws say I can take that gun and blow his brains out. Problem solved. One less douchebag on the planet.
 
2013-01-18 06:27:10 AM
Why would an obviously paranoid person bother us?

It's as if people thought that mentally ill people were a danger to others or something.
 
2013-01-18 06:27:12 AM

randomjsa: moothemagiccow: 6. You guys already have concealed carry, which is frightening enough

Only to you because while people who own and carry guns are accused of being "paranoid", it is people like you who actually are paranoid.

When I lived in an apartment in that grey area between the 'good' part of town and the 'bad' part of town the level of security I felt comfortable with was a locked door and a small baseball bat like club. If I were a small person or a female I might have felt more secure with a deadbolt and a small caliber pistol.

I don't wear a seat belt because its the law or because I'm just absolutely terrified that at ANY MOMENT I could be in a car accident. I wear one because it could happen and it's better to be prepared than not. When I ride my mountain bike, I wear a helmet not because I'm terrified of falling off and hitting my head... If I was, I wouldn't ride the bike, the helmet is there just in case. If I choose to arm myself, it is not because I'm convinced that there are people out to get me, or because I expect to need to take out a mass murdering psycho, it's because I'm prepared on the extremely unlikely off chance that it's needed. Just like the seat belt. Just like the helmet.


 Concealed carry, is protection. Open carry of a rifle, is intimidation.
 
2013-01-18 06:27:27 AM
Covered in someone else's in blood? Probably a nurse.

Walking around with major untreated injuries? Probably an MMA fighter. He's fine.

Carrying a machete with an angry look on their face? Probably just tired from cutting their way though the jungles of Utah to buy milk.

Exchanging powdery white substances for money? Probably just selling laundry detergent.

Some kids video taping themselves driving around shooting people with a paintball gun? I'm sure it's a movie and they have the proper filming license.

We should just ignore everything out of the ordinary because it's probably fine. No one ever has bad intentions when they walk around a public place with an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-18 06:31:54 AM

assjuice: I felt threatened, so stand your ground laws say I can take that gun and blow his brains out. Problem solved. One less douchebag on the planet.


Troll food... once you take the gun, he is no longer a threat. Enjoy prison.
 
2013-01-18 06:32:16 AM
"IT"S PERFECTLY LEGAL."


Never makes something inherently moral. It's not right when wall street abuses the imperfection of law and it's not right when turdshiat rednecks do it either.


Trying to scare innocent people does not make you tough. It makes you a paranoid lunatic.
 
2013-01-18 06:33:16 AM

moothemagiccow: untaken_name: Or do you just hate anyone who's different from you because the tiny little mushy ball of crap that you call a brain can't handle it?

I have reasonable suspicion that the police have passed some kind of course telling them not to murder people. And it's still pretty farking scary.

Oh and 15. He'd be dead if he went into a bank


He wouldn't go into a bank. It is a felony to go into a bank with a firearm and it has been established he's a law abiding citizen. Nice try though. I hope you can sleep after seeing such terrifying images of a person not threatening anyone or breaking any laws.
Do I think it was a great idea? Not really, but people need to calm the f*ck down about "OMG!!! GUNZ!!!"

/If they are only made to kill people, there are 100 million American's that apparently own broken firearms.
 
2013-01-18 06:37:08 AM
Shows that when people are in a panic, they don't think rationally. If he were carrying a hammer, people wouldn't be upset and more people are murdered with hammers than assault rifles in this country
 
2013-01-18 06:41:00 AM

zerkalo: 22. High and tight haircut. AR-15 strapped. And you're not overseas serving your country, why?

somethings shoot back


Unless you're suggesting he joins the Peace Corp being overseas has nothing to do with "serving his country."
 
2013-01-18 06:44:26 AM

fusillade762: Between him and these nitwits

[tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Seriously guys, you're not helping your cause.


Not hurting either. Occupy folks caused all kinds of crime, mayhem, money loss to cities, and nobody here whined. They were just using their constitutional rights.

Weird how only your side gets them, huh? Weird how those bastard Tea Party people all uphold the law, and your boys don't huh?
 
2013-01-18 06:45:26 AM

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.


My first thought when I saw the headline. Checked the location, and sure enough - bumfark nowhere.
I'd like to see this moron try that here in L.A. He wouldn't last long enough to get arrested.
 
2013-01-18 06:47:31 AM

IlGreven: Well, that's just peachy.

But another rational, law-abiding citizen just happened to lose his gun while patrolling his neighborhood on his Hoveround of Justice...

Link


If he was carrying an m-16, at least he would have been less likely to lose it.

/unless he was a cop...
/but hopefully their problems will be fixed when they go from 5.56mm to the smaller 9mm rounds.
 
2013-01-18 06:50:55 AM

James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?


By the haircut. If the young man looks like either a sheepdog or a girl, he's a murderer. Also, those ear gauges or tattoos will give them away.
 
2013-01-18 06:51:40 AM
This just in:

A white woman's right to hold a black man's hand does not equal your constitutional right to self-defense.

A woman's right to abort an unborn child does not equal your right to self defense.

Obama's right to "defend" the U.S. from a group of civilian children in physical proximity to al Qaida #2 does not equal your right of self defense.

Despite your right to self defense being the only right specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights in reference to being "necessary for the security of a free State," it is apparently revocable if it makes liberals feel squeemish.
 
2013-01-18 06:55:44 AM

GAT_00: Fark Me To Tears: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Actually, it indicates that the people carrying the rifles take themselves and their role in society way too seriously.  This is what happens when they run too many trailer trash-based "reality" shows on cable TV.

You don't carry a farking rifle around unless you want an excuse to use it.


You continue to show that you are a moran. It's obvious the guy is not looking for an excuse to use it. He is carrying it around to make a political statement and it's in bad taste especially in light of recent events.
 
2013-01-18 06:55:44 AM
sigh. There are no amounts of facepalms or you'renothelping.jpgs sufficient to post. What farking marshmallowy attention whoring bruttish imp. Seriously. The fact that someone needs to sit him down and explain to him that even if it is technically legal, waddling around the mall with an AR-15 strapped to your back in the midst of a national debate on gun control and mass murders is a BAD IDEA; that someone needs to waste oxygen and contribute to Global Warming by breathing CO2 into the atmosphere; that someone has to tell this troglodyte that his little stunt has all the usefulness of a frozen urineade stand; that someone needs to break it down Barney Style that he is a "Real Amurrican Patriot" in the most sarcastic and embarrassingly juxtaposed kind of way; that someone has to inform him that his little idea is only going to get people that are ideologically on his side to actually defect to the gun control side out of sheer disgust...

That someone has to explain this to him... this is why I am a jaded and cynical asshole who has no passion and don't really care about anything outside of Green Bay Packers football and providing for my family.
 
2013-01-18 06:59:34 AM
I am a gun owner, a recreational shooter, and a supporter of responsible gun owners. This guy is an jackass attention whore, by his own admission. This taking place in Ogden, Utah is probably why it wasn't blown into a big deal.

CSB, I was in BK one Sunday afternoon and some fugitive recovery types showed up, badges hanging around their necks, thigh holsters, they paraded around the BK letting everybody know they were packing. I finished my meal and left, not afraid of the fire arms, but I was certainly not wanting to be in an environment where those hillbillies felt they had to flaunt their firepower.
 
2013-01-18 07:02:05 AM

cman: What does any of this have to do with trust?

Everything

By entrusting weapons to someone else you take a big defensive tool away.


If someone wants to hurt you, they don't need to have a gun. They only need to have the initiative. In which case, having a gun yourself isn't going to help you, unless you get very lucky.

cman: Trust no one but yourself


And this is a shiatty way to live, if you can even call it "living".
 
2013-01-18 07:02:21 AM
I think it's obvious what happened. The guys kept hearing that "guns are designed for killing" and since his gun never killed anyone he was trying to return it because it was defective.
 
2013-01-18 07:03:33 AM
Call the WAAAAAAmbulance

open carry is legal

Don't care if he's a another fat wannabe with swagger and a mouthful of chew

butthurt farker-I'll never shop there again
...good
 
2013-01-18 07:06:02 AM

natas6.0: Call the WAAAAAAmbulance

open carry is legal

Don't care if he's a another fat wannabe with swagger and a mouthful of chew

butthurt farker-I'll never shop there again
...good


You sound tough.
 
2013-01-18 07:06:41 AM

Thunderpipes: fusillade762: Between him and these nitwits

[tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Seriously guys, you're not helping your cause.

Not hurting either. Occupy folks caused all kinds of crime, mayhem, money loss to cities, and nobody here whined. They were just using their constitutional rights.

Weird how only your side gets them, huh? Weird how those bastard Tea Party people all uphold the law, and your boys don't huh?


Amount of total damage done:

Banks > Nuts with guns > Occupy
 
2013-01-18 07:07:29 AM
Come on, people.

Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.

powet.tv
 
2013-01-18 07:11:39 AM

Fubini: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?


Not the same thing.
 
2013-01-18 07:12:03 AM

betelgeux: I am a gun owner, a recreational shooter, and a supporter of responsible gun owners. This guy is an jackass attention whore, by his own admission. This taking place in Ogden, Utah is probably why it wasn't blown into a big deal.

CSB, I was in BK one Sunday afternoon and some fugitive recovery types showed up, badges hanging around their necks, thigh holsters, they paraded around the BK letting everybody know they were packing. I finished my meal and left, not afraid of the fire arms, but I was certainly not wanting to be in an environment where those hillbillies felt they had to flaunt their firepower.



You say that as if that's an actual thing.
 
2013-01-18 07:16:12 AM
"Look everyone!! My guns are fashion accessories!!"

People like this guy in the story just sound like a bunch of chicken shiat wannabe tough guys.

3.bp.blogspot.com

"Honey? I'm going to Walmart... They're having a sale on fudge cake. Need me to pick you up same tampons?"
 
2013-01-18 07:23:35 AM

numbquil: GAT_00: Fark Me To Tears: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Actually, it indicates that the people carrying the rifles take themselves and their role in society way too seriously.  This is what happens when they run too many trailer trash-based "reality" shows on cable TV.

You don't carry a farking rifle around unless you want an excuse to use it.

You continue to show that you are a moran. It's obvious the guy is not looking for an excuse to use it. He is carrying it around to make a political statement and it's in bad taste especially in light of recent events.




Well, considering that the main recent memories of people going into public buildings carrying AR-variants ended in dozens dead, I would say this moron is lucky someone didn't pull our their CCW and plug him before he could get into the store.
 
2013-01-18 07:24:41 AM
One of the great things abouot not living in the past, say, the old west, is that we have a realtively stale society and not everyone is required to carry a gun (or sword) at all times for protection.

Given that, carrying a gun into a place that does not normally have them will be out of the place. It is far more common to see a gun in a store when it is being robbed or someone is shooting than just because someone is 'exercising their rights.' It is intimidating,it scares the other shoppers who do not know your intent, it scares the employee who has to contradict you in regards to store policy, and it scares the police because they will be getting calls. The point is, people do not know if you are nut who wants to rob the store or worse, hurt people. Or if you are just a nut who feels that American exceptionalism and nationalistic pride are a replacement for intelligence and allows you to carry weapons into peaceful locations. Your intent is not know, and you are scaring the daylights out of normal people.
 
2013-01-18 07:29:41 AM
Tell me this, gun nuts: if an armed society is supposed to be a polite society, why are so many of you in this thread admitting that this guy is an asshole?
 
2013-01-18 07:30:26 AM

Jaws_Victim: One of the great things abouot not living in the past, say, the old west, is that we have a realtively stale society and not everyone is required to carry a gun (or sword) at all times for protection.

Given that, carrying a gun into a place that does not normally have them will be out of the place. It is far more common to see a gun in a store when it is being robbed or someone is shooting than just because someone is 'exercising their rights.' It is intimidating,it scares the other shoppers who do not know your intent, it scares the employee who has to contradict you in regards to store policy, and it scares the police because they will be getting calls. The point is, people do not know if you are nut who wants to rob the store or worse, hurt people. Or if you are just a nut who feels that American exceptionalism and nationalistic pride are a replacement for intelligence and allows you to carry weapons into peaceful locations. Your intent is not know, and you are scaring the daylights out of normal people.


Wrote that on an ipad. So theres a million mistakes. Stable society.
 
2013-01-18 07:31:07 AM

James F. Campbell: Tell me this, gun nuts: if an armed society is supposed to be a polite society, why are so many of you in this thread admitting that this guy is an asshole?


Well, there is a difference between "armed" and "LOOK AT ME AND MY SLUNG AR IN JCPENNY MERRRRRICA' fark YEAH! 2ND AMNNNNDMNT RIYYYGHTS GIMME A LIP OF COPE AND GIT R DONE."
 
2013-01-18 07:31:35 AM
No, it takes no effort at all. 20 days in county and a year's probation for brandishing a firearm.
 
2013-01-18 07:32:39 AM

daveUSMC: Well, there is a difference between "armed" and "LOOK AT ME AND MY SLUNG AR IN JCPENNY MERRRRRICA' fark YEAH! 2ND AMNNNNDMNT RIYYYGHTS GIMME A LIP OF COPE AND GIT R DONE."


So what you're saying is that it's not the gun that makes the difference.
 
2013-01-18 07:33:39 AM

Lorelle: violentsalvation: I see people in stores with pistols on their belts fairly often and unless they look like they just got off a horse and are looking for new Levis I usually think ATTENTION WHORE.

Yup. This one's just another "AH GOTS A GUN! LOOKIT MAH GUN!" jerk.


No worse than a hipster with an ipad, a preppy with his Oakleys perched in his messed-style hair, prada purses, old women with blue hair etc.

i306.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 07:34:58 AM
I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.
 
2013-01-18 07:36:28 AM

brap: I'd like to return this thong.  It is stained.

I SAID I WOULD LIKE TO RETURN THIS THONG. IT IS STAINED!  DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

I didn't think so.


lulz
 
2013-01-18 07:37:07 AM
As a gun owner, I have many many issues with this moron. The biggest might be the number of gun safety rules he is violating in one picture. Look at his barrel discipline (or lack there of). He is about to shoot the nuts/knees off some poor idiot standing next to him.

Even as a gun owner, and one that does conceal carry from time to time, I would have called the cops because he is being fundamentally unsafe and I wouldn't not trust this genius to take constructive criticism well.
 
2013-01-18 07:39:39 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: crab66: If you feel the need to carry a rifle while you shop you are not a Real American defending our freedoms.


You are a giant farking paranoid asshole with a small penis who is trying to show how tough you are.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

/please continue...


Please stop repeating this lie. A few of us actually do understand Freud.

In General Introduction to Psychoanalysis , Freud wrote, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

Freud is specifically making reference to the male phallus with his use of the word "weapon", as his Tenth Lecture on the subject of dreams labels swords, sabers, pistols and rifles as symbols of the male gentalia. A fear of a weapon, in a dream, mind you, simply suggests a neurosis towards the male phallus. For instance, if a female were to have a dream in which a man with a gun startled her, it would point towards an innate fear of sex, and perhaps lead to the discovery of said fear.

The quote has nothing to do with firearms. It is merely a comment on dreams and symbolism.

As far as sexual maturity, he basically proposed humans as sexual beings from birth, and that along with the body, ones sexuality matures as well. Except many people get stuck at a developmental stage of sexuality rather than continue to mature.

Freud decided pretty much everything was about sex. But he also had a nasty coke habit too so, you might want to take his ideas with a grain of salt. Almost all of his theories are regarded as wrong these days anyway.


Also...

Fark just after 9/11 - "After an emotional tragedy rushing to enact legislation that infringes on our rights but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe is wrong. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are incredibly low."

Fark now - "In the wake of such an emotional tragedy we must rush to enact legislation that infringes on the rights of legal gun owners but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe. Despite the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are incredibly low.."

The selective application of outrage over the erosion of constitutional rights is hypocritical. I know, welcome to fark.

/ I am in no way suggesting the guy in TFA is anything but a giant paranoid a-hole. I won't speculate about the size of his penis
// If you see a Guy with a rifle in public don't take any chances. Run away and call the cops!
 
2013-01-18 07:40:13 AM
Well it sounds like he does this for attention but looks like the authorities realized he's not going to cause issues so they did nothing.

Is it smart? No, but a weapon slung over someone's back is a pretty sure sign that they're not going to use it. If he ran in screaming and pointing it at people then yea that's bad.
 
2013-01-18 07:41:18 AM

html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.


Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.
 
2013-01-18 07:43:35 AM

doglover: Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.


Yes -- and if stories like that weren't the exception, they wouldn't be newsworthy, now would they?
 
2013-01-18 07:46:46 AM
I own firearms, even the "evil" ones currently on the Democratic Hit List......but this guy is an attention whore plain and simple. There is absolutely no need to "train the public" to get used to Open Carry in a JC Penney's. While I agree that educating the general public to positive benefits of firearm ownership is a goal that should be attained, the "Shock" approach demonstrated here isn't helping our cause at all. Now these people aren't thinking "Hey that guy is standing up for his 2nd amendment right, what a good guy!", NO now they are thinking "Hey what is wrong with that gun nut? why does he have an "assault rifle" in JC Penney's? He's crazy".
 
2013-01-18 07:47:20 AM
Someone didn't get enough attention from his dad.

It's ok buddy.
 
2013-01-18 07:48:42 AM

TommyymmoT: You must have to be a complete pussy to feel the need to carry a rifle just to go buy socks.


I think there are a lot of gun owners who live in a perpetual state of fear,,,,kind of sad. They make the sane normal ones look bad.
 
2013-01-18 07:50:27 AM

Pfactor: Did you get into a car with a completely unnecessary v8 engine? That implies you're gonna go street racing or will gleefully run down some school children.


Speeding is illegal
 
2013-01-18 07:51:30 AM

doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.


You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.
 
2013-01-18 07:52:29 AM
Wow, he must have a really tiny penis.
 
2013-01-18 07:52:44 AM

moothemagiccow: You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.


*head desk*
 
2013-01-18 07:53:05 AM

NephilimNexus: I don't see the problem. I see untrained civilians with minimal-to-zero firearms experience open carrying handguns all the time...

[maxcdn.fooyoh.com image 350x415]

... and don't even get me tarted on their "gun as penis" psychological profile. The only difference between this guy accidentally shooting you & some vigilante doing the same is the vigilante will actually get in trouble for it.


You'd be surprised how little firearms training police have! I shoot competitively and so far in 6 years I've never been beaten by a cop, but I've been beaten a lot by a lot of regular civilians. Anyhow, all I really wanted to impart here was - you'd be surprised how little firearms training police have. Their job is not be a firearms expert, their job is prevent and investigate crime. Most cops that I know, never pulled their weapon in 20 years.
 
2013-01-18 07:55:10 AM

moothemagiccow: doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.

You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.


I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?
 
2013-01-18 07:55:18 AM
I bet Gat thinks he was there looking for him
 
2013-01-18 07:55:32 AM

illannoyin: Fark just after 9/11 - "After an emotional tragedy rushing to enact legislation that infringes on our rights but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe is wrong. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are incredibly low."

Fark now - "In the wake of such an emotional tragedy we must rush to enact legislation that infringes on the rights of legal gun owners but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe. Despite the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are incredibly low.."

The selective application of outrage over the erosion of constitutional rights is hypocritical. I know, welcome to fark.


That explains why the 4th amendment is dead and the 2nd amendment is going strong.
 
2013-01-18 07:56:43 AM

Farkage: moothemagiccow: doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.

You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.

I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?


Only pussies have fire extinguishers

/That's fark thinking for you
 
2013-01-18 07:57:07 AM

Farkage: moothemagiccow: doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.

You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.

I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?


If there's a fire in your house, and you don't use it, yes. Someone shot the guy more than once, and he didn't pull the gun. I don't care if it was a pellet gun.
 
2013-01-18 07:57:58 AM
Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?
 
2013-01-18 07:58:22 AM
If I was a bad man with a firearm, and knowing the Open Carry laws, if I'm in a State where open carrying is legal as long as the weapon is unloaded, I would soooooo be scoring me a free AR.
 
2013-01-18 07:58:34 AM

TommyymmoT: BunkoSquad: Oh God, it wasn't a Black Panther, was it?

Or....well, a Black anything?

If he were black, the SWAT team would have mowed him down just on spec.
I mean a black man, with a rifle, in a mall, in UTAH?


No, the only black person in Utah lives down the street from me and I think he was home that day...
 
2013-01-18 07:59:54 AM
Open carry is fine in many places, unless you are CA and see scary black men doing so. Then you ban it for everyone.
 
2013-01-18 08:00:15 AM
What an idiot. Who brings a rifle into a close-quarters combat zone?
 
2013-01-18 08:02:08 AM
TommyymmoT

BunkoSquad: Oh God, it wasn't a Black Panther, was it?

Or....well, a Black anything?

If he were black, the SWAT team would have mowed him down just on spec.
I mean a black man, with a rifle, in a mall, in UTAH?



Nah, "hello Mr. Malone, how can I help you today"
 
2013-01-18 08:02:42 AM

computerguyUT: No, the only black person in Utah lives down the street from me and I think he was home that day...


lulz

Xenomech: What an idiot. Who brings a rifle into a close-quarters combat zone?


Say whaaaa?
 
2013-01-18 08:03:09 AM
Imagine the terror if he lit up a smoke too.
 
2013-01-18 08:03:17 AM

Dadoody: If I was a bad man with a firearm, and knowing the Open Carry laws, if I'm in a State where open carrying is legal as long as the weapon is unloaded, I would soooooo be scoring me a free AR.


Betting your life there isn't one in the chamber?

/Of course there isn't.
/No one (else) would ever break the law...
 
2013-01-18 08:04:36 AM
I wonder if it would make all these gun nuts nervous if I walked into a store with an open-topped vat of molten rock (wearing protective gear, of course) and pretended as though I had shaky balance as I got into line right behind them at the cashier.

/law-abiding citizen
//I just like doing chemistry
///time and place
 
2013-01-18 08:05:57 AM

Deep Contact: Imagine the terror if he lit up a smoke too.


dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-01-18 08:06:44 AM

muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?


Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.
 
2013-01-18 08:06:48 AM

way south: Deep Contact: Imagine the terror if he lit up a smoke too.

[dl.dropbox.com image 560x322]


That cop -- he has no gun
 
2013-01-18 08:06:56 AM
Even in the "Wild West", which in most cases was much less wild then we have been led to think it was, open carry was often prohibited in bars and establishments, and even entire towns.
 
2013-01-18 08:07:53 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Xenomech: What an idiot. Who brings a rifle into a close-quarters combat zone?

Say whaaaa?


Rifles are for longer range fire. You'd want a sub-machinegun or a combat shotgun if you're going toe-to-toe with baddies around tight corners in between the aisles of a department store.
 
2013-01-18 08:09:00 AM

loser0: way south: Deep Contact: Imagine the terror if he lit up a smoke too.

[dl.dropbox.com image 560x322]

That cop -- he has no gun


He's also arresting a rich guy, so the whole thing is off.
 
2013-01-18 08:10:04 AM
wow, what a farking little cowardly asshole!
 
2013-01-18 08:10:36 AM

Xenomech: Rifles are for longer range fire. You'd want a sub-machinegun or a combat shotgun if you're going toe-to-toe with baddies around tight corners in between the aisles of a department store.


I don't know, the US military thinks differently.
 
2013-01-18 08:12:34 AM
I mean, I carry with me all the time.  Granted it's only a Walther PPQ; but this guy is just being a farking dick.

"My girlfriend said these size 20 panties don't fit her.  Ahem...I SAID, MY GIRLFRIEND BOUGHT THESE SIZE 20 PANTIES, AND THEY DON'T FIT HER.  DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"
 
2013-01-18 08:12:48 AM

Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?


Do you really believe that?
 
2013-01-18 08:14:13 AM

moothemagiccow: Farkage: moothemagiccow: doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.

You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.

I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?

If there's a fire in your house, and you don't use it, yes. Someone shot the guy more than once, and he didn't pull the gun. I don't care if it was a pellet gun.


I had a grease fire in my kitchen and I put the lid on the frying pan to take care of it. should I get rid of my fire extinguisher becuse I have proven it isn't, and won't ever be needed?
 
2013-01-18 08:14:32 AM

James F. Campbell: Tell me this, gun nuts: if an armed society is supposed to be a polite society, why are so many of you in this thread admitting that this guy is an asshole?


For one thing that is obviously a quote that is simply overused by idiots who are incapable of generating a rational argument with evidence and supporting points. Much like the farkwads who can't come up with anything more than small penis or Rambo references. The quote also implies that the entire society is armed rather than just one individual in a society that fears firearms.

While I would feel perfectly comfortable shopping at a store where someone has an AR-15 on their back, I am capable of understanding that many people are not. Unlike most of the farktards on this site who are incapable of observing the world through a different lens.

At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back. Anyone who does walk around with an AR-15 on their back is obviously looking for attention and shock value. It pisses me off for the same reason that it pisses me off when Lady Gaga wears a meat suit. Nobody likes an attention whore. Which creates it's own MC Escher mindfark paradox problem. By consciously making the decision to not like an attention whore, we are giving them attention. Instead we should take a zen approach and clear our minds of thought completely when thinking about attention whores.
 
2013-01-18 08:14:34 AM
To me it looks like this guy should be tazed and while he convulses on the floor take his guns from him.
 
2013-01-18 08:15:50 AM
This thread was going well for longer than I expected, until the gay rights comparisons came up. Good job, some of you!
 
2013-01-18 08:16:32 AM
Right wing fear identification chart

Not scary:

img.ksl.com

Scary:

mije.org
 
2013-01-18 08:17:15 AM

sethen320: Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?

Do you really believe that?


Yes, that's what they really believe. Personally, I think they need to quit judging everybody by what they see at the gay gang-bangs, but what are you going to do?
 
2013-01-18 08:18:43 AM

numbquil: At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back.


When and where has it ever been? You talk as if the US is the exception.
 
2013-01-18 08:19:14 AM
OMG, that guy walked into a store with an ultra-killy, über-evil "weapon of war" and masses of people didn't spontaneously drop dead?

It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.
 
2013-01-18 08:20:11 AM

moonscatter: This dude just doesn't understand tacky behavior. What woukd Miss Manners say?


His rifle color clashes with his shirt.
 
2013-01-18 08:20:45 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


#1) That has to be the best, most insightful comment on this in this thread.
#2) It goes to our essentially Puritan underpinning of 'Murica
#3) I know that for side arms, here in CT he could be charged with "Brandishing".

This is also an intelligent bit of insight- do not dismiss it-

FlashHarry: wow, what a farking little cowardly asshole!


If Odgen can't afford police then I'm all for carrying guns and ammunition. Must be an awful place if you need to carry weaponry into a JCP. I would never move there and I don't think you should either.
He is also a Serial Bed Wetter.
 
2013-01-18 08:21:02 AM

TommyymmoT: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.

No, you just voted for him TWICE, as per your own admission, in bygone threads.
You are part of the problem, not the solution, because your ignorance, and gullibility knows no bounds.
You sure aren't shy about it though.
People like you, are maybe not so slowly, but certainly surely, destroying the Republican party.

You guys don't represent the voters of the future, you represent the pre-dead.
If people like you had a stock symbol, selling short would be the way to go.


Has it ever occurred to any of you that it doesn't matter who voted for who?

Keep playing Red vs. Blue if that's what makes you feel good, but don't go around insulting everyone else for doing the same. You're both idiots.
 
2013-01-18 08:21:10 AM

numbquil: James F. Campbell: Tell me this, gun nuts: if an armed society is supposed to be a polite society, why are so many of you in this thread admitting that this guy is an asshole?

For one thing that is obviously a quote that is simply overused by idiots who are incapable of generating a rational argument with evidence and supporting points. Much like the farkwads who can't come up with anything more than small penis or Rambo references. The quote also implies that the entire society is armed rather than just one individual in a society that fears firearms.

While I would feel perfectly comfortable shopping at a store where someone has an AR-15 on their back, I am capable of understanding that many people are not. Unlike most of the farktards on this site who are incapable of observing the world through a different lens.

At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back. Anyone who does walk around with an AR-15 on their back is obviously looking for attention and shock value. It pisses me off for the same reason that it pisses me off when Lady Gaga wears a meat suit. Nobody likes an attention whore. Which creates it's own MC Escher mindfark paradox problem. By consciously making the decision to not like an attention whore, we are giving them attention. Instead we should take a zen approach and clear our minds of thought completely when thinking about attention whores.


I stand by my opinion.
 
2013-01-18 08:22:02 AM

hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.


Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.
 
2013-01-18 08:22:07 AM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.


Until they decide it's killing time, anyway.
 
2013-01-18 08:22:28 AM

mamoru: Brontes: Will our next cause be to ban all fatty foods because heart disease kills 60 times as many people as gun homicides?

When the fatty foods that I eat kill others instead of just killing me, then perhaps we can consider it. If people only used guns for suicide, then perhaps that way the problem might be comparable, too.

Otherwise, false comparison is false.


A fat person tripped and fell into me tearing my acl. Being fat is not a victimless crime.
 
2013-01-18 08:22:29 AM

zerkalo: 22. High and tight haircut. AR-15 strapped. And you're not overseas serving your country, why?

somethings shoot back


THIS! I recently bought a copy of "Shotgun News" for the first time in a dozen years or so. I immediately noticed that the advertising centered around middle-aged men carrying AR-15s with a bunch of crap strapped to the rails (sporting guns?). The defining feature was that nearly every one had that same haircut, and was dressed in some sort of OD uniform, some with helmets and utility belts. The kicker was that several were wearing headsets (to communicate with other Real Patriots?).

Assuming that the ad writers know their market, this magazine made me feel uneasy about the mental health of its readership. Are all gun owners "coming out" and living their GI Joe fantasies? Combined with the number of morans who are suddenly feeling the need to pack rifles when they buy milk, I think it might be so.

/What kind of coward pussy does this?
 
2013-01-18 08:24:30 AM
BLRBMAGARBMANARBLE ASSAULT RIFFLE!!!!!

OOOHH it has a PISTOL GRIP IT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL!!

MOAR LAWS!! MOAR LAWS!!

We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

Actually....Utah. STFU haters and crawl back into your holes.
Utah = good gun laws.

Not the murder capital of anything, actually one of the safest states in the nation.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!! Thar are BLACK guns in UTAH!!

The biggest problem we have here is the gangbangers overflowing the Rectopia of Kalifornia.

Keep your crappy laws, your tree huggers and your gangbangers.
 
2013-01-18 08:24:54 AM
We get it! The guns are black!!!
 
2013-01-18 08:25:14 AM
Has anybody mentioned that this picture depicts poor muzzle control? Because this picture depicts poor muzzle control. Adjust your shoulder strap, Pudgy, and quit pointing that thing at the dude next you at the counter.

Also, as I live in an open carry state, I'm used to seeing people carrying around a handgun. Hell, sometimes I carry around a handgun (in the woods, at the gas station on the way to the range, you know, places where that's reasonable), but carrying around a rifle of any sort like this in a department store is just douchebaggery. If the point you're trying to make is that you're a sensationalist, attention whore ass hat, well congrats, you've succeeded. If your point is anything other than that, you probably did more harm than good to your cause.
 
2013-01-18 08:25:37 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: I mean, I carry with me all the time.  Granted it's only a Walther PPQ; but this guy is just being a farking dick.

"My girlfriend said these size 20 panties don't fit her.  Ahem...I SAID, MY GIRLFRIEND BOUGHT THESE SIZE 20 PANTIES, AND THEY DON'T FIT HER.  DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"


CSB

I live in West Chester, PA about 30 mins from Philadelphia. My wife went to Best Buy a town over about a week ago to pick up an iPad mini. So she goes in, gets the iPad, and starts discussing service plans with the salesguy to talk protection plans because my wife is not exactly easy on portable electronics. So as they're talking, in walks a dude open carrying a handgun. Walks over the the counter and plops an iPad with an obvious bullet hole through it down and says "I have the protection plan. I'd like a new iPad". Upon seeing the gun, the salesguy dealing with my wife calmly moved her over a few places on the counter while another associate called the cops and then dealt with the dude with the gun. My wife said the guy carrying was very calm and very polite, but according to the salesguy they had a dude come in open carrying a few weeks prior to that who was irate and making a bunch of demands, so they were being very cautious as a result. Wife stuck around long enough to overhear that the Best Buy protection plan doesn't cover bullet holes and that he wouldn't be getting a new iPad. She didn't get to stick around to see how he handled the police.

/CSB
 
2013-01-18 08:26:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.

Until they decide it's killing time, anyway.


lulz. That's what they are all doing. Just waiting to kill you.

Door: knock knock
HWC: Nooooo!
Door: Gun
HWC: Nooooo! Leave me alone! I don't wanna die! Wait for me to call the cops. The government is here for my protection
Door: hold on, i need someone who gives a rats ass about you to pull the trigger
HWC: OMFG!!!!
 
2013-01-18 08:26:54 AM

fusillade762: Between him and these nitwits

[tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]

Seriously guys, you're not helping your cause.


In a way they are helping. They're forcing many people to reveal their true feelings about the subject, that their goal isn't the eradication of gun violence, but the eradication of guns themselves.
 
2013-01-18 08:27:15 AM

Farce-Side: Has anybody mentioned that this picture depicts poor muzzle control? Because this picture depicts poor muzzle control. Adjust your shoulder strap, Pudgy, and quit pointing that thing at the dude next you at the counter.



Same thing I said. He is going to shoot someone's nuts off.
 
2013-01-18 08:28:08 AM

computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!


I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.
 
2013-01-18 08:30:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.


I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.
 
2013-01-18 08:31:24 AM

2 grams: We get it! The guns are black!!!


Well done.
 
2013-01-18 08:31:45 AM

Blink: I wonder if it would make all these gun nuts nervous if I walked into a store with an open-topped vat of molten rock (wearing protective gear, of course) and pretended as though I had shaky balance as I got into line right behind them at the cashier.

/law-abiding citizen
//I just like doing chemistry
///time and place


Go for it. We live in a nation where you are free to do as you wish so long as it does not harm someone else. I can carry my goddamn rifle around with me, and unless prohibited by law, or I actively engage in hurting someone with it, I'm perfectly free to do so.
 
2013-01-18 08:31:47 AM

doglover: Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.


All of this training being taken into account, a gun really seems to be a dubious weapon for self-defense. If you're never going to draw on someone you don't intend to kill, and you're never going to use the weapon preemptively, or against a less deadly form of assault, it seems to me that you're employing a policy of relinquishing the initiative against a weapon that overwhelmingly stacks the odds in favor of the aggressor.

At least if someone is going to attack you with a sword, you have a few tempos to adopt a defensive posture while they draw and close the distance. Statistically, a gun is roughly equivalent to a knife in a surprise 21-foot drill (give or take a few feet). Against a firearm, it would seem that the only high-percentage options would be conflict avoidance techniques, in which case why do you need the weapon at all?

The only place I can see a firearm being useful in (other than home defense) are group situations like mass shootings and large robberies, where the assailant is unaware that you're carrying. Open carry just marks you as a primary target, so that's out. And is it really worth it to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars preparing for the extremely unlikely scenario where having a gun might help you save a few lives, but also greatly increases your risk of getting killed in a confrontation?

I wholeheartedly support people owning a shotgun or rifle for home defense, especially if they live in an isolated area. The more I consider the prospect of carrying a handgun for defense, the less it seems like a good idea, tactically. Far too much liability for way too little payoff. I'd rather have a knife, and a small one that I can hide in my hand at that. I think it would be far more useful in the kinds of situations that a person is most likely to encounter.
 
2013-01-18 08:32:16 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.

Until they decide it's killing time, anyway.

lulz. That's what they are all doing. Just waiting to kill you.

Door: knock knock
HWC: Nooooo!
Door: Gun
HWC: Nooooo! Leave me alone! I don't wanna die! Wait for me to call the cops. The government is here for my protection
Door: hold on, i need someone who gives a rats ass about you to pull the trigger
HWC: OMFG!!!!


cbsdenver.files.wordpress.com


That's just silly, why go door to door when there are turkey shoots all over town?


That's your hero James Holmes. You know, the responsible legal gun owner that decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore. His real problem seems to be that he hasn't come out and said he did it for freedom. Then he would be revered like your other hero, Tim McVeigh.
 
2013-01-18 08:33:02 AM

ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]


Wait wait... you're supposed to have a REASON to drink?

/did anyone get hurt? Nope.
//Even an idiot with a gun can be nice and not crazy.
///sanity is still debatable for -this- piece of hardware.
 
2013-01-18 08:34:13 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.


I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.
 
2013-01-18 08:34:20 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.

Until they decide it's killing time, anyway.

lulz. That's what they are all doing. Just waiting to kill you.

Door: knock knock
HWC: Nooooo!
Door: Gun
HWC: Nooooo! Leave me alone! I don't wanna die! Wait for me to call the cops. The government is here for my protection
Door: hold on, i need someone who gives a rats ass about you to pull the trigger
HWC: OMFG!!!!

[cbsdenver.files.wordpress.com image 300x315]


That's just silly, why go door to door when there are turkey shoots all over town?

That's your hero James Holmes. You know, the responsible legal gun owner that decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore. His real problem seems to be that he hasn't come out and said he did it for freedom. Then he would be revered like your other hero, Tim McVeigh.


Door: knock knock
HWC: Oh noooo! It's james holmes call the cops! They will save me!
Door: You're farking dumber than my knob.
 
2013-01-18 08:34:56 AM
It might take some effort, but we can all still feel threatened and outraged

If you need a high powered rifle to protect yourself while shopping, then yes, you definitely feel threatened.
 
2013-01-18 08:35:02 AM

keylock71: "Look everyone!! My guns are fashion accessories!!"

People like this guy in the story just sound like a bunch of chicken shiat wannabe tough guys.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 470x616]

"Honey? I'm going to Walmart... They're having a sale on fudge cake. Need me to pick you up same tampons?"


"Shotgun News" reader?
 
2013-01-18 08:35:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.


Which is worse, the person who carries a gun around and does not harm anyone, or the ones that want to ban a shotgun just because it has a pistol grip?
 
2013-01-18 08:36:46 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: It's almost like people control their guns and are responsible for the method in which their used.

Until they decide it's killing time, anyway.

lulz. That's what they are all doing. Just waiting to kill you.

Door: knock knock
HWC: Nooooo!
Door: Gun
HWC: Nooooo! Leave me alone! I don't wanna die! Wait for me to call the cops. The government is here for my protection
Door: hold on, i need someone who gives a rats ass about you to pull the trigger
HWC: OMFG!!!!

[cbsdenver.files.wordpress.com image 300x315]


That's just silly, why go door to door when there are turkey shoots all over town?

That's your hero James Holmes. You know, the responsible legal gun owner that decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore. His real problem seems to be that he hasn't come out and said he did it for freedom. Then he would be revered like your other hero, Tim McVeigh.


Do you suffer from constant nosebleeds? Does it ever hurt?
 
2013-01-18 08:37:20 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.


No you can't. You're hoping the government weapons are there to protect you from other people that might have them. You also hope that your government savior can take away any weapons from all the scary people who live in the world. You are the biggest pussy of them all. Scary gun says BOO!
 
2013-01-18 08:38:22 AM

loser0: way south: Deep Contact: Imagine the terror if he lit up a smoke too.

[dl.dropbox.com image 560x322]

That cop -- he has no gun


Funny thing is they invented the game back when anyone could get a gun but no one needed them.

/"Something's rotten in the state of Denmark..."
 
2013-01-18 08:39:13 AM

I live in Virginia, about as Gun nutty a state as exists, and here are the rules:


OC is the act of carrying a firearm (mostly handguns however rifles and shotguns may be OC'd) in plain sight on your person while conducting your daily business. This normally means a handgun secured in a holster on the outside of your clothing much the same way a police officer would carry their weapon. Alternative options would be a shoulder holster, "in the waistband" holster (providing your shirt is tucked in exposing the butt of the handgun) and tactical / drop leg holsters. "In the waistband" holsters are not considered "concealed" under VA law since about 1/3 of the firearm (the butt) is exposed (See example pictures below). Just take care not to let your shirt come un-tucked and cover the firearm if you are not in possession of a CHP. Carrying a firearm in your hands, whether handgun or long gun is not OC! That is considered "brandishing" and it's against the law. The proper way to OC a rifle or shotgun is with a sling, however OC'ing a rifle or shotgun around town is not common and will likely merit you a visit from the police, possibly with guns drawn on you.

source

 
2013-01-18 08:39:44 AM
I am a gun owner. I've had a concealed carry--though I don't have one today, because I don't need one--and I used to be a bouncer. That is just background information though. What I learned over the years was that you don't carry a loaded weapon, especially in public, without good reason.

When I was bouncing, I didn't carry, because in a shuffle, you don't want to lose a loaded weapon, not in a crowded club. Even when hunting, I don't load a weapon, until I actually get to the area where I intend to hunt, because of the chance of accidental discharge. Even with a safety on, the best way to prevent accidents with a weapon, even if you are alone or somewhere remote, is to simply not have it loaded. Trip and fall, sudden stop, crash, whatever, things can happen. You reduce that chance by simply removing the possibility of the weapon firing. In amongst people, a LOT can go wrong, and carrying a loaded weapon in public is not the brightest thing. People can grab the weapon, all sorts of things can go wrong. When I did carry, it was because I was dropping off deposits, and it was in Boston, and near the Combat Zone, and I'm glad I did carry, because those were sort of wild and wooly days, and thankfully, I never had fire at people, and never even had to draw on someone. I was mugged when carrying, by a guy with a knife, and the $75 in my wallet wasn't worth shooting someone over, and in the situation, I never felt that I was in danger if I just cooperated--guess I got lucky that I was mugged by a professional, because he even let me keep the wallet.

While I was bouncing, we were offered stun guns, and pepper spray, and as a team we refused, because when you carry a weapon, you have to think of the environment. Pepper spray is sort of indiscriminate, and gassing patrons who aren't involved in a dust up is a bad idea. And dangerous, if someone has respiratory problems or asthma or the like. Stun guns and tasers can be taken, and used on you or someone else, and that is a recipe for disaster. A gun, in a crowded club is even more so.

I am a gun owner. I like to squeeze off rounds for practice, I like hunting. Shooting is a practical skill, but you have to be responsible with a weapon. Not just for yourself, but those around you. When I was carrying, because I was in a city, I loaded Glaser rounds, because IF I had to shoot, I didn't want to put folks in nearby buildings in danger if I missed. Nothing ruins someone's day like sitting in your living room, and having a round slam into you through a wall or door. You have to think before you carry. Not just carry for kicks, because when you have a tool with you, you carry what you need. You carry a weapon, you have a responsibility not just yourself, but to those around you, because very quickly, folks around you can get brought into a mess if you get into trouble. That means you think about what you need, and the needs of those around you. Carrying, just because, that works for off duty cops. They may need a weapon, and quickly. For security personnel, you have to be careful of those around you, and weigh the options and needs. For a private citizen, you have to be even MOAR careful, because you aren't an officer. You may want to carry in some neighborhoods, on some business, but carrying to a Little League game only increases the risk to those around you--because accidents do happen, and they happen to folks who are careless. Carrying without good reason is an invitation for disaster, and you wander through thick brush and unsure footing with a loaded weapon, you can blow a hole in a tree, but doing in an area that is even thinly populated puts folks at risk. You have to be smart with a weapon, and you have to think.

I am all for the right to bear arms. I have carried in the past, and I'd do it again, easily, but only under the right circumstances, because as a responsible gun owner, I understand that having a loaded weapon IS a responsibility, not just a right. Rights and responsibilities go together, and the exercise of one without the other is asinine.
 
2013-01-18 08:40:14 AM

Farkage: moothemagiccow: Farkage: moothemagiccow: doglover: html_007: I am surprised someone didn't see him walking twoards the entrancet to the mall and thought he may have been coming to the store to shoot it up, and then pull out their concealed handgun and drop a couple rounds into this idiot.

Then you're a moron.

Do you understand the concept of license? You have to pass tests and complete training to get a CCW. Did you see the guy last week who was being assaulted by a guy with a pellet gun but didn't pull his real gun? That's how you're supposed to react.

You're supposed to buy a gun and never use it? Why that's the exact same thing as not having one. Curious.

I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?

If there's a fire in your house, and you don't use it, yes. Someone shot the guy more than once, and he didn't pull the gun. I don't care if it was a pellet gun.

I had a grease fire in my kitchen and I put the lid on the frying pan to take care of it. should I get rid of my fire extinguisher becuse I have proven it isn't, and won't ever be needed?


I guess not, since fire is a real thing that can kill you, your family and neighbors, as opposed to whatever boogieman a gun is supposed to protect you from.
 
2013-01-18 08:41:20 AM

Tat'dGreaser: *head desk*


He kinda has a point, though if you think about it.

Farkage: I bought a fire extinguisher with the intent of never using it. Is that the same as not having one too?


Do you take your fire extinguisher to the mall with you?

way south: Betting your life there isn't one in the chamber?


This is silly. Are you saying that if someone with the initiative, malicious intent, and a concealed handgun draws on an unsuspecting person with a rifle slung over his back, the two are somehow on equal tactical footing because there's one round in the rifle's chamber? That AR-15 is worse than useless.
 
2013-01-18 08:42:37 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

No you can't. You're hoping the government weapons are there to protect you from other people that might have them.


No I'm not. I'm not afraid of the world, you are. I don't even lock my door at night. You own weapons to pretend like you're in control. You're a sad little man who at the very least recognizes how small he is. How often did you get beat up in school? This level of paranoia comes from somewhere.

You also hope that your government savior can take away any weapons from all the scary people who live in the world. You are the biggest pussy of them all. Scary gun says BOO!

One day they will, and you won't do anything about it, because you're a pussy.
 
2013-01-18 08:42:44 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In a way they are helping. They're forcing many people to reveal their true feelings about the subject, that their goal isn't the eradication of gun violence, but the eradication of guns themselves.


This is what they actually believe.
 
2013-01-18 08:42:50 AM
Oh no wait, the gun is actually more likely to kill you, your family, or your neighbors than the boogieman or the fire. Imagine that.
 
2013-01-18 08:44:18 AM

People_are_Idiots: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

Which is worse, the person who carries a gun around and does not harm anyone, or the ones that want to ban a shotgun just because it has a pistol grip?


I don't really understand what scale is being applied here.
 
2013-01-18 08:45:27 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

No you can't. You're hoping the government weapons are there to protect you from other people that might have them.

No I'm not. I'm not afraid of the world, you are. I don't even lock my door at night. You own weapons to pretend like you're in control. You're a sad little man who at the very least recognizes how small he is. How often did you get beat up in school? This level of paranoia comes from somewhere.

You also hope that your government savior can take away any weapons from all the scary people who live in the world. You are the biggest pussy of them all. Scary gun says BOO!

One day they will, and you won't do anything about it, because you're a pussy.


LOL! If you lived in the caveman days you would have protested the power of fire. Such a sad little scared man you are.

/The gun says BOO!
 
2013-01-18 08:46:22 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I don't really understand what scale is being applied here


You don't understand much. Period.
 
2013-01-18 08:48:28 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

No you can't. You're hoping the government weapons are there to protect you from other people that might have them.

No I'm not. I'm not afraid of the world, you are. I don't even lock my door at night. You own weapons to pretend like you're in control. You're a sad little man who at the very least recognizes how small he is. How often did you get beat up in school? This level of paranoia comes from somewhere.

You also hope that your government savior can take away any weapons from all the scary people who live in the world. You are the biggest pussy of them all. Scary gun says BOO!

One day they will, and you won't do anything about it, because you're a pussy.

LOL! If you lived in the caveman days you would have protested the power of fire. Such a sad little scared man you are.

/The gun says BOO!


That's nice honey.

Listen, I saw on the police blotter that they spotted some graffiti a few blocks away from you. You'd better lock up and make sure your gun is clean, there might be a "gang banger" somewhere near by that will get you. I'll let you know when it's safe again.

/the bad guy says BOO
 
2013-01-18 08:49:06 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: I don't really understand what scale is being applied here

You don't understand much. Period.


Sick burn.
 
2013-01-18 08:50:50 AM

muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.


The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.
 
2013-01-18 08:52:01 AM

TommyymmoT: Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?


HE does. Didn't you RTFA? Actions like his offend people (mostly overage children who want someone else to look after them) because it busts their illusion of "Feeling Safe" and makes them realize they aren't. "I don't know why he has a gun or what he intends to do." they say but they leave off admitting that they're thinking "and I'm totally helpless to do anything about it." Especially when they look around and there is not a cop anywhere to be seen. Funny about that, there never is unless you just rolled through a stop sign.
 
2013-01-18 08:53:35 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That's nice honey.

Listen, I saw on the police blotter that they spotted some graffiti a few blocks away from you. You'd better lock up and make sure your gun is clean, there might be a "gang banger" somewhere near by that will get you. I'll let you know when it's safe again.

/the bad guy says BOO


HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: I don't really understand what scale is being applied here

You don't understand much. Period.

Sick burn.


BOO! says the gun. Run away! Run away! There went HWC off into the sunset, shiatting his pants, as people had guns and used their 1st amendment rights to disagree with him. Someday he would come back though as soon as all the non-government weren't armed, and he could feel free to spew his derp across the land again. Thus became the legend of little farking HWC Derp Seed.
 
2013-01-18 08:54:24 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.


And that is strange why? Walked around a local mall twice with a chain saw, nobody gave me even a second glance. (local sears is connected to a mall, bought a couple chain saws there, walked through the mall to my car...) It isn't like a chain saw is the most effective mass murder weapon ever.
 
2013-01-18 08:56:32 AM
How do we know he's a law abiding citizen?  Does he have a special sticker on his gun or something?
 
2013-01-18 08:56:34 AM

smokingcrator: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.

And that is strange why? Walked around a local mall twice with a chain saw, nobody gave me even a second glance. (local sears is connected to a mall, bought a couple chain saws there, walked through the mall to my car...) It isn't like a chain saw is the most effective mass murder weapon ever.


What da fark you need a chainsaw for? Regular old fashioned saw can do the same job. Just ask HWC.
 
2013-01-18 08:58:26 AM

Stimpy's Lost Fart: To me it looks like this guy should be tazed and while he convulses on the floor take his guns from him.


That would certainly make a point in no uncertain terms. "See how easily I took these from you? This is why what you're doing is stupid. Here are your guns back. I'm keeping your ammo."
 
2013-01-18 08:58:27 AM

Z-clipped: cman: So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

You don't have the right to openly carry a loaded rifle in the mall.
This dickhead was "exercising" the tacit permission of the owner of the store (which could be rescinded at any time, for any reason), not his rights.


That is opinion on how rights work. Another way and one I personally describe to is that when you have a right, you can voluntarily give it up by doing something, such as entering a store, but only iff (if and only if) the store requires you too. If the store does not require you to give up the right when you enter it then you don't lose the right and maintain it.
 
2013-01-18 08:58:45 AM

Vodka Zombie: How do we know he's a law abiding citizen?  Does he have a special sticker on his gun or something?


He wears a badge to make HWC not shiat his pants.

/Then HWC cums them
 
2013-01-18 08:59:12 AM

Z-clipped: way south: Betting your life there isn't one in the chamber?

This is silly. Are you saying that if someone with the initiative, malicious intent, and a concealed handgun draws on an unsuspecting person with a rifle slung over his back, the two are somehow on equal tactical footing because there's one round in the rifle's chamber? That AR-15 is worse than useless.


Its not about the tactics.
The question is whether he would make a motion to use his rifle (or the handgun at his side) when you approach him. Because you'll have to commit to murder if he does.
Is a rifle worth twenty years in the pen?

/If the goal is theft then the point of having a gun is to gain compliance.
/A man open carrying two weapons doesn't seem like the complying type, just saying.
/If the goal is murder then you are just as likely to murder an unarmed person from behind.
/More likely, in my view, because the risk of injury is a bigger problem for the predator than the prey.
 
2013-01-18 09:00:19 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-18 09:00:29 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's nice honey.

Listen, I saw on the police blotter that they spotted some graffiti a few blocks away from you. You'd better lock up and make sure your gun is clean, there might be a "gang banger" somewhere near by that will get you. I'll let you know when it's safe again.

/the bad guy says BOO

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: I don't really understand what scale is being applied here

You don't understand much. Period.

Sick burn.

BOO! says the gun. Run away! Run away! There went HWC off into the sunset, shiatting his pants, as people had guns and used their 1st amendment rights to disagree with him.


Says the man that can't leave his shack without being armed and has serious buttconsternation that I'm using speech he disagrees with.
 
2013-01-18 09:00:31 AM

Mentat: Well, I'm sure that makes the families of 20 dead first graders feel better.


I worry about how these people feel.

ALL DAY

EVERY DAY

It's crippling.
 
2013-01-18 09:00:58 AM

Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.


Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-01-18 09:01:33 AM

I drunk what: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 768x432]


Believe it or not, flamethrowers are legal in most places

/But stupid
 
2013-01-18 09:02:42 AM
Damn, seems I've got a new fan.
 
2013-01-18 09:04:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.


I think you should move to Flint, Michigan. I'd give you an afternoon before you had brown stains in your underwear and were carrying, legal or not.
 
2013-01-18 09:04:49 AM

Xenomech: Tat'dGreaser: Xenomech: What an idiot. Who brings a rifle into a close-quarters combat zone?

Say whaaaa?

Rifles are for longer range fire. You'd want a sub-machinegun or a combat shotgun if you're going toe-to-toe with baddies around tight corners in between the aisles of a department store.


Or a Ford Fiesta. It has a nice boot if you're some sort of mafia game ranger. And the backseat, while it doesn't fold flat, accommodates the average 2.2 children. And everyone knows baddies drive corvettes.
 
2013-01-18 09:05:05 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's nice honey.

Listen, I saw on the police blotter that they spotted some graffiti a few blocks away from you. You'd better lock up and make sure your gun is clean, there might be a "gang banger" somewhere near by that will get you. I'll let you know when it's safe again.

/the bad guy says BOO

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: I don't really understand what scale is being applied here

You don't understand much. Period.

Sick burn.

BOO! says the gun. Run away! Run away! There went HWC off into the sunset, shiatting his pants, as people had guns and used their 1st amendment rights to disagree with him.

Says the man that can't leave his shack without being armed and has serious buttconsternation that I'm using speech he disagrees with.


Did I ever say i go everywhere armed? No. I don't go armed anywhere. I find it hilarious that you are shiatting yourself over the evil guns though that might just jump out and kill you anywhere. Do you fear tire swings too? Meanwhile I'm sure you have been in a car sometime in the last 24 hours.
 
2013-01-18 09:05:18 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


Wouldn't want any children made in this nasty incident.
 
2013-01-18 09:06:08 AM

FlashHarry: wow, what a farking little cowardly asshole


You mean the manager that didn't ask him to leave?
 
2013-01-18 09:08:08 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.


CSB time:

Your new fan was the very first person I put on my ignore list when I came to Fark.
 
2013-01-18 09:08:22 AM

hinten: muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.

The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.


Well, if you trust you and your families lives to police response times in a break-in, you could be onto something. Maybe you could stall them with your gov't is my representation schtick. It worked for this guy.

Wife and daughters raped and Murdered while the police waited outside
 
2013-01-18 09:09:32 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

I think you should move to Flint, Michigan. I'd give you an afternoon before you had brown stains in your underwear and were carrying, legal or not.


I grew up in a shiat neighborhood with crackheads lighting up on my stoop. I assure you, I would manage to make it to the toilet for any defecating needs that might arise.

Well wait....do they still have plumbing in Flint?
 
2013-01-18 09:10:35 AM
"He had the assault rifle over his shoulder," Yorgason said.

Even some gun advocates agree that carrying a high powered rifle into a busy store wasn't appropriate.

What evidence is there that this was either of those things? Did someone run the serial number? Why don't we arrest media people for printing baseless statements?
 
2013-01-18 09:11:18 AM

Vodka Zombie: HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.

CSB time:

Your new fan was the very first person I put on my ignore list when I came to Fark.


I'll never understand people who feel the need to tell everyone about their ignore list. It's like advertising that you're a giant vagina.
 
2013-01-18 09:11:40 AM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.

People like him are the reason I can't trust the rest of you, because there's probably quite a few of them to every responsible one. Pro bono publico dominates all.


So how many people do you think own rifles in that town? One idiot takes his rifle to the mall but there are more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones? How does that math work?
 
2013-01-18 09:12:03 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.


Damn, seems you are the same you. Never learned a thing in his life and is still hoping some government out there will save him from the bogey man.
 
2013-01-18 09:12:32 AM
Is this all that different than the time when guys would go about carrying swords all day? As long as he doesn't use it I don't have a problem with it.
 
2013-01-18 09:13:21 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

I think you should move to Flint, Michigan. I'd give you an afternoon before you had brown stains in your underwear and were carrying, legal or not.

I grew up in a shiat neighborhood with crackheads lighting up on my stoop. I assure you, I would manage to make it to the toilet for any defecating needs that might arise.

Well wait....do they still have plumbing in Flint?


No. That's why you are shiatting all over fark
 
2013-01-18 09:14:48 AM

TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.


It's just SOOOO CLEVER the way that when you can't think of anything else to say you throw out the insults. Just precious, I bet you get lots of laughs from the grown ups.
 
2013-01-18 09:15:23 AM

muck4doo: Did I ever say i go everywhere armed? No. I don't go armed anywhere.


OMG why do you hate guns so much?

I find it hilarious that you are shiatting yourself over the evil guns though that might just jump out and kill you anywhere.

I keep telling you that I'm unafraid of your guns. You are obviously unhinged and should make a good test case for the new mental health measures that have to be put in place. In the meantime, I hope your handlers have that hockey helmet on you tight, and have duct taped oven mitts to your hands.

Do you fear tire swings too? Meanwhile I'm sure you have been in a car sometime in the last 24 hours.

Again, I don't live in fear like you do.
 
2013-01-18 09:15:51 AM

Abacus9: Fubini: The store would have been entirely within their rights to require him to leave. The fact that didn't happen tells you something about the gun attitude in the area versus the woman. It also sounds like the reporter talked to the man, but doesn't ask the obvious question (Why are you carrying your rifle into a store?)

I know of a lot of people who don't like to leave their guns unattended in public (even in their car). Say you're out hunting or going to the range and if you need to stop for coffee or a bathroom or something.

Why did he even need to have it with him on a trip to the store? It's an assault rifle.


I would bet you one million dollars that it wasn't.
 
2013-01-18 09:16:54 AM

Brontes: One way we have to evaluate many of these policies is to ask would the policies have made a difference to the shooters who we've had in recent memory. Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes all bought their guns legally from dealers. The Columbine shooters and Adam Lanza in Connecticut didn't buy their guns at all. They just took their guns from relatives, and they would have been completely outside this factual evaluation system.

We need every gun purchase to go with a background check, other than that, hopefully congress won't do much.

/links go to seperate NPR stories worth reading / listening to


Well, Cho was defined violently mentally ill before hand. The judge that released him after the involuntary commitment didn't fill out the form correctly; if I recall the story I heard. Failed to check the right box to revoke gun ownership, or did check the box but didn't initial and sign next to it. Something paperwork related like that. Had the federal background database been given that information from the hospital, such as "hey, this guy is in for 72 hours for threatening to kill people" he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used.

/professor had the flu so I skipped classes that morning
//sister wasn't working that day at what his manefesto claimed would have been the next target
 
2013-01-18 09:17:18 AM

hubiestubert: I am a gun owner. I've had a concealed carry--though I don't have one today, because I don't need one--and I used to be a bouncer. That is just background information though. What I learned over the years was that you don't carry a loaded weapon, especially in public, without good reason.

When I was bouncing, I didn't carry, because in a shuffle, you don't want to lose a loaded weapon, not in a crowded club. Even when hunting, I don't load a weapon, until I actually get to the area where I intend to hunt, because of the chance of accidental discharge. Even with a safety on, the best way to prevent accidents with a weapon, even if you are alone or somewhere remote, is to simply not have it loaded. Trip and fall, sudden stop, crash, whatever, things can happen. You reduce that chance by simply removing the possibility of the weapon firing. In amongst people, a LOT can go wrong, and carrying a loaded weapon in public is not the brightest thing. People can grab the weapon, all sorts of things can go wrong. When I did carry, it was because I was dropping off deposits, and it was in Boston, and near the Combat Zone, and I'm glad I did carry, because those were sort of wild and wooly days, and thankfully, I never had fire at people, and never even had to draw on someone. I was mugged when carrying, by a guy with a knife, and the $75 in my wallet wasn't worth shooting someone over, and in the situation, I never felt that I was in danger if I just cooperated--guess I got lucky that I was mugged by a professional, because he even let me keep the wallet.

While I was bouncing, we were offered stun guns, and pepper spray, and as a team we refused, because when you carry a weapon, you have to think of the environment. Pepper spray is sort of indiscriminate, and gassing patrons who aren't involved in a dust up is a bad idea. And dangerous, if someone has respiratory problems or asthma or the like. Stun guns and tasers can be taken, and used on you or someone else, and that is a ...



Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.
 
2013-01-18 09:18:22 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.

Damn, seems you are the same you. Never learned a thing in his life and is still hoping some government out there will save him from the bogey man.


Dear Superfan,

I appreciate your support. One day you'll be all grown up and can be like me.

Yours in Christ,
-HotWing
 
2013-01-18 09:22:59 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Vodka Zombie: HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.

CSB time:

Your new fan was the very first person I put on my ignore list when I came to Fark.

I'll never understand people who feel the need to tell everyone about their ignore list. It's like advertising that you're a giant vagina.


Some people like giant vaginas.  Giant penises, for example.

Which, leaves me puzzled as to why you are not more excited.  If nothing else, I'd think you'd be all up on this giant vagina.
 
2013-01-18 09:23:45 AM
crab66
you sound tough

Because I think it's okay with a legal gun owner carrying their gun legally, and without incident?
(even if they're rednecky fat guys)
I don't personally feel the need to carry a weapon around with me
outside of work
but I like that I can, or take it on trips
and it lets me avoid dealing with the tsa

now if you'll excuse me, I have to go home and refill your mom's water dish
 
2013-01-18 09:23:57 AM

Callous: Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.

Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]




lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-18 09:24:10 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: Did I ever say i go everywhere armed? No. I don't go armed anywhere.

OMG why do you hate guns so much?

I find it hilarious that you are shiatting yourself over the evil guns though that might just jump out and kill you anywhere.

I keep telling you that I'm unafraid of your guns. You are obviously unhinged and should make a good test case for the new mental health measures that have to be put in place. In the meantime, I hope your handlers have that hockey helmet on you tight, and have duct taped oven mitts to your hands.

Do you fear tire swings too? Meanwhile I'm sure you have been in a car sometime in the last 24 hours.

Again, I don't live in fear like you do.


I'm not the one calling to ban guns from stranger danger, am I? You are spooked, we can all tell. Can you point to us on the doll where you were touched? You have issues in your life you need to get cleared up. It's so sad you think a gun is going to jump out and kill you. Did it ever occur to you nobody cares about you that much?
 
2013-01-18 09:24:13 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: computerguyUT: We're not safe enough yet! We need Obummer to make us safffer!!

I like that the nutters that need weapons to leave their house feel that everyone else is safety obsessed.

I don't like it that the pants shiatters like yourself are willing to step all over everyone elses right's just because you think some evil gun is going to jump out at you someday and kill you. Especially those scary black ones.

I can leave my house with no weapons, pussy.

I think you should move to Flint, Michigan. I'd give you an afternoon before you had brown stains in your underwear and were carrying, legal or not.

I grew up in a shiat neighborhood with crackheads lighting up on my stoop. I assure you, I would manage to make it to the toilet for any defecating needs that might arise.

Well wait....do they still have plumbing in Flint?


I don't think they do, actually. Not anymore at least.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly saying what this dude did was the right idea or even a remotely good one. It gets tiring when people that don't like guns constantly imply that if you have one or carry one that you are an insane borderline killer that just can't wait to go all Rambo on some bad guys. Or that we are just one parking ticket away from killing dozens of people. Honestly, it gets tiring. there are 80-100 MILLION of us around in this country, and the vast majority of gun crime happens in inner city gang/drug activity, but I haven't heard anything from the Prez about that. Nothing. But it's "just common sense" to ban a class of firearms barely ever used in crime because it makes people that don't know any better feel good because the scary ones are illegal now. High hapacity mag bans won't change anything, because the people in the cities killing each other fire an average (I believe, correct me if I'm wong) of less than 3 bullets. For the record, I am against ANY law that won't actually fix the problem it is designed to fix. "We feel that this will" is not fixing it. It is pretending to do something.
 
2013-01-18 09:24:48 AM
In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

www.theblaze.com
frgdr.com
libertylinked.com

Just sayin'....
 
2013-01-18 09:25:41 AM

hinten: muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.

The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.


Bahahhahahha this post is PERFECT.
Maybe you can get your free Obamaphone while you're waiting for the government to come over and wipe your bottom for you.
 
2013-01-18 09:26:13 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Damn, seems I've got a new fan.

Damn, seems you are the same you. Never learned a thing in his life and is still hoping some government out there will save him from the bogey man.

Dear Superfan,

I appreciate your support. One day you'll be all grown up and can be like me.

Yours in Christ,
-HotWing


Just voted this for funny
 
2013-01-18 09:27:34 AM

ykarie: Brontes: One way we have to evaluate many of these policies is to ask would the policies have made a difference to the shooters who we've had in recent memory. Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes all bought their guns legally from dealers. The Columbine shooters and Adam Lanza in Connecticut didn't buy their guns at all. They just took their guns from relatives, and they would have been completely outside this factual evaluation system.

We need every gun purchase to go with a background check, other than that, hopefully congress won't do much.

/links go to seperate NPR stories worth reading / listening to

Well, Cho was defined violently mentally ill before hand. The judge that released him after the involuntary commitment didn't fill out the form correctly; if I recall the story I heard. Failed to check the right box to revoke gun ownership, or did check the box but didn't initial and sign next to it. Something paperwork related like that. Had the federal background database been given that information from the hospital, such as "hey, this guy is in for 72 hours for threatening to kill people" he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used.

/professor had the flu so I skipped classes that morning
//sister wasn't working that day at what his manefesto claimed would have been the next target


You a fellow Hokie?
 
2013-01-18 09:27:52 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: Did I ever say i go everywhere armed? No. I don't go armed anywhere.

OMG why do you hate guns so much?

I find it hilarious that you are shiatting yourself over the evil guns though that might just jump out and kill you anywhere.

I keep telling you that I'm unafraid of your guns. You are obviously unhinged and should make a good test case for the new mental health measures that have to be put in place. In the meantime, I hope your handlers have that hockey helmet on you tight, and have duct taped oven mitts to your hands.

Do you fear tire swings too? Meanwhile I'm sure you have been in a car sometime in the last 24 hours.

Again, I don't live in fear like you do.

I'm not the one calling to ban guns from stranger danger, am I?


I've never called for a gun ban.

It's so sad you think a gun is going to jump out and kill you.

That's silly, I never said that.

Did it ever occur to you nobody cares about you that much?

You care about me, superfan.
 
2013-01-18 09:28:11 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


Or if the person was a women as was breastfeeding someone would have complained because God forbid someone might see the women's nipple.

Still, as someone mention before, if this keeps up some other "law abiding" citizen is going to shoot one of these people, especially if the person just carrying a rifle isn't white.
 
2013-01-18 09:29:43 AM

untaken_name: Freezer: Fubini: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Do you get the vapors when you see police with service pistols?

No, I effin don't, but this dorkus isn't the police. Furthermore, the rest of these wannabe's aren't the army or the malitia, or the police either. Their a bunch of short dicks that haven't got anything better to do. The majority of these turdblossoms have about as much situational training as a can of vienna sausages. Knowing how to fire a weapon does not equal knowing when to fire it.

And it's your contention that police have mastered the "when to fire it" thing? Really? What non-Earth planet do you reside on?


Surely they have. Here in Seattle, it is when they are walking away from you and are whittling with a pocket knife.
 
2013-01-18 09:29:58 AM
I wonder if a jury would convict someone who put down one of these guys because they mistakenly thought they were there for a shooting rampage. It would of course depend on the specific circumstances and who was selected for the jury but I could see someone getting acquitted if it were determined to be a genuine mistake.
 
2013-01-18 09:31:53 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Those are all active military personal. I guess your point is US soldiers should walk around armed on American streets?
 
drp
2013-01-18 09:33:01 AM
I own many guns, and am a single issue 2A voter.

This guy probably thinks that by exercising his right to open carry, he's protecting it that right. He is a moron.

A year or two ago, a bunch of California gun owners got the idea that by legally open carrying all the time, they could draw attention to responsible gun ownership and the state's arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional concealed carry permit issuing policies (which vary tremendously from county to county). Result: the state banned open carry.

You're not helping, moron.
 
2013-01-18 09:34:31 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.


You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?
 
2013-01-18 09:34:33 AM

maxalt: I'll bet if that happened with a few farkers shopping that the sale of under pants would increase dramatically. Oh wait three problems with that one farkers hardly leave moms basement so they would not be there, also it's not Tuesday so most farkers would not change their under garments under any circumstances.


Interesting commentary from someone using a paid Fark account.
 
2013-01-18 09:35:38 AM

computerguyUT: hinten: muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.

The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.

Bahahhahahha this post is PERFECT.
Maybe you can get your free Obamaphone while you're waiting for the government to come over and wipe your bottom for you.


Surely, wiping my ass is the same as outsourcing my protection to someone that knows what they are doing.
 
2013-01-18 09:36:45 AM

This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.


Doubt it- too small to see, hence the need to parade around like that.
 
2013-01-18 09:36:53 AM

Farkage: Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly saying what this dude did was the right idea or even a remotely good one. It gets tiring when people that don't like guns constantly imply that if you have one or carry one that you are an insane borderline killer that just can't wait to go all Rambo on some bad guys. Or that we are just one parking ticket away from killing dozens of people. Honestly, it gets tiring. there are 80-100 MILLION of us around in this country, and the vast majority of gun crime happens in inner city gang/drug activity, but I haven't heard anything from the Prez about that. Nothing. But it's "just common sense" to ban a class of firearms barely ever used in crime because it makes people that don't know any better feel good because the scary ones are illegal now. High hapacity mag bans won't change anything, because the people in the cities killing each other fire an average (I believe, correct me if I'm wong) of less than 3 bullets. For the record, I am against ANY law that won't actually fix the problem it is designed to fix. "We feel that this will" is not fixing it. It is pretending to do something.


I keep reading this same sentiment and I have to say it's absurd. The idea that law enforcement and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about inner city crime is simply false.

I see people pull this argument out in the same threads they cite statistics showing falling violent crime rates.

Plus if you want to do something, my answer is to start a focus on handguns. Want to guess how that plays with the people complaining about how assault rifles aren't the "Real" problem?
 
2013-01-18 09:37:40 AM

drp: I own many guns, and am a single issue 2A voter.

This guy probably thinks that by exercising his right to open carry, he's protecting it that right. He is a moron.

A year or two ago, a bunch of California gun owners got the idea that by legally open carrying all the time, they could draw attention to responsible gun ownership and the state's arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional concealed carry permit issuing policies (which vary tremendously from county to county). Result: the state banned open carry.

You're not helping, moron.


It was the 60's and a bunch of scary black men called the "Black Panther" party that open carried on sacramento that got the state to put in those draconian laws. Learn the history right.
 
2013-01-18 09:37:49 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Sure.  But, they are trained, living in a country that's perpetually at war, and, most importantly, look at their muzzles as opposed to this imbecile, for example:
img.ksl.com

When a Middle Eastern girl has better gun smarts than your dumb American ass, you really should not be walking around with the damn thing.
 
2013-01-18 09:38:55 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.


False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.
 
2013-01-18 09:39:46 AM

hinten: Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.


Not really. The problem isn't gun control. In part, idiots like this are "exercising their rights" because of the ridiculousness of the debate on guns.

The difficulty is weapons aren't the real issue. The real issue is crime. BOTH sides of the gun control debate, are concerned with crime. Well, not the NRA, as they are looking to boost sales and memberships, but when we talk about gun control, we are actually talking about crime and accidents. The problem is that folks are focused on the tools, and not the REAL problems.

You want to reduce crime in this country--violent crime that is--then we need to focus on the causes and factors that lead folks down that road. That means taking a hard look at economic policy, economic mobility, education, drug policy, health care both mental and physical, and matters of social justice. Those are really hard issues. Those mean taking a long look in a deep, dark truthful mirror, and no one wants a Big Bowl of Truth in their living room. It invites way too much introspection and it would mean sacrificing some very hard held myths that Americans hold dear. About "opportunity" about "fairness" and about what sort of society that we've created.

It's a lot easier to focus on the tools, and to equate the tools used in these crimes with "freedom" and load the debate with a lot of other crap that means that we can focus on ANYTHING else but the fact that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and not have to face cleaning it up.

Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

In part, we are having pangs, as we move from a responsibility based culture, to a more face based culture. Folks want the appearance of responsibility, while ducking them at every opportunity, so long as it looks good, we're fine with it. A family man, a law and order type of lawmaker is fine, up until it's discovered that he likes hookers and is embezzling, and that only blows up when he's caught red handed, and even THEN folks will line up because he sounded nice, you know, up until folks realize that he was a hypocritical douche. That is far more the issue than just the tools. We need to take some responsibility for the culture that we've created, and the conditions that we put ourselves in. Arguing about the tools does nothing to alleviate them, and it only provides distraction from the hard work that we need to do--which, I suppose is sort of the point. Far better to argue about guns and freedom, than look at why we waste so much cash on OTHER things, not while folks can keep dangling "FREEEEEDOM" as a easy to digest concept, while legislating the crap out of it...
 
2013-01-18 09:40:50 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly saying what this dude did was the right idea or even a remotely good one. It gets tiring when people that don't like guns constantly imply that if you have one or carry one that you are an insane borderline killer that just can't wait to go all Rambo on some bad guys. Or that we are just one parking ticket away from killing dozens of people. Honestly, it gets tiring. there are 80-100 MILLION of us around in this country, and the vast majority of gun crime happens in inner city gang/drug activity, but I haven't heard anything from the Prez about that. Nothing. But it's "just common sense" to ban a class of firearms barely ever used in crime because it makes people that don't know any better feel good because the scary ones are illegal now. High hapacity mag bans won't change anything, because the people in the cities killing each other fire an average (I believe, correct me if I'm wong) of less than 3 bullets. For the record, I am against ANY law that won't actually fix the problem it is designed to fix. "We feel that this will" is not fixing it. It is pretending to do something.

I keep reading this same sentiment and I have to say it's absurd. The idea that law enforcement and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about inner city crime is simply false.

I see people pull this argument out in the same threads they cite statistics showing falling violent crime rates.

Plus if you want to do something, my answer is to start a focus on handguns. Want to guess how that plays with the people complaining about how assault rifles aren't the "Real" problem?


So you are now admitting the "Assault Rifle" ban is now silly?
 
2013-01-18 09:41:32 AM

Bladel: I wonder what would happen if two such asshats would target the same store on the same day for this stunt.

Would the immediately recognize each other as kindred souls?

Or more likely, would they both assume the other was coming for their gun, and turn the Food Court in to a 21st Century OK Coral?


They'd try and find the nearest men's room so that they could discuss their mutual 'wide stance' on open carry.
 
2013-01-18 09:41:39 AM
Sad that he's using such a crap-tastic looking firearm. Seriously, Magpul makes their accessories in lots-o-colors for a reason, so you can coordinate all your pieces. It's fine for the upper and lower to be black, but for the love of fashion man, OD green vert foregrip and Pmag with everything else black? Have you no taste!

Also, that sling.... ugh... Get a 1 point and hang it the way it's meant to be hung!
 
2013-01-18 09:42:40 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.


Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.
 
2013-01-18 09:42:59 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly saying what this dude did was the right idea or even a remotely good one. It gets tiring when people that don't like guns constantly imply that if you have one or carry one that you are an insane borderline killer that just can't wait to go all Rambo on some bad guys. Or that we are just one parking ticket away from killing dozens of people. Honestly, it gets tiring. there are 80-100 MILLION of us around in this country, and the vast majority of gun crime happens in inner city gang/drug activity, but I haven't heard anything from the Prez about that. Nothing. But it's "just common sense" to ban a class of firearms barely ever used in crime because it makes people that don't know any better feel good because the scary ones are illegal now. High hapacity mag bans won't change anything, because the people in the cities killing each other fire an average (I believe, correct me if I'm wong) of less than 3 bullets. For the record, I am against ANY law that won't actually fix the problem it is designed to fix. "We feel that this will" is not fixing it. It is pretending to do something.

I keep reading this same sentiment and I have to say it's absurd. The idea that law enforcement and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about inner city crime is simply false.

I see people pull this argument out in the same threads they cite statistics showing falling violent crime rates.

Plus if you want to do something, my answer is to start a focus on handguns. Want to guess how that plays with the people complaining about how assault rifles aren't the "Real" problem?

So you are now admitting the "Assault Rifle" ban is now silly?


An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.
 
2013-01-18 09:43:11 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?


I wish people would realize how silly this argument is. No one actually thinks it's the gun and not the person who is responsible for gun violence. No one blames the tool over the individual. It's a straw man argument.
 
2013-01-18 09:43:48 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Xenomech: Rifles are for longer range fire. You'd want a sub-machinegun or a combat shotgun if you're going toe-to-toe with baddies around tight corners in between the aisles of a department store.

I don't know, the US military thinks differently.


It does not appear so. It seems they prefer a carbine over a rifle for close quarters combat.

Other military or police groups specializing in close quarters combat (e.g. SWAT, Canadian special forces) don't appear to think differently either.
 
2013-01-18 09:44:23 AM

violentsalvation: I see people in stores with pistols on their belts fairly often and unless they look like they just got off a horse and are looking for new Levis I usually think ATTENTION WHORE. It doesn't bother me, it isn't news-worthy. But I know it bothers some people. And then there's these jackoffs who don't think a pistol is enough, they have to bring out the AR. Cocksuckers are so assholish with their rights that they would scare others into voting the rights away.


I guess I just don't get it. I live way out in deep flyover country, where guns are an everyday way of life. Most people (including myself and my children) grow up around guns and learn how to use them at an early age. It's a pretty good bet that 9 out of 10 homes around me have multiple guns inside them. I know at least a dozen people with concealed carry permits. Do you know how many guns I see out in public on an average day? NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. I don't think I've EVER seen someone walking around town with a pistol on their belt, much less with an AR on their shoulder. Pretty much the only time you see guns out in public is during hunting season, and then it's usually tourists in blaze orange showing off their $5,000 shotgun that they will use once and then put into storage. The guys that I know who have CC permits have them so that they can keep their handgun in the glove box in the pickup in case they see a coon (not that kind, ya racist), skunk, coyote, etc. I know that there is a perception out there that rural South Dakota is kind of the Wild West, but it seems like it's mostly idiots in urban areas that like to walk around like it's the 1800's and they're deep in Injun territory.

I'm what Fark would consider a gun nut. I own several, love to hunt and shoot for fun, and I oppose the AWB. I still don't get idiots like this. I like my guns and don't want to give them up, but I don't go around brandishing them in public like I'm Wild Bill Hickok. People like that make me nervous.

//fun fact: We used to have an anchor lady on our local news named Lexy Hickok, who was a direct descendent of Wild Bill.
 
2013-01-18 09:44:48 AM

Turbo Cojones: keylock71: "Look everyone!! My guns are fashion accessories!!"

People like this guy in the story just sound like a bunch of chicken shiat wannabe tough guys.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 470x616]

"Honey? I'm going to Walmart... They're having a sale on fudge cake. Need me to pick you up same tampons?"

"Shotgun News" reader?


Heh... I'm sure he subscribes to many magazines about guns.

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting. Love shooting clay pigeons and target shooting and I've had my F.I.D. card since I was 19, but guys like the clown in the article and the dough boy in that picture just make firearm owners look ridiculous... And the NRA, in order to increase sales for gun manufacturers (The NRA's real constituency), pander to these scared shiatless clowns.

I can pretty much guarantee the violent crime rate in my city is higher than where ever that idiot was in Utah, yet, I've never felt the need to carry my firearms around with me when I walk down to the shop to get some eggs.

Like I said, these idiots look at their firearms like fashion accessories... some sort of projection of their manhood. It's pretty pathetic.
 
2013-01-18 09:46:38 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.


Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.
 
2013-01-18 09:46:45 AM

HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.


facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct
 
2013-01-18 09:47:04 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I keep reading this same sentiment and I have to say it's absurd. The idea that law enforcement and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about inner city crime is simply false.

I see people pull this argument out in the same threads they cite statistics showing falling violent crime rates.

Plus if you want to do something, my answer is to start a focus on handguns. Want to guess how that plays with the people complaining about how assault rifles aren't the "Real" problem?


I believe you missed my point. If "Assault Weapons" aren't the problem, why are people screaming to ban them? If Law abiding permit holders aren't the problem, why are people trying to restrict their rights?
I didn't say law enforcement isn't working on inner city crime. I didn't even imply that. What I said was the Prez didn't say or do anything to solve it.
Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!) Saying that limiting magazines I own to no more than 10 rounds will stop inner city gangs from killing each other is silly at best.
True story: A guy I grew up with was a convicted felon (armed robbery, used a knife I believe). He had 6 DWIs as well and had been previously busted on drug charges. He got caught across state lines (he lived in New York) in New Canaan, CT driving drunk with a loaded .44 revolver in the back seat. They gave him a year in jail and a $1000 fine. Think about that...a convicted felon, driving drunk, that carried a loaded gun (already illegal for him to posess) across state lines, and they in essence told him to promise not to be a bad boy anymore. Please tell me you see a problem here.
 
MFK
2013-01-18 09:48:06 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


You will notice that all of those pictures featuring ACTUAL SOLDIERS have one thing in common that sets them apart from our douchebag at JC Pennys and that is that their weapons are clearly unloaded.
 
2013-01-18 09:48:09 AM

moothemagiccow: Oh no wait, the gun is actually more likely to kill you, your family, or your neighbors than the boogieman or the fire. Imagine that.


That is a BS statistic that includes suicides. Suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves with or without a gun. Lack of treatment is the issue in those cases, not the presence of a inanimate object. What happens when you compare the amount of "accidental" shootings to the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime? Home invasions resulting in death of the home owner are a weekly occurrence here, we had one two days ago. Statistically it is not likely to have an invasion in your home, but it is absurd to act like it does not occur and even worse to shame people that have decided to give themselves he option to defend themselves.
 
2013-01-18 09:49:23 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct


My logic is unassailable.
 
2013-01-18 09:50:45 AM

Xenomech: It does not appear so. It seems they prefer a carbine over a rifle for close quarters combat.

Other military or police groups specializing in close quarters combat (e.g. SWAT, Canadian special forces) don't appear to think differently either.


Ummm you don't know what a carbine is do you?
 
2013-01-18 09:51:30 AM

thaylin: That is opinion on how rights work. Another way and one I personally describe to is that when you have a right, you can voluntarily give it up by doing something, such as entering a store, but only iff (if and only if) the store requires you too. If the store does not require you to give up the right when you enter it then you don't lose the right and maintain it.


Can't argue with that logic... because it makes no sense. No one can "require" you to give up your rights. You can waive your rights, or someone can violate them. Laws cannot proscribe rights. If a law can limit your behavior without violating your rights, you didn't have a right to the behavior in the first place.

You do not have the right to carry a weapon into a private residence or place of business without the owner's consent. Period. You also don't have the right to open carry, or concealed carry a loaded firearm. You are allowed these privileges by law in some places.

way south: The question is whether he would make a motion to use his rifle (or the handgun at his side) when you approach him. Because you'll have to commit to murder if he does.


What the hell are you talking about? Attempting to draw a slung or holstered firearm when you've already lost the initiative and are standing at barrel's end is about the quickest way to die I can think of. You're saying THAT's what a highly-trained civilian gun owner is likely to do!? What you're proposing is ridiculous. It presupposes rational behavior on the part of the criminal, and irrational behavior on the part of the victim.

Is a rifle worth twenty years in the pen?

10 for armed robbery/assault with a deadly vs. 20 for murder? Two stories, vs. one? Seems like a wash to me. But this is irrelevant. Your assailant has already drawn on you. He can kill you any time he wishes. Your slung rifle is not only useless, it's a liability. And it was never anything BUT a liability for the purpose of self-defense.
 
2013-01-18 09:51:56 AM

TommyymmoT: You must have to be a complete pussy to feel the need to carry a rifle just to go buy socks.


Pretty much this. It must suck to go through life being so scared and paranoid.
 
2013-01-18 09:53:53 AM

hubiestubert: Callous: Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.

Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]


Got anything better than insults?

Didn't think so...
 
2013-01-18 09:55:15 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: I keep reading this same sentiment and I have to say it's absurd. The idea that law enforcement and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about inner city crime is simply false.

I see people pull this argument out in the same threads they cite statistics showing falling violent crime rates.

Plus if you want to do something, my answer is to start a focus on handguns. Want to guess how that plays with the people complaining about how assault rifles aren't the "Real" problem?

I believe you missed my point. If "Assault Weapons" aren't the problem, why are people screaming to ban them?


Assault weapons are "a" problem, and what "the" problem is is a matter of opinion.

If Law abiding permit holders aren't the problem, why are people trying to restrict their rights?

I don't know what to say aside from laws are generally written for the lowest common denominator. I'd like to use my phone when I drive, I'm confident in my ability to do it. But I can't where I live because it's illegal. Why is it illegal? Because idiots that aren't very good at driving and talking are dangerous for everyone else. So now I'm restricted due to idiots. This is true of MANY laws.

I didn't say law enforcement isn't working on inner city crime. I didn't even imply that. What I said was the Prez didn't say or do anything to solve it.

Yes, I disagree.

Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

True story: A guy I grew up with was a convicted felon (armed robbery, used a knife I believe). He had 6 DWIs as well and had been previously busted on drug charges. He got caught across state lines (he lived in New York) in New Canaan, CT driving drunk with a loaded .44 revolver in the back seat. They gave him a year in jail and a $1000 fine. Think about that...a convicted felon, driving drunk, that carried a loaded gun (already illegal for him to posess) across state lines, and they in essence told him to promise not to be a bad boy anymore. Please tell me you see a problem here.

Doesn't sound very common honestly. I guess he's lucky?
 
2013-01-18 09:58:04 AM

Robert Farker: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?

I wish people would realize how silly this argument is. No one actually thinks it's the gun and not the person who is responsible for gun violence. No one blames the tool over the individual. It's a straw man argument.


Then why are the proposing a ban on the tool?
 
2013-01-18 09:58:38 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Xenomech: It does not appear so. It seems they prefer a carbine over a rifle for close quarters combat.

Other military or police groups specializing in close quarters combat (e.g. SWAT, Canadian special forces) don't appear to think differently either.

Ummm you don't know what a carbine is do you?


A carbine is like a rifle -- they're both longarms -- but shorter.  Their smaller size makes them easier to wield in close combat.
 
2013-01-18 09:59:36 AM

Callous: hubiestubert: Callous: Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.

Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]

Got anything better than insults?

Didn't think so...




lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-18 10:01:24 AM
He's lucky someone didn't decide to "stand their ground" against him for feeling threatened.
 
2013-01-18 10:02:44 AM

ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.


A JC Penny's is not YOUR place of business...even if you're the manager...
You're bound by CORPORATE rules and if corporate rules dictate they're ok with Utah's open carry law, then no, biatch...you wouldn't have said shiat to him except, "Will that be all, sir?" as you rang up his order.
 
2013-01-18 10:04:13 AM

Rawhead Rex: You're bound by CORPORATE rules


LOL
 
2013-01-18 10:04:27 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.

Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.


Look, I know you mean well. You don't want to see kids getting killed, and neither do I. It breaks our hearts. When i get attacked(yes, i take attacks on gun owners personally, funny as they may be), I do get nasty back. In the end this gets us nowhere. You know that. I know that. Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.
 
2013-01-18 10:06:23 AM

Rawhead Rex: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

A JC Penny's is not YOUR place of business...even if you're the manager...
You're bound by CORPORATE rules and if corporate rules dictate they're ok with Utah's open carry law, then no, biatch...you wouldn't have said shiat to him except, "Will that be all, sir?" as you rang up his order.


I SERIOUSLY doubt JCPenny has a corporate rule stating that. Or any department store for that matter that isn't a sporting goods store. I'm also not sure you understand what a store manager's job is.
 
2013-01-18 10:07:17 AM
Well.... If any crazed killer walked in to massacre everybody, he'd be the first target.
 
drp
2013-01-18 10:07:25 AM

muck4doo: drp: I own many guns, and am a single issue 2A voter.

This guy probably thinks that by exercising his right to open carry, he's protecting it that right. He is a moron.

A year or two ago, a bunch of California gun owners got the idea that by legally open carrying all the time, they could draw attention to responsible gun ownership and the state's arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional concealed carry permit issuing policies (which vary tremendously from county to county). Result: the state banned open carry.

You're not helping, moron.

It was the 60's and a bunch of scary black men called the "Black Panther" party that open carried on sacramento that got the state to put in those draconian laws. Learn the history right.


Uh, I'm referring to the ban on open unloaded handgun carry in October 2011 and the subsequent ban of unloaded open carry of rifles and shotguns in August 2012.

Learn current events right.
 
2013-01-18 10:08:46 AM
Walk up behind him, stick your finger in his back, take his weapons and then say, "looky here, my finger is badder than your weapons".
 
2013-01-18 10:09:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.


I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant? Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please.
 
2013-01-18 10:10:48 AM

hubiestubert: hinten: Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.

Not really. The problem isn't gun control. In part, idiots like this are "exercising their rights" because of the ridiculousness of the debate on guns.

The difficulty is weapons aren't the real issue. The real issue is crime. BOTH sides of the gun control debate, are concerned with crime. Well, not the NRA, as they are looking to boost sales and memberships, but when we talk about gun control, we are actually talking about crime and accidents. The problem is that folks are focused on the tools, and not the REAL problems.

You want to reduce crime in this country--violent crime that is--then we need to focus on the causes and factors that lead folks down that road. That means taking a hard look at economic policy, economic mobility, education, drug policy, health care both mental and physical, and matters of social justice. Those are really hard issues. Those mean taking a long look in a deep, dark truthful mirror, and no one wants a Big Bowl of Truth in their living room. It invites way too much introspection and it would mean sacrificing some very hard held myths that Americans hold dear. About "opportunity" about "fairness" and about what sort of society that we've created.

It's a lot easier to focus on the tools, and to equate the tools used in these crimes with "freedom" and load the debate with a lot of other crap that means that we can focus on ANYTHING else but the fact that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and not have to face cleaning it up.

Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks t ...



Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.
 
2013-01-18 10:12:54 AM

Ilmarinen: numbquil: At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back.

When and where has it ever been? You talk as if the US is the exception.


There have been many ages throughout history in which is was perfectly acceptable for a gentleman to carry around the particular arms that were popular at the time whether it be a sword, dagger, or projectile weapon. I said it in that particular manner because I hope that someday it will be culturally acceptable to carry arms in public. Even the scary looking ones. Simply carrying a firearm on your back does not pose a danger to yourself or others around you. Until it becomes acceptable I still consider anyone doing it for shock value to be an asshole.
 
2013-01-18 10:13:09 AM

MFK: Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....

You will notice that all of those pictures featuring ACTUAL SOLDIERS have one thing in common that sets them apart from our douchebag at JC Pennys and that is that their weapons are clearly unloaded.


You know, I'd be okay if these gun owners wanted to carry their precious guns around with them so long as they were unloaded.  I don't think I'd have a problem with that.  I know the argument will be that an unloaded gun is useless and less safe since it takes so long to load should some event arise where said owner can fulfill his hero fantasy. But, then you think about the argument against limiting clip sizes and how they preach that it only takes scant seconds to install a clip and that limiting their size really doesn't matter.

So, which is it going to be?

Is it too much to ask that the gun just not be loaded if you feel you need to showcase it in public?

I think Americans could accept that.  I think people would feel a lot better knowing that yeah, the guy's got a gun, but it's not loaded, as opposed to not knowing who the guy is, his mental state, his training, the safety status of his weapon, the reason he's carrying it, or anything.
 
2013-01-18 10:13:16 AM

CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?

I wish people would realize how silly this argument is. No one actually thinks it's the gun and not the person who is responsible for gun violence. No one blames the tool over the individual. It's a straw man argument.

Then why are the proposing a ban on the tool?


It's obvious they are trying to keep them out of the hands of people who would use them to kill others and commit crimes.
 
2013-01-18 10:13:32 AM

drp: I own many guns, and am a single issue 2A voter.


Seriously? Given all of the problems this country has right now... the economy, overseas conflict, trade issues, energy dependence, education, the erosion of government representation through corporate influence... the gun issue trumps all of the others combined when you're looking for a candidate to vote for?

Sorry... I recognize that you're trying to be rational about the issue in TFA, but that makes me kinda facepalm-y. Single-issue voting is bad, no matter what the issue is.

muck4doo: You blame the tool, and not the person.


It's not an either/or proposition.
 
2013-01-18 10:13:36 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant? Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please.


How about we put an RFID chip in every gun that can only be activated by a similar chip installed in every American, and we deactivate their chip's gun-mode when we decide they are dangerous, so they can't get any gun to actually shoot, kind of like in District 13 where the humans can't shoot the alien guns.

/not serious
/not completely serious anyway
 
2013-01-18 10:14:12 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.

Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.

Look, I know you mean well. You don't want to see kids getting killed, and neither do I. It breaks our hearts. When i get attacked(yes, i take attacks on gun owners personally, funny as they may be), I do get nasty back. In the end this gets us nowhere. You know that. I know that. Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.


I don't disagree with any of this.

Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.
 
2013-01-18 10:14:56 AM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-18 10:15:40 AM
*Attention attention whores*

Just because you can... doesn't mean you should.
 
2013-01-18 10:16:34 AM

muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.



This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.
 
2013-01-18 10:19:25 AM

larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]


That's cute, you think that criminals buy their guns from gun-stores.  And if he had the gun before, how did a background check take it away?
 
2013-01-18 10:21:07 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?


We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.
 
2013-01-18 10:21:16 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.

Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.

Look, I know you mean well. You don't want to see kids getting killed, and neither do I. It breaks our hearts. When i get attacked(yes, i take attacks on gun owners personally, funny as they may be), I do get nasty back. In the end this gets us nowhere. You know that. I know that. Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to ...


The guns didn't cause the societal shift, but this new combination is not a good one. Being able to co-exist with these weapons without this stuff happening is becoming less and less possible. If we can't figure out how to fix what is wrong and sick in today's society, then there's only one other option, and that's taking guns out of the equation. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but there you go.
 
2013-01-18 10:21:50 AM

hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.



lh3.googleusercontent.com

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...
 
2013-01-18 10:22:53 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.



Fellow progressive gun owner here. Nicely put. I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.
 
2013-01-18 10:23:43 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.


Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care. This assumption is not valid so neither is your argument. It's yet another strawman.
 
2013-01-18 10:28:42 AM

randomjsa: I don't wear a seat belt because its the law or because I'm just absolutely terrified that at ANY MOMENT I could be in a car accident. I wear one because it could happen and it's better to be prepared than not. When I ride my mountain bike, I wear a helmet not because I'm terrified of falling off and hitting my head... If I was, I wouldn't ride the bike, the helmet is there just in case. If I choose to arm myself, it is not because I'm convinced that there are people out to get me, or because I expect to need to take out a mass murdering psycho, it's because I'm prepared on the extremely unlikely off chance that it's needed. Just like the seat belt. Just like the helmet.


Yes, because having a helmet or a seat belt is exactly the same thing as having a gun. They all have the potential to harm innocent people. Remember when that guy's bike helmet spontaneously fragmented and dozens of people were killed by the shrapnel?
 
2013-01-18 10:29:39 AM

larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]


Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.
 
2013-01-18 10:30:45 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.


You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.
 
2013-01-18 10:31:08 AM

CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.


I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.
 
2013-01-18 10:32:18 AM

Robert Farker: CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?

I wish people would realize how silly this argument is. No one actually thinks it's the gun and not the person who is responsible for gun violence. No one blames the tool over the individual. It's a straw man argument.

Then why are the proposing a ban on the tool?

It's obvious they are trying to keep them out of the hands of people who would use them to kill others and commit crimes.


So another law is going to keep a criminal from getting there hands on a gun? Criminals don't tend to abide by laws. Maybe we need 10 more laws or 20.
 
2013-01-18 10:34:56 AM

Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.


If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.
 
2013-01-18 10:35:46 AM

ImpendingCynic: Yes, because having a helmet or a seat belt is exactly the same thing as having a gun. They all have the potential to harm innocent people. Remember when that guy's bike helmet spontaneously fragmented and dozens of people were killed by the shrapnel?


Ha ha! Yeah, that was hilarious!
 
2013-01-18 10:36:46 AM

thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.


Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:11 AM
Fella, you're not helping.

Also, that muzzle should be pointed either straight up or straight down, not cocked at a jaunty angle like that.

Instead of being a pain, what you could be doing to help out gun owners everywhere is taking new shooters to the range and letting them see for themselves what goes on there.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:37 AM

Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.


hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:37 AM

Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.


Ummm....are your arguing with yourself now?
 
2013-01-18 10:40:19 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.


I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.
 
2013-01-18 10:40:41 AM

hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...


How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.
 
2013-01-18 10:41:08 AM

TommyymmoT: Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?


Pretty much this.  Would have been real ironic if another "good guy with a gun" took him out thinking he was hunting more then bargains at the store.
 
2013-01-18 10:41:29 AM
 
2013-01-18 10:41:57 AM

ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.


Last month I had a tenant come into my office with a gun. I told him to leave immediately. He said he wanted to pay his rent. I said he could as soon as he came back without the weapon. He said he wasn't comfortable leaving it in his car. Fine, come back another day. Rent will be late but, I'll wave the fees. He told me to fark off and I was violating his rights and he would see me in court. Sent a five day notice. Filed a forceable detainer and went to court. He got up and started barking about the 2nd amendment and the judge is like whoa there boy, our only consideration is rent. Got the judgement and he didn't leave. Got a writ of restitution and the constable forced him out. I had to put all his shiat in storage including his guns. There it will sit until he pays me for reasonable storage fees. $25/say seems fair.
 
2013-01-18 10:42:15 AM

hubiestubert: I am a gun owner. I've had a concealed carry--though I don't have one today, because I don't need one--and I used to be a bouncer. That is just background information though. What I learned over the years was that you don't carry a loaded weapon, especially in public, without good reason.

When I was bouncing, I didn't carry, because in a shuffle, you don't want to lose a loaded weapon, not in a crowded club. Even when hunting, I don't load a weapon, until I actually get to the area where I intend to hunt, because of the chance of accidental discharge. Even with a safety on, the best way to prevent accidents with a weapon, even if you are alone or somewhere remote, is to simply not have it loaded. Trip and fall, sudden stop, crash, whatever, things can happen. You reduce that chance by simply removing the possibility of the weapon firing. In amongst people, a LOT can go wrong, and carrying a loaded weapon in public is not the brightest thing. People can grab the weapon, all sorts of things can go wrong. When I did carry, it was because I was dropping off deposits, and it was in Boston, and near the Combat Zone, and I'm glad I did carry, because those were sort of wild and wooly days, and thankfully, I never had fire at people, and never even had to draw on someone. I was mugged when carrying, by a guy with a knife, and the $75 in my wallet wasn't worth shooting someone over, and in the situation, I never felt that I was in danger if I just cooperated--guess I got lucky that I was mugged by a professional, because he even let me keep the wallet.

While I was bouncing, we were offered stun guns, and pepper spray, and as a team we refused, because when you carry a weapon, you have to think of the environment. Pepper spray is sort of indiscriminate, and gassing patrons who aren't involved in a dust up is a bad idea. And dangerous, if someone has respiratory problems or asthma or the like. Stun guns and tasers can be taken, and used on you or someone else, and that is a ...


From this crazy "TAKE YER GUNZ" librul, it would be wonderful if you were the spokesman for sane, responsible gun owners.
 
2013-01-18 10:43:10 AM

CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

Ummm....are your arguing with yourself now?


Is that what the kids are calling it now-a-days?
 
2013-01-18 10:43:13 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.


It's treating the symptom, and not the disease. Look, I get where their heart is. Something horrible happened, and they want to stop the bleeding rather than search out where the shots are coming from and why. In the end by doing silly things like magazine limitations and other crap like banning scary cosmetics, they haven't accomplished anything. They dressed up the wound rather than find the killer and why he's killing people.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:11 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.

You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.


I feel like it's isolation. We're at a point where people being checked out recluses is entirely common. It used to just be that cranky old man up the road that never left his house.

Sense of community has given way to everyone being holed up and talking to each other through monitors...like we're doing. Nobody gets invested in their surroundings anymore and "minding your business" is seen as a virtue. Sometimes somebody's bubble needs to be popped even if some invasion of privacy is employed. They might be able to be talked off a ledge.

I'm speaking in generalities of course.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:46 AM

numbquil: Ilmarinen: numbquil: At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back.

When and where has it ever been? You talk as if the US is the exception.

There have been many ages throughout history in which is was perfectly acceptable for a gentleman to carry around the particular arms that were popular at the time whether it be a sword, dagger, or projectile weapon. I said it in that particular manner because I hope that someday it will be culturally acceptable to carry arms in public. Even the scary looking ones. Simply carrying a firearm on your back does not pose a danger to yourself or others around you. Until it becomes acceptable I still consider anyone doing it for shock value to be an asshole.


I bet it's culturally acceptable to carry arms around in Somalia.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:50 AM

Xenomech: Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.

If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.


This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing. Neither of us has the ability to accurately determine how much focus people are putting on one thing vs another. Even if I agreed with you that the focus was out of balance it still doesn't address the actual arguments that are being made by those you disagree with.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:51 AM

djkutch: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

Last month I had a tenant come into my office with a gun. I told him to leave immediately. He said he wanted to pay his rent. I said he could as soon as he came back without the weapon. He said he wasn't comfortable leaving it in his car. Fine, come back another day. Rent will be late but, I'll wave the fees. He told me to fark off and I was violating his rights and he would see me in court. Sent a five day notice. Filed a forceable detainer and went to court. He got up and started barking about the 2nd amendment and the judge is like whoa there boy, our only consideration is rent. Got the judgement and he didn't leave. Got a writ of restitution and the constable forced him out. I had to put all his shiat in storage including his guns. There it will sit until he pays me for reasonable storage fees. $25/say seems fair.



Sounds like he was out to cause trouble from the start, but dont assume all gun supporters are nut jobs like this guy.
 
2013-01-18 10:47:44 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.

I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.


Because everything I would propose you would consider "getting farked over". I told you, laws are designed to deal with a problem but impact everyone.
 
2013-01-18 10:48:40 AM

hinten: hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...

How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.


So you think banning "assault rifles" is really going to make a difference? The kid a VT used a couple of handguns. If someone is intent on killing they will find away regardless of a law banning a certain "tool". Bans are only going to affect law abiding citizens. The point people are making is without addressing the root cause of the violence nothing is going to change and probably wont even decrease.
 
2013-01-18 10:49:04 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.

You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.

I feel like it's isolation. We're at a point where people being checked out recluses is entirely common. It used to just be that cranky old man up the road that never left his house.

Sense of community has given way to everyone being holed up and talking to each other through monitors...like we're doing. Nobody gets invested in their surroundings anymore and "minding your business" is seen as a virtue. Sometimes somebody's bubble needs to be popped even if some invasion of privacy is employed. They might be able to be talked off a ledge.

I'm speaking in generalities of course.


You would be surprised to know we have the same goals, and the same thoughts on what is wrong. Our difference comes in where to place the blame.
 
2013-01-18 10:50:10 AM

Callous: That's cute, you think that criminals buy their guns from gun-stores.


They do. What's cute is that you don't live in reality.

No, wait, that's not cute. It's idiotic and harmful.
 
2013-01-18 10:51:11 AM

cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.


nopurplewalls.files.wordpress.com

#1. I am pretty sure the NRA will fight for the 2nd amendment well after you and I are gone.
#2. Holding hands and entering businesses has yet to, I think, kill anyone.
#3. Oh I'm sorry my rifle discharged and put a hole in your leg while you were trying to returning something. My bad.
#4. It would have been nice if another gun carrying citizen held him at gun point, telling him to put his guns down. The hilarity that would come from that....Oh the possibilities.
 
2013-01-18 10:51:39 AM
People should only be allowed to carry 6 shot revolvers.

i939.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 10:51:51 AM
Signs coming to a store near you.
"No Guns in Store
Thank You"
 
2013-01-18 10:52:13 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Everyone carrying weapons in Israel is or has been part of the Israeli Defense Force or is a police or security officer. "Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon."

And this is in a country that sees far more terrorism than the U.S.
 
2013-01-18 10:52:39 AM
guys, guys guys. You guys. Guys. Guys.

Guys.

You Guys.

Guys.

Seriously You Guys

You guys, Seriously. LIke Listen to me

You guys

You guys

Didn't You Kow About the Wild Hog Problem at J.C. Penneys?!?1?!!?!/!11!!!!????!

They're everywhere. He NEEDS THAT WEAPON.
 
2013-01-18 10:52:55 AM

hinten: hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...

How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.


I'm sure you would support putting an ignition interlock in every single vehicle today, and confiscating the vehicles of people that refuse. If you honestly want to save lives, especially children you'd do support this. The leading cause of death for children 15 and under is caused by vehicles.

Won't you think of the children?
 
2013-01-18 10:54:20 AM

Robert Farker: This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing.


Robert Farker: Xenomech: Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.

If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.

This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing. Neither of us has the ability to accurately determine how much focus people are putting on one thing vs another. Even if I agreed with you that the focus was out of balance it still doesn't address the actual arguments that are being made by those you disagree with.



Oh, here we go...
 
2013-01-18 10:54:44 AM

thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.


No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.
 
2013-01-18 10:55:19 AM

birchman: Rawhead Rex: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

A JC Penny's is not YOUR place of business...even if you're the manager...
You're bound by CORPORATE rules and if corporate rules dictate they're ok with Utah's open carry law, then no, biatch...you wouldn't have said shiat to him except, "Will that be all, sir?" as you rang up his order.

I SERIOUSLY doubt JCPenny has a corporate rule stating that. Or any department store for that matter that isn't a sporting goods store. I'm also not sure you understand what a store manager's job is.


So, you're saying a JC Penny's manager's job is to disarm and escort out this guy with an AR15 out of "your" store...

And you're saying you'd have done it.

Who's the internet tough guy now, retail boy?
 
2013-01-18 10:57:11 AM

Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.


So you think a mechanic should head a car company?
 
2013-01-18 10:58:20 AM

Farce-Side: Has anybody mentioned that this picture depicts poor muzzle control? Because this picture depicts poor muzzle control. Adjust your shoulder strap, Pudgy, and quit pointing that thing at the dude next you at the counter.


First thing I noticed. Way to make us other AR owner look bad, douche.
 
2013-01-18 10:59:13 AM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-18 10:59:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.


A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.
 
2013-01-18 11:00:27 AM

hinten: hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...

How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.


No. I am saying that the debate itself is useless. It is a waste of time, energy, and distracts folks who get themselves all twisted up with stats and statistics and verbiage, that does nothing to address the real issues. That we allow ourselves, as a nation, to get distracted, because it's easier than dealing with the larger issues.

You can ascribe all you want to my motives, but let's be clear: gun control is bait and switch, and it gets folks hett up, on both sides, over details that do NOTHING to address the real problems. In part, because folks realize that there is profit still to be made on these problems, and there is a great deal of time, effort and cash still to be extracted from folks in the meantime. The problem is crime. The fastest way to cut down on crime is NOT fast, or easy, and that is why folks look to banner issues like gun control, because it's easier to do something, than something useful.

I'm sorry that you feel looking at the issue with a degree of perspective seems offensive at some level, but to be quite honest, we have already wasted far too much money and effort on details that do nothing to address the real issues. They're harder, and that makes them much less attractive, because it's not quite so easy to come up with pithy slogans or wrap oneself in the flag or use the issue to jump start a campaign, but at some point we need to look at the hard issues, as opposed to efforts that are just band aids, while ignoring the real wounds.

Limiting sales to felons, I have no problems with. Cripes, let's actually fund the ATF and let them do their job, and prosecute folks who make illegal sales--yes, the folks who actually supply the illegal arms, as opposed to the folks purchasing them on the DL much in the same way we need to come down on the folks who hire illegal labor, as opposed to just looking at illegal immigrants will do far more to limit said actions. But at the same time, maybe we should insist on steering the conversation away from the symptoms, and demand action on the reasons we have woes with crime in this country instead of just looking to throw folks in jail and waste time and effort and money so that we can reduce the actual issues? Gun control, as a debate, is akin to constantly looking to change out the tube, while leaving the thorn in the damn tire...
 
2013-01-18 11:00:53 AM

Rawhead Rex: So, you're saying a JC Penny's manager's job is to disarm and escort out this guy with an AR15 out of "your" store...


The store manager would be will within his rights to ask the man to leave the store. And if the guy is causing other customers concern (rightly or wrongly) it's up to the manager to decide if the man can continue to shop or be asked to leave. No need for disarming. Just walk up and say "sir, you're welcome to shop here, but not while carrying your weapons".
 
2013-01-18 11:01:22 AM

Robert Farker: thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.

No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.


STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

/strawman
 
2013-01-18 11:01:29 AM

n0nthing: There's nothing redeemable about this guy's actions and he's an embarrassment to all level-headed and responsible gun owners. Simply because you have the right (or permission) to do something, doesn't mean you should -- that's part of being a grown-up.

To those that attempt to justify his actions by suggesting he had one or more of the firearms with him and did not want to leave them unattended in his car -- sorry. Firearm responsibility includes planning where you will be traveling with them.

The idea that he was armed to this degree of personal protection is also laughable. An obvious weekend warrior, suited up with his tactical gear, and loaded for bear. At best this guy did this because, "Damn't I'm allowed to and people will see the light if I just show them the way." At worst he was doing this for attention and/or to intimidate.

Regardless, all that he accomplished was making any number of people feel uncomfortable (and yes, I do feel equally uncomfortable around *any* armed individual(s) in such settings especially if they are armed to this degree), and reinforcing that there are a large number of asshats who legally own firearms.

/gun owner
//anti gun-control legislation
///blah blah blah


Thank you.

I was always taught that flashing guns to strangers (and sometimes even friends) is rude.

Guns make some people uncomfortable. Better or worse, thats.just the way it is. Its not your job to change that. Unless you're sure that having the gun out in the open for no reason at all won't scare anyone, doing so is inconsiderate.

Dont even get me started on the people who find any excuse to list every piece in their arsenal. "Yes, I get it. You own guns. It's not a huge accomplishment."
 
2013-01-18 11:01:32 AM

Xenomech: larrynightmarehotmail.com:


FTFY

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x467]

/*so* wrong


Dammit.
 
2013-01-18 11:01:50 AM

James F. Campbell: Callous: That's cute, you think that criminals buy their guns from gun-stores.

They do. What's cute is that you don't live in reality.

No, wait, that's not cute. It's idiotic and harmful.


What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.
 
2013-01-18 11:02:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.

I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.

Because everything I would propose you would consider "getting farked over". I told you, laws are designed to deal with a problem but impact everyone.


Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?
 
2013-01-18 11:03:20 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.


You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?
 
2013-01-18 11:03:33 AM

SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?


No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.
 
2013-01-18 11:04:44 AM

TommyymmoT: Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?


Or at least you wish
 
2013-01-18 11:05:31 AM

CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.


That was nonsensical.
 
2013-01-18 11:05:59 AM

hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?


Well, here's the other thing: We already have a whole lot of the "tools" used in the commission of crimes, enough for every adult in America to own at least one. Should there not be discussion of maybe, say, halving the number? That would still leave over 100 million of the "tools" available for those that want them, at the very least.

I do agree with you on all the economic issues, however. The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control. If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...including the so-called "mental problems" that some like to deflect to.

But another problem, I think, is that we are the most polarized we've ever been, and the amount of people who can't change their minds on any issue is at an all-time high. Everyone has their own version of what America is, and woe betide anyone who thinks differently. This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. It's not that change is hard; it's that change is a business, and anyone who wants to change you is horning in on your business of trying to change them.
 
2013-01-18 11:06:21 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.

I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.

Because everything I would propose you would consider "getting farked over". I told you, laws are designed to deal with a problem but impact everyone.

Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.


I look forward to your local representative proposing this.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:04 AM

SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.


Some jokes are like that.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:35 AM

aevert: First thing I noticed. Way to make us other AR owner look bad, douche.


Why? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. Guns are tool. Are you afraid that the gun will go all Chucky, come to life and shoot the guy next to him?

/Gun owner and shooter.
//Never cover anything with the muzzle you ain't ready to kill.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:45 AM

hinten: betelgeux: I am a gun owner, a recreational shooter, and a supporter of responsible gun owners. This guy is an jackass attention whore, by his own admission. This taking place in Ogden, Utah is probably why it wasn't blown into a big deal.

CSB, I was in BK one Sunday afternoon and some fugitive recovery types showed up, badges hanging around their necks, thigh holsters, they paraded around the BK letting everybody know they were packing. I finished my meal and left, not afraid of the fire arms, but I was certainly not wanting to be in an environment where those hillbillies felt they had to flaunt their firepower.


You say that as if that's an actual thing.


You sound stupid.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:59 AM

CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.

Some jokes are like that.


Some people are like that.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:06 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.

It kind of was


Came for the mindless phallus=gun comparison, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:33 AM

SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?


Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?
 
2013-01-18 11:10:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.


lolwut?

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?
 
2013-01-18 11:10:49 AM

illannoyin: HindiDiscoMonster: crab66: If you feel the need to carry a rifle while you shop you are not a Real American defending our freedoms.


You are a giant farking paranoid asshole with a small penis who is trying to show how tough you are.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

/please continue...

Please stop repeating this lie. A few of us actually do understand Freud.

In General Introduction to Psychoanalysis , Freud wrote, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

Freud is specifically making reference to the male phallus with his use of the word "weapon", as his Tenth Lecture on the subject of dreams labels swords, sabers, pistols and rifles as symbols of the male gentalia. A fear of a weapon, in a dream, mind you, simply suggests a neurosis towards the male phallus. For instance, if a female were to have a dream in which a man with a gun startled her, it would point towards an innate fear of sex, and perhaps lead to the discovery of said fear.

The quote has nothing to do with firearms. It is merely a comment on dreams and symbolism.

As far as sexual maturity, he basically proposed humans as sexual beings from birth, and that along with the body, ones sexuality matures as well. Except many people get stuck at a developmental stage of sexuality rather than continue to mature.

Freud decided pretty much everything was about sex. But he also had a nasty coke habit too so, you might want to take his ideas with a grain of salt. Almost all of his theories are regarded as wrong these days anyway.


Also...

Fark just after 9/11 - "After an emotional tragedy rushing to enact legislation that infringes on our rights but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe is wrong. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are incredibly low."

Fark now - "In the wake of such an emotional tragedy we must rush to enact legislation that infringes on the rights of legal gun owners but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe. Despite the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are incredibly low.."

The selective application of outrage over the erosion of constitutional rights is hypocritical. I know, welcome to fark.

/ I am in no way suggesting the guy in TFA is anything but a giant paranoid a-hole. I won't speculate about the size of his penis
// If you see a Guy with a rifle in public don't take any chances. Run away and call the cops!


That was awesome.
 
2013-01-18 11:11:34 AM

SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.

Some jokes are like that.

Some people are like that.


Obviously.
 
2013-01-18 11:12:31 AM

SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex. If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?


What does a mechanic know about running a car company?


/Think, McFly! Think!
 
2013-01-18 11:13:13 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?


It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:25 AM
The first step in performing a mass shooting in a public place is to walk into a public place with some guns. Not that I'd ever be in JC Penny, but I would have left if I saw that guy there. Not run screaming, not call the cops... I'd just go somewhere else in the mall for a bit.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:35 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.

You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?


Yes, HWC, we get it, every analogy that highlights the idiocy of your position, isn't a valid analogy. You sound like a 4 year old who declares himself the winner of every board game because he can't handle losing. And just like every 4 year old who does that, he can't explain why.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:55 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Everyone pictured there are also active-duty soldiers in a war zone.

Do you live in a war zone? Are rockets descending on you house? Has anyone set a car bomb off in your neighborhood? Any surrounding countries attempt to invade in you lifetime? In a surprise attack over the holidays?

Great, NOW STFU
 
2013-01-18 11:14:03 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.

It kind of was

Came for the mindless phallus=gun comparison, leaving satisfied.


No rational gun control debate is complete without a good small dick joke.

/The dude in the article probably did have a small dick though.
 
2013-01-18 11:15:05 AM

kingoomieiii: violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.

[digboston.com image 375x300]

/This is the facepalm of coded racial language


LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.

How do you get dressed in the morning when you think in stereotypes & memes? Really curious.
 
2013-01-18 11:16:14 AM

muck4doo: How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?


I feel the same way I do about the current administration doing it as I did about the last administration doing it.
 
2013-01-18 11:16:52 AM

hubiestubert: I am a gun owner. I've had a concealed carry--though I don't have one today, because I don't need one--and I used to be a bouncer. That is just background information though. What I learned over the years was that you don't carry a loaded weapon, especially in public, without good reason.

When I was bouncing, I didn't carry, because in a shuffle, you don't want to lose a loaded weapon, not in a crowded club. Even when hunting, I don't load a weapon, until I actually get to the area where I intend to hunt, because of the chance of accidental discharge. Even with a safety on, the best way to prevent accidents with a weapon, even if you are alone or somewhere remote, is to simply not have it loaded. Trip and fall, sudden stop, crash, whatever, things can happen. You reduce that chance by simply removing the possibility of the weapon firing. In amongst people, a LOT can go wrong, and carrying a loaded weapon in public is not the brightest thing. People can grab the weapon, all sorts of things can go wrong. When I did carry, it was because I was dropping off deposits, and it was in Boston, and near the Combat Zone, and I'm glad I did carry, because those were sort of wild and wooly days, and thankfully, I never had fire at people, and never even had to draw on someone. I was mugged when carrying, by a guy with a knife, and the $75 in my wallet wasn't worth shooting someone over, and in the situation, I never felt that I was in danger if I just cooperated--guess I got lucky that I was mugged by a professional, because he even let me keep the wallet.

While I was bouncing, we were offered stun guns, and pepper spray, and as a team we refused, because when you carry a weapon, you have to think of the environment. Pepper spray is sort of indiscriminate, and gassing patrons who aren't involved in a dust up is a bad idea. And dangerous, if someone has respiratory problems or asthma or the like. Stun guns and tasers can be taken, and used on you or someone else, and that is a ...


i think i am in love. since i am already married, can i vote for you? nevermind, you are obviously too intelligent to be a politician.

//live in UT, all for requiring registration - not for banning
//the level of derp in this state is truly mind numbing sometimes, but i still love living here.
 
2013-01-18 11:18:24 AM
Even some gun advocates agree that carrying a high powered rifle into a busy store wasn't appropriate.
Sorry buy no gun guy that knows wtf he's talking about would call that a "high power" rifle. The writer is using shills...... again.
 
2013-01-18 11:19:05 AM

IlGreven: The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control.


That would definitely explain it, but do you have any evidence to back that up?
 
2013-01-18 11:19:45 AM

GUTSU: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?
 
2013-01-18 11:20:08 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?


Reagan did it with Iran and Iraq, and we see how peaceful they are now. More guns definitely made those places safe. So why would anyone have a problem with it?
 
2013-01-18 11:20:18 AM
TommyymmoT [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2013-01-18 12:36:58 AM

Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?

Keep holding your breath Hyperbole-Man
 
2013-01-18 11:20:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.


HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.

I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.

Because everything I would propose you would consider "getting farked over". I told you, laws are designed to deal with a problem but impact everyone.

Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.

I look forward to your local representative proposing this.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nati ...


Well, the totality of the impact of automobile fatalities and injuries isn't limited to drunk drivers either.
The arguments do tend to look a little stupid when someone uses the same logic on a different topic though, doesn't it? Are you saying you would be okay with these 'common sense measures?
I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.
 
2013-01-18 11:20:59 AM

GUTSU: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


My point is that having intimate knowledge of the working parts and practices of a technology doesn't enroll you in some cabal that is destined to dictate that technology. It's rather ironic you use 2 examples of what conservatives do, when comparing it to your conservative cause and say "you don't want it to be like them, do you?!"
 
2013-01-18 11:22:33 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.


No, stop. Everyone knows what the fark "Homies" means. It means the same thing as "thug" and "urban". I really don't care how your dumb friends refer to themselves.
 
2013-01-18 11:22:55 AM

IlGreven: All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


Hear, hear!
 
2013-01-18 11:23:18 AM

IlGreven: hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

Well, here's the other thing: We already have a whole lot of the "tools" used in the commission of crimes, enough for every adult in America to own at least one. Should there not be discussion of maybe, say, halving the number? That would still leave over 100 million of the "tools" available for those that want them, at the very least.

I do agree with you on all the economic issues, however. The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control. If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...including the so-called "mental problems" that some like to deflect to.

But another problem, I think, is that we are the most polarized we've ever been, and the amount of people who can't change their minds on any issue is at an all-time high. Everyone has their own version of what America is, and woe betide anyone who thinks differently. This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. It's not that change is hard; it's that change is a business, and anyone who wants to change you is horning in on your business of trying to change them.



>>>>>>>This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not.

Desiring to remove my nose from the proximity of your fist is an imposition on you?

You are a scary, scary excuse for a human being. That kind of thinking is sick and scary.
 
2013-01-18 11:23:20 AM

GUTSU: Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


Also, if an old man says that a woman can do what she wants with her vagina, is that not allowed because it came from an old man? Or if a Baptist preacher preached on Sunday and taught actual, empirical science Monday through Friday as a teacher, and never allowed the twain to meet...would he be a bad teacher only because he was a Baptist preacher?

And should we not believe anything we're told about climate change because two non-scientist politicians argue on opposite ends of the debate (Al Gore v. Christopher Monckton)?
 
2013-01-18 11:24:19 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


That was sort my original point. Yes everyone that wants to own a gun should be required to take firearm safety courses. And maybe if everyone,even those that choose not own a gun, went to a basic course there would not be so much irrational fear.
 
2013-01-18 11:24:56 AM

hinten: muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.

The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.


Please tell me that was sarcasm...if it isn't then my faith in humanity just died a little.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:17 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.


Eminem, Vanilla Ice, and Snow don't count.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:29 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.


Ill considered? Do you know how many Mexicans have died from them? Why are those "ill" considered deaths, and not participants in homicide? How can you seriously take firearms laws from douches that pass illegal weapons to cartels? Do those dead Mexicans not count? Are they just brown people in the wake of a bigger goal? Seriously, I want to know. Again, nothing on you specifically, but i can't even visit my family in Reynosa, Monterrey, or Morelia anymore. How have these drug laws and gun shifting over there helped anyone over there? This administration has given guns to known murderers. No, I'm not going to forgive them for that.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:45 AM

RidgeRunner5: What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.


So we are in agreement that the problem lies with legally purchased guns after all, then.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:57 AM

Farkage: I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.


Need to up that a bit, Texas debuts fastest highway speed limit in nation: 85 mph
 
2013-01-18 11:26:42 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


I agree it wouldn't hurt to do that, but to be fair, cars are used by millions of people a day for non-violent and productive means. And by used, actively used and driven, not just owned and sitting in the driveway. Most people don't use their guns on a daily basis, some never use them ever. So if given a choice, car training or gun training, I'd prefer car training. No reason we can't have both of course, but I consider car training to be a higher priority and much more necessary to public safety, so I can't really equivocate the two, even though I am in favor of gun regulation. I do think if something similar to car registration and education was implemented for guns, much less people would buy one.
 
2013-01-18 11:27:26 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.

You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?

Yes, HWC, we get it, every analogy that highlights the idiocy of your position, isn't a valid analogy.


No you posted something really dumb. I could go into the myriad reasons why its dumb, but you're just so boring.

You sound like a 4 year old who declares himself the winner of every board game because he can't handle losing. And just like every 4 year old who does that, he can't explain why.

I embarrass you every time you rattle may cage. Every time. You eventually give up, stop responding to my posts, and start accusing other people of being my alts for pointing out how dumb you are.
 
2013-01-18 11:27:50 AM

James F. Campbell: RidgeRunner5: What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.

So we are in agreement that the problem lies with legally purchased guns after all, then.


The general agreement is that you are a tard. Keep on soldiering on.
 
2013-01-18 11:28:50 AM

NightOwl2255: Farkage: I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.

Need to up that a bit, Texas debuts fastest highway speed limit in nation: 85 mph


Fine, 85 then! My point stands.
 
2013-01-18 11:29:15 AM

CADMonkey79: That was sort my original point. Yes everyone that wants to own a gun should be required to take firearm safety courses. And maybe if everyone,even those that choose not own a gun, went to a basic course there would not be so much irrational fear.


Which brings it back to my full point: I'm not a gun owner, but I would like to trust rational gun owners who can constructively criticize regulations rather than going "ZOMG OBAMMER'S GUN TAKE ARE GUNZ!" every time someone in the Administration opens their mouths.  I'm not saying I know better than gun owners; I'm just saying I'd want gun owners I can actually work with.
 
2013-01-18 11:29:38 AM

IlGreven: hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

Well, here's the other thing: We already have a whole lot of the "tools" used in the commission of crimes, enough for every adult in America to own at least one. Should there not be discussion of maybe, say, halving the number? That would still leave over 100 million of the "tools" available for those that want them, at the very least.

I do agree with you on all the economic issues, however. The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control. If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...including the so-called "mental problems" that some like to deflect to.

But another problem, I think, is that we are the most polarized we've ever been, and the amount of people who can't change their minds on any issue is at an all-time high. Everyone has their own version of what America is, and woe betide anyone who thinks differently. This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. It's not that change is hard; it's that change is a business, and anyone who wants to change you is horning in on your business of trying to change them.


Pretty damn much. We need a better debate at this point, and perhaps even an admission, that both sides on this debate are looking at crime and safety. It's not that folks want to grab guns to be asshats, but because they genuinely think that reducing the number of arms will alleviate some pressure and reduce the number of accidental deaths. And the folks who want access to arms want to be able to protect their families. BOTH sides want to protect those around them. And until we get to some common ground, we aren't really going to get traction on the issue, which is safety and crime.

In this case, both sides are being idiotic, and yet it stems from a desire to do something. I feel for that. I understand it. But until we turn this debate towards something useful, we aren't going to find much common ground, because, it is so polarized an issue. The better way, in my mind, is to turn the debate to what drives this debate, at its heart, to something useful.

Economic stability and opportunity, and getting the profit margin out of prisons, so that we can have a better conversation, as well as mental and physical health, as well as improving education and opportunities, this is what we need to work towards if we want to reduce crime, and the reasons folks turn to it. Will it eliminate it? Certainly not, because there are always motherf*ckers who want to skate on a bill, but we can reduce the numbers a bit so that we can concentrate on them, than choking the system further, and making it profitable to be in the prison business, which only drains further tax dollars, and strains our budgets locally and nationally.
 
2013-01-18 11:30:13 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.


i186.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 11:30:51 AM
The 99% make the 1% look bad
 
2013-01-18 11:31:09 AM

Xenomech: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex. If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

What does a mechanic know about running a car company?

/Think, McFly! Think!


from another post I made:

My point is that having intimate knowledge of the working parts and practices of a technology doesn't enroll you in some cabal that is destined to dictate that technology.

If we extend your logic in another direction, people whose houses have been foreclosed on because of fraudulent banking shouldn't be a part of the discussion because they don't have a background in finance? Is this what you are suggesting?
 
2013-01-18 11:31:14 AM

Farkage: I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.


A car that could only go 65 would break quickly being used at max capacity for a while. Make a car that can go 120, so that when you're going 60 you're only pushing the machine at half power, and it can last significantly longer. Similar concept of buying a huge wattage stereo but only ever turning it up half-way because that's loud enough. But, slap a governor on that bad boy so that it can't go above the maximum posted speed limit of your state. I40 in NC is 70mph for the parts I am on it going to work. I never need to go above 75, maybe 80 for those tight situations where it is crowded and people are merging in from the on-ramp and you need to create a gap. But I agree with your sentiment in that I never need to drive over 80mph.
 
2013-01-18 11:31:23 AM

James F. Campbell: RidgeRunner5: What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.

So we are in agreement that the problem lies with legally purchased guns after all, then.


Which part of "Straw purchases are illegal" did you not understand?
 
2013-01-18 11:32:26 AM

hinten

Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
And you can support your hyperbole by showing allll the cases of law abiding gun owners who have
* had their weapons taken while they're carrying and used in a crime/assault
* show innocents when forced to draw by violent offenders
* went off the rails and went Yosemite Sam in the Mall.

Oh there aren't cases like that -above a statistical abnormality (say 1 in 7million)? Don't let facts inform your decision making. 'cuz thinkun is hard.
 
2013-01-18 11:33:28 AM
GAT_00


Seriously? This is how we're all supposed to be safe? Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around. It implies you expect to use it.

You must pee your dress when you see women with mace on their key-chain.
 
2013-01-18 11:33:36 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: SocraticIrony: Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.

So you think a mechanic should head a car company?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right. I was taught how to use a gun by the time I was 8.
Why isn't there a license to buy a gun? Because then the government could indiscriminately deny anyone their 2nd amendment rights. It would set a horrible precedent like the New York gun laws, where the government is either going to confiscate certain guns after the owners death, which opens the door for other abuses.
 
2013-01-18 11:34:34 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.

Ill considered?


Yep.

Do you know how many Mexicans have died from them?

Nope.

Why are those "ill" considered deaths, and not participants in homicide?

Don't put words in my mouth.

How can you seriously take firearms laws from douches that pass illegal weapons to cartels?

I don't see one having anything to do with the other.

Do those dead Mexicans not count? Are they just brown people in the wake of a bigger goal? Seriously, I want to know. Again, nothing on you specifically, but i can't even visit my family in Reynosa, Monterrey, or Morelia anymore. How have these drug laws and gun shifting over there helped anyone over there? This administration has given guns to known murderers. No, I'm not going to forgive them for that.

I don't think we can realistically pin the drug war on Obama.
 
2013-01-18 11:35:40 AM

stonicus: Farkage: I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.

A car that could only go 65 would break quickly being used at max capacity for a while. Make a car that can go 120, so that when you're going 60 you're only pushing the machine at half power, and it can last significantly longer. Similar concept of buying a huge wattage stereo but only ever turning it up half-way because that's loud enough. But, slap a governor on that bad boy so that it can't go above the maximum posted speed limit of your state. I40 in NC is 70mph for the parts I am on it going to work. I never need to go above 75, maybe 80 for those tight situations where it is crowded and people are merging in from the on-ramp and you need to create a gap. But I agree with your sentiment in that I never need to drive over 80mph.


Yeah, I was thinking of the electronic governor type situation. Of course, if we were to continue with the analogy, Connecticut has a 65mph speed limit and due to different licensing laws, we don't recognize Texas licenses so you don't need a car that fast here. And you don't need 300 horsepower to get to 80mph. 150 is fine. Max.
 
2013-01-18 11:35:44 AM

OnlyM3: GAT_00


Seriously? This is how we're all supposed to be safe? Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around. It implies you expect to use it.
You must peecream your dress when you see women big government with mace on their key-chain.


FTFY
 
2013-01-18 11:38:09 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.

Ill considered?

Yep.

Do you know how many Mexicans have died from them?

Nope.

Why are those "ill" considered deaths, and not participants in homicide?

Don't put words in my mouth.

How can you seriously take firearms laws from douches that pass illegal weapons to cartels?

I don't see one having anything to do with the other.

Do those dead Mexicans not count? Are they just brown people in the wake of a bigger goal? Seriously, I want to know. Again, nothing on you specifically, but i can't even visit my family in Reynosa, Monterrey, or Morelia anymore. How have these drug laws and gun shifting over there helped anyone over there? This administration has given guns to known murderers. No, I'm not going to forgive them for that.

I don't think we can realistically pin the drug war on Obama.


Of course not. 100 years in the making. It's about time someone end it. This won't be the president to do it. Too many dollars in those police unions and prison building corps.
 
2013-01-18 11:38:31 AM

hubiestubert: hinten: Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.

Not really. The problem isn't gun control. In part, idiots like this are "exercising their rights" because of the ridiculousness of the debate on guns.

The difficulty is weapons aren't the real issue. The real issue is crime. BOTH sides of the gun control debate, are concerned with crime. Well, not the NRA, as they are looking to boost sales and memberships, but when we talk about gun control, we are actually talking about crime and accidents. The problem is that folks are focused on the tools, and not the REAL problems.

You want to reduce crime in this country--violent crime that is--then we need to focus on the causes and factors that lead folks down that road. That means taking a hard look at economic policy, economic mobility, education, drug policy, health care both mental and physical, and matters of social justice. Those are really hard issues. Those mean taking a long look in a deep, dark truthful mirror, and no one wants a Big Bowl of Truth in their living room. It invites way too much introspection and it would mean sacrificing some very hard held myths that Americans hold dear. About "opportunity" about "fairness" and about what sort of society that we've created.

It's a lot easier to focus on the tools, and to equate the tools used in these crimes with "freedom" and load the debate with a lot of other crap that means that we can focus on ANYTHING else but the fact that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and not have to face cleaning it up.

Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

In part, we are having pangs, as we move from a responsibility based culture, to a more face based culture. Folks want the appearance of responsibility, while ducking them at every opportunity, so long as it looks good, we're fine with it. A family man, a law and order type of lawmaker is fine, up until it's discovered that he likes hookers and is embezzling, and that only blows up when he's caught red handed, and even THEN folks will line up because he sounded nice, you know, up until folks realize that he was a hypocritical douche. That is far more the issue than just the tools. We need to take some responsibility for the culture that we've created, and the conditions that we put ourselves in. Arguing about the tools does nothing to alleviate them, and it only provides distraction from the hard work that we need to do--which, I suppose is sort of the point. Far better to argue about guns and freedom, than look at why we waste so much cash on OTHER things, not while folks can keep dangling "FREEEEEDOM" as a easy to digest concept, while legislating the crap out of it...


Why cant we have more posts like this?

I'm looking at you, Hotwing and fans.
 
2013-01-18 11:40:58 AM

GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.


Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.
 
2013-01-18 11:41:34 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

Also, if an old man says that a woman can do what she wants with her vagina, is that not allowed because it came from an old man? Or if a Baptist preacher preached on Sunday and taught actual, empirical science Monday through Friday as a teacher, and never allowed the twain to meet...would he be a bad teacher only because he was a Baptist preacher?

And should we not believe anything we're told about climate change because two non-scientist politicians argue on opposite ends of the debate (Al Gore v. Christopher Monckton)?


You know exactly what I meant. Would you prefer people that know nothing about a subject making laws about that subject which would then affect millions of americans? In california when they imposed their own AWB it was proven that legislators like Carolyn McCarthy didn't anything about what they were making laws on, like how they determined that a "barrel shroud" was an assault feature. Did she know what it did, or what it's purpose was? No, but she was adamant that it was super dangerous and had to be banned.
 
2013-01-18 11:42:07 AM

muck4doo: Of course not. 100 years in the making. It's about time someone end it. This won't be the president to do it. Too many dollars in those police unions and prison building corps.


We're getting there, but it's all thanks to the states. The mask has slipped, and we won't be able to get other nations to do our bidding in terms of drugs for much longer if we can't even get the state of Washington to do it.

I bet the drug schedule gets tweaked in the next 10 years.
 
2013-01-18 11:42:58 AM
If JC Penny had a problem with it they should have asked him to leave.
 
2013-01-18 11:43:54 AM

orbister: I am very happy indeed to live in a country where he would have been arrested and imprisoned for a long time for this stunt.

/civilised countries don't need guns.


Ach, go toss a few kabers and get it out of your system you manky Scottish git!
 
2013-01-18 11:44:18 AM

kingoomieiii: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.

No, stop. Everyone knows what the fark "Homies" means. It means the same thing as "thug" and "urban". I really don't care how your dumb friends refer to themselves.


Xenomech: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.

Eminem, Vanilla Ice, and Snow don't count.


LOL! You guys need to get out of your basements and see the real world. I live on the streets, so probably know just a bit more about it than you do.
 
2013-01-18 11:44:21 AM

stonicus: Owning a car is not a right


It's not?
 
2013-01-18 11:44:44 AM

Xenomech: Tat'dGreaser: Xenomech: It does not appear so. It seems they prefer a carbine over a rifle for close quarters combat.

Other military or police groups specializing in close quarters combat (e.g. SWAT, Canadian special forces) don't appear to think differently either.

Ummm you don't know what a carbine is do you?

A carbine is like a rifle -- they're both longarms -- but shorter.  Their smaller size makes them easier to wield in close combat.


There are carbine pistols.
 
2013-01-18 11:47:17 AM

Brontes: The Columbine shooters and Adam Lanza in Connecticut didn't buy their guns at all. They just took their guns from relatives, and they would have been completely outside this factual evaluation system.


The Columbine shooters got their guns at a gun show.  A female friend who was 18 bought them for them.
 
2013-01-18 11:47:50 AM

stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.


If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.
 
2013-01-18 11:50:25 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: Of course not. 100 years in the making. It's about time someone end it. This won't be the president to do it. Too many dollars in those police unions and prison building corps.

We're getting there, but it's all thanks to the states. The mask has slipped, and we won't be able to get other nations to do our bidding in terms of drugs for much longer if we can't even get the state of Washington to do it.

I bet the drug schedule gets tweaked in the next 10 years.


Don't underestimate the money involved. Both those housing them, and the people sending them there. As well as the goodies of being able to confiscate the possessions of those busted.
 
2013-01-18 11:51:12 AM

GUTSU: If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.


But you are severely restricting their right, infringing it, if you will.
 
drp
2013-01-18 11:52:31 AM

Z-clipped: drp: I own many guns, and am a single issue 2A voter.

Seriously? Given all of the problems this country has right now... the economy, overseas conflict, trade issues, energy dependence, education, the erosion of government representation through corporate influence... the gun issue trumps all of the others combined when you're looking for a candidate to vote for?


Yes, seriously.

The Romney vs Obama approach to the economy was about the same. They bickered over cuts amounting to a few $billion when the problem is $trillions.

Overseas conflict? About the same. Romney wasn't going to start a war with Iran. Obama's not the timid cowardly bow-machine the Foxnews wankers pretend he is. (Lest ye think I give this issue less attention than it is due, I'll just throw out there that I'm in the military and posting this from the midst of one of those overseas conflicts.)

Trade issues? Meh.

Energy independence? The market seems to be fixing that without help or hindrance from either side.

Erosion of government representation through corporate influence - ie SCOTUS. Here's where I have some reservations. The judges the right appoints don't seem to have much respect for things like the 4th amendment, the ones appointed by the left no respect for the 2nd. Every time some GOP clown spouts off about gay marriage it makes me sick. It's frustrating that I have to choose between civil rights. Right now I choose my right to armed self defense over the others, mainly because I think those other rights have better protection in the courts, right now.

In the end, all freedom comes from the credible threat of force. So yeah, I'm a single issue 2A voter.

If you lefties :-) would stop dicking around with my 2nd Amendment civil rights, you'd get my support on a lot of other subjects.
 
2013-01-18 11:54:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.

You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?

Yes, HWC, we get it, every analogy that highlights the idiocy of your position, isn't a valid analogy.

No you posted something really dumb. I could go into the myriad reasons why its dumb, but you're just so boring.


In other words "I could totally explain why your point is wrong, I just don't want to!". Hotwing doesn't come up with an actual response, surprise!

HotWingConspiracy: I embarrass you every time you rattle may cage. Every time. You eventually give up, stop responding to my posts, and start accusing other people of being my alts for pointing out how dumb you are.


Yeah, I said I suspected someone else of being an alt when they referenced a conversation you and I had weeks before in an effort to defend you, and they weren't even in the thread. I think anyone would call that a reason to suspect that you were just sock puppeting.

And seriously, you think you "embarrass me". You can't form a rational argument to save your life. You literally just call everyone who disagrees with you stupid, and fabricate some obnoxious straw man to beat up. I enjoy these threads because you do an excellent job destroying any notion people may have had that your side is the rational one.
 
2013-01-18 11:54:47 AM

Xenomech: A carbine is like a rifle -- they're both longarms -- but shorter.  Their smaller size makes them easier to wield in close combat.


No it is a rifle
 
2013-01-18 11:55:23 AM

IlGreven: CADMonkey79: That was sort my original point. Yes everyone that wants to own a gun should be required to take firearm safety courses. And maybe if everyone,even those that choose not own a gun, went to a basic course there would not be so much irrational fear.

Which brings it back to my full point: I'm not a gun owner, but I would like to trust rational gun owners who can constructively criticize regulations rather than going "ZOMG OBAMMER'S GUN TAKE ARE GUNZ!" every time someone in the Administration opens their mouths.  I'm not saying I know better than gun owners; I'm just saying I'd want gun owners I can actually work with.


I think the reason many have that reaction is because they see a ban on "assault rifles" as a precursor to a ban on handguns or maybe all guns. That probably wont happen but even as a rational responsible gun owner it concerns me that that may be were we are heading. I have no problem with most of what has been proposed by the pres, but I don't support an AWB because I don't think it will make even the slightest dent in the problem and only effect those who were not going to use them to massacre school children in the first place. I think the effort needs to be focused on providing better mental health treatment, not creating more laws that do nothing but make some feel like we are doing something.
 
2013-01-18 11:55:38 AM

jigger: GUTSU: If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

But you are severely restricting their right, infringing it, if you will.


"Restricting" is a harsh word I like to call it "protecting the children"
 
2013-01-18 11:56:25 AM

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.


Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.
 
2013-01-18 11:58:13 AM

jylcat: Brontes: The Columbine shooters and Adam Lanza in Connecticut didn't buy their guns at all. They just took their guns from relatives, and they would have been completely outside this factual evaluation system.

The Columbine shooters got their guns at a gun show.  A female friend who was 18 bought them for them.


Which was already against the law.
 
2013-01-18 11:59:27 AM

cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.


stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.


In most states you are allowed to openly carry aa firearm on your own property as well. The license is required for carrying (usually required to be concealed) in public. Comparing what you are allowed to do on private property to whats allowed in public is pointless.
 
2013-01-18 12:00:31 PM
"Don't take your guns to town son. Leave your guns at home, Bill."
 
2013-01-18 12:01:42 PM

stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.


I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.
 
2013-01-18 12:04:33 PM
I'd likely have my hand pretty close to my CCW out of concern this nutbar was looking to shoot a specific individual or the like. Long rifles or carbines are not really valid personal defense weapons in a crowded mall and your reasons for having one on your back are questionable. If you want to increase understanding of weapons, you need to show them being used for a proper function like any other tool, not humping around in JC Penny.

/come on man, at least take the mag out
 
2013-01-18 12:04:54 PM

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.


Just throw away 14, and I'll use my car half as much... we can have a compromise... =) hehehe...
 
2013-01-18 12:07:47 PM

djkutch: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

Last month I had a tenant come into my office with a gun. I told him to leave immediately. He said he wanted to pay his rent. I said he could as soon as he came back without the weapon. He said he wasn't comfortable leaving it in his car. Fine, come back another day. Rent will be late but, I'll wave the fees. He told me to fark off and I was violating his rights and he would see me in court. Sent a five day notice. Filed a forceable detainer and went to court. He got up and started barking about the 2nd amendment and the judge is like whoa there boy, our only consideration is rent. Got the judgement and he didn't leave. Got a writ of restitution and the constable forced him out. I had to put all his shiat in storage including his guns. There it will sit until he pays me for reasonable storage fees. $25/say seems fair.


A lot of people don't realize that if you are on private property exercising your 2A rights when the owner has told you they don't allow it you have two choices:

1. Leave said private property and continue exercising your rights elsewhere.

2. Be guilty of trespassing. If the property owner does not allow you to carry a weapon on their property and you do, you are not a welcome visitor and you can be arrested.

This isn't rocket surgery.
 
2013-01-18 12:12:20 PM

Sultan Of Herf: cman: TommyymmoT: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: ThunderPelvis: cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.

Oh, for the love of...this shiat right here is why I have to drink.

 [www.driveforknowledge.com image 707x536]

So people fighting for their rights is not the same as people fighting for their rights?

I have better shiat to do than to explain to you why that is a vastly, impressively stupid analogy, and I know you wouldn't listen anyway.

Out of curiosity, though, what is the name of your penis extension/steely love companion?  Bertha?  Mathilda?  Bloodsplatterhammergorekiller?  We can only speculate.  Anyway, I sincerely wish the two of you all the best and a long, happy life together.

Well I guess I wont be inviting you to my birthday party after all

Meany :(

Nobody wants to eat a cake that's shaped like George W. Bush's penis anyway.
Even if the claw at the end is made out of candy corn.

Is that meant to be an insult?

Is claiming that someone likes GWB supposed to be akin to calling the Democratic Party as Democrat Party?

FYI, I really dont like him.

stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

In most states you are allowed to openly carry aa firearm on your own property as well. The license is required for carrying (usually required to be concealed) in public. Comparing what you are allowed to do on private property to whats allowed in public is pointless.


Last time I checked you could openly carry guns on most federal land, and in my town I've walked into the convenience store more than once with my VZ.24 hanging off my back. In my town I see people with guns all the time. Personally I think having to have a license to carry around in public is a bit asinine, in New Hampshire they'd probably openly laugh at you for saying that.
 
2013-01-18 12:13:07 PM
Its loaded.

Its not slung properly AT ALL

He is not transporting it to or from a shooting event.

It is interfering with his hip carry.

He is carrying it in a place where it is not socially acceptable to have loaded weapons.

I think he's demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is mentally unfit to own or carry those weapons and he should have them taken away ASAP.

Seriously- what firearms instructor anywhere wouldn't have an apoplectic fit is a student handled their firearms like that? Some of you military types, let me know what your drill instructor would have done if you carried a loaded rifle and pistol around like that?
 
2013-01-18 12:13:14 PM
Christ, what an asshole.

A new low for Attention Whore Nation (ie, the U.S.).
 
2013-01-18 12:14:04 PM

stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.

Just throw away 14, and I'll use my car half as much... we can have a compromise... =) hehehe...


I suppose I can throwout a few old break action shotguns and a few lever action .22s
 
2013-01-18 12:16:51 PM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


just sayin' you're an idiot.. those soldiers are well .. soldiers not private citizens trying to troll,...and they are carrying because they were either going somewhere or came from somewhere that required them to have their rifles with them. Also noticed those rifles do not have magazines in them?
 
2013-01-18 12:18:07 PM
This is a general apology to all, last night I was having a pity party, all over now soooo I will be back to my ordinary self. And so what just because you can pay $5.00 per month what is that one hit on the ol bong?
 
2013-01-18 12:19:09 PM

IlGreven: If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...


The hopelessness that leads to mass killings? Did you really just type that?
 
2013-01-18 12:22:06 PM
Wait, hold on. Got some drama coming up
 
2013-01-18 12:22:41 PM

willfullyobscure: Its loaded.


I'm curious, how do you know it was loaded? Apart from the "all guns are loaded all the time" thing.
 
2013-01-18 12:24:15 PM

kingoomieiii: violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously? This is how we're all supposed to be safe? Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around. It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.

digboston.com

/This is the facepalm of coded racial language



You can go ahead and fark right off with your pathetic race card, ese.
 
2013-01-18 12:26:17 PM

James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?


You don't know, just as the shoppers at the Springfield Mall didn't know.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/ms-rambo-kill-spree-ar ti cle-1.1211691
 
2013-01-18 12:30:37 PM

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.


And people can still use tasers to defend themselves. Please, do proceed.
 
2013-01-18 12:34:13 PM

James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?


Well, one of them will be holding, aiming, and firing a gun.
 
2013-01-18 12:35:47 PM
Seriously, if I saw a guy walking around Penny's with an assault rifle, I would hope I had the balls to skip over to sporting goods, get a bat, sneak up behind the guy, and crack his skull. I would assume the only reason he brought it there was to kill a bunch of people and just hadn't started shooting yet. I might face assault charges, but I would go to my grave believing I just saved a dozen lives.
 
2013-01-18 12:35:49 PM

trappedspirit: James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?

Well, one of them will be holding, aiming, and firing a gun.


And it takes, what? Two or three full seconds to go from one to the other? Why, all the time in the world to escape!
 
2013-01-18 12:36:58 PM

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.


See? This is what I was talking about earlier. Why did you have to tell everyone "28 guns"?

wouldn't "some of my guns" or just "my guns" have been.just as effective? By purposely injecting a high number its just rude bragging. No wonder anti-gun people have such a stereotype of gun owners. Learn some manners and get over yourself. you're not helping.
 
2013-01-18 12:39:13 PM

NightOwl2255: willfullyobscure: Its loaded.

I'm curious, how do you know it was loaded? Apart from the "all guns are loaded all the time" thing.


Um, it has a magazine racked into it? Only way that gun is not loaded is with the mag out and the breech open. If he was really carrying it somewhere to shoot I would expect him to have a lock on it as well and so would a lot of shooting ranges. Many of them won't even let you in the door unless your firearms are cased.
 
2013-01-18 12:43:45 PM
I hate to be reminded of my mortality like that, how dare he.
 
2013-01-18 12:55:42 PM
If you are ever in a situation where you need to defend yourself with a firearm in public there are steps you can take steps to reduce the risk that one of your bullets will inadvertently hit a bystander. One of those steps is to carry a weapon that is not more powerful than necessary. Another potential precaution would be to carry a concealed weapon to prevent you from being the first one to be targeted and killed only to have your own weapon used against others.

So unless people are informed before hand that it is part of a political statement most people instinctively realize that someone who brings an assault rifle to a mall is not making the wisest choices. I know that if I was armed and someone unexpectedly entered a business with a rifle that I would make sure to position myself so that I could take him out before he could fire his weapon. If his hand touches the gun, mine will be out of the holster. Any effort to position the weapon and mine is pointed at him ready to fire until he is disarmed. Anything past that he dies.
 
2013-01-18 12:57:53 PM
www.dailyraider.com
 
2013-01-18 12:58:36 PM

hubiestubert: hinten: Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.

Not really. The problem isn't gun control. In part, idiots like this are "exercising their rights" because of the ridiculousness of the debate on guns.

The difficulty is weapons aren't the real issue. The real issue is crime. BOTH sides of the gun control debate, are concerned with crime. Well, not the NRA, as they are looking to boost sales and memberships, but when we talk about gun control, we are actually talking about crime and accidents. The problem is that folks are focused on the tools, and not the REAL problems.

You want to reduce crime in this country--violent crime that is--then we need to focus on the causes and factors that lead folks down that road. That means taking a hard look at economic policy, economic mobility, education, drug policy, health care both mental and physical, and matters of social justice. Those are really hard issues. Those mean taking a long look in a deep, dark truthful mirror, and no one wants a Big Bowl of Truth in their living room. It invites way too much introspection and it would mean sacrificing some very hard held myths that Americans hold dear. About "opportunity" about "fairness" and about what sort of society that we've created.

It's a lot easier to focus on the tools, and to equate the tools used in these crimes with "freedom" and load the debate with a lot of other crap that means that we can focus on ANYTHING else but the fact that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and not have to face cleaning it up.

Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks t ...


This is why I have you greened.

/one of the smartest posts ever
 
2013-01-18 01:00:31 PM

Rawhead Rex: birchman: Rawhead Rex: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

A JC Penny's is not YOUR place of business...even if you're the manager...
You're bound by CORPORATE rules and if corporate rules dictate they're ok with Utah's open carry law, then no, biatch...you wouldn't have said shiat to him except, "Will that be all, sir?" as you rang up his order.

I SERIOUSLY doubt JCPenny has a corporate rule stating that. Or any department store for that matter that isn't a sporting goods store. I'm also not sure you understand what a store manager's job is.

So, you're saying a JC Penny's manager's job is to disarm and escort out this guy with an AR15 out of "your" store...

And you're saying you'd have done it.

Who's the internet tough guy now, retail boy?


I said neither of those things you simpleton.
 
2013-01-18 01:04:00 PM
I can wander around muttering shiat, piss, fark, damn... over and over again. I can wander around mumbling gibberish and scratching my belly. I can wander around and talk about how the lizard people are trying to abduct me... again. The 1st Amendment protects all of this behavior. Still, I choose not to exercise these rights, lest someone think I'm a lunatic.

I wish this gun-humper had similar feelings about his rights.
 
2013-01-18 01:05:22 PM
So a citizen is observed doing nothing illegal? Move along and peddle your alarmist idiot derp somewhere else, subby.
 
2013-01-18 01:06:29 PM

lewismarktwo: I hate to be reminded of my mortality like that, how dare he.


Less reminded of mortality than there are idiots who need attention and seek it in dumb ways.

There are places where arms in the open are common. When you bring arms someplace where they're not needed, all it does is increase scrutiny, attention, and in the case of a loaded weapon that ISN'T being carried safely, it ratchets up the potential for an accident. It is this sort of irresponsible behavior that makes the issues all the muddier.

Carry safely, carry responsibly, and use them in the same fashion. Ultimately, all this sort of thing does is keep the issue talked about, and in the worst way--which was perhaps his goal--and it only pushes off a decent discussion--which may have likewise been his goal...
  <
2013-01-18 01:07:33 PM