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  
•       •       •

10741 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 637 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report