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.

(PoliceOne)   Police chief wants officers armed with AR-15s. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (policeone.com) divider line 378
    More: Obvious, police chiefs, officer of arms, Iowa, mass shooting, pocket  
•       •       •

8251 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 2:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 09:50:48 AM

Rich Cream: [upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

The thing about this is that no one got killed by these guys. Despite the thousand rounds and body armor and high-powered rifles no one got killed (except the two gunmen themselves).

So explain to me why this one-time incident is used as proof we need military-grade peace officers at all times?


I'm not arguing for or against anything, but I will say a factor in the low body count was the fact that the offenders werent actually trying to kill anybody. Yes, they shot cops, and yes, the cops very easily could have been killed... but in general they were just spraying suppressing fire while they tried to escape a bank robbery. They never actually tried to advance on the police in order to execute a proper kill on them.

/Might have gone better for them if they had
 
2013-01-25 09:52:09 AM
All the local police chiefs and sheriffs around me keep trying to tell everyone that no one is trying to take your guns, and the measures will actually help assist them in their day to day work. Since I'm kind of in the south, you can imagine what some of the locals are saying about them.
 
2013-01-25 09:52:16 AM

BronyMedic: violentsalvation: Doesn't mean I'm going to question his military record like an asshole.

Sorry, I've lived through FLYNAVY and Wife-Like Typing guy. If he was actually in the military, I'll apologize to him. But there are plenty of people on FARK who claim to be in/have been in the military who are blatent liars about it.

I do tend to question anyone who calls a magazine a clip and then claims to have been in the military.


No military person would ever call a magazine a clip unless they were a total shiatpump.
 
2013-01-25 09:54:15 AM
Lock 'em up in the trunk. Have specific circumstances under which they can be used, including post-op reports detailing the justification for their deployment.

As long brandishing them involves extra paperwork, I doubt they will see the much daylight.
 
2013-01-25 09:55:07 AM
For a normal patrol officer, the one or two handguns along with a shotgun is enough firepower for their normal duties. Militarizing our police officers will lead to excessive force and citizens being killed.

Incidents that prompted this change in tools will not be prevented from happening in the future. Those that carry out these attacks know that law enforcement will be coming, they usually take their lives when they hear the sirens. Response time matters more.
 
2013-01-25 09:58:42 AM

Artisan Sandwich: BronyMedic: violentsalvation: Doesn't mean I'm going to question his military record like an asshole.

Sorry, I've lived through FLYNAVY and Wife-Like Typing guy. If he was actually in the military, I'll apologize to him. But there are plenty of people on FARK who claim to be in/have been in the military who are blatent liars about it.

I do tend to question anyone who calls a magazine a clip and then claims to have been in the military.

No military person would ever call a magazine a clip unless they were a total shiatpump.


Maybe they were POGs or Waterdogs?
 
2013-01-25 10:00:28 AM

Dimensio: dittybopper: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: constitutional implications.

Blacks were 3/5ths a person. Women had no vote.

Preach to me again about the import of that f*cking piece of paper.

"There was slavery 150 years ago, therefore the federal government should be able to institute an official religion"

Cool argument, bro.

Love it when people pick and choose parts of the Constitution.

It's sooooooooo creative.

There is a process to fix the Constitution if it is indeed found to be wanting. The founding fathers weren't fools, they knew that times change and the Constitution would have to be "adjusted" to those times. We've done it to fix the problem of slavery, for example.

So, if the people owning arms is such a bad thing, pass an amendment repealing the Second Amendment.

Passage of a Constitutional Amendment is a difficult procedure, requiring attaining of substantially more support than is typically available. Merely lying about the implications of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or simply advocating ignoring sections of the Constitution that are arbitrarily declared to be "obsolete" or "outdated" enables advocates of unreasonable restrictions upon firearm ownership to more effectively attain support for their position.


This is dangerous to the very concept of the rule of law.
 
2013-01-25 10:02:07 AM
Cops needed some Penile extensions, that's all..

/wicked cool police core
 
2013-01-25 10:03:26 AM
For all of the idiots posting who don't seem to understand the second amendment, and have probably never read it, but are just parroting the opinions of the perpetually-misinformed talking heads and drinking the Feinstein-Brand "ignorance and logical fallacy" flavored Kool-Aid.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Also, the militia is not the military, the militia is a group of able bodied civilian men who can be ready to protect their rights if necessary, just like in the revolutionary war - where the Militias and the Continental army worked together to get rid of the totalitarian British rule. You forget that the Military represents the government, and that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from a government that wanted to infringe upon any of our rights - just like they did.

You also seem to forget that this interpretation of the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing the people as in individual citizens, not just cops and soldiers is the correct interpretation and that it is backed by supreme court precedence.

img89.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-25 10:05:43 AM

BronyMedic: At any rate, I don't have to "say" anything. I can show you. Your kind gets off on watching cops (It's pigs, right?) get murdered, so I figured I'd provide you with some jerk material. (NSFW) That fight was ended by a Game Warden using his M-4 in a particularly bad-ass way.


You reminded me of this. Thanks for putting pigs in my head.

"Crammed together in sties, pigs tend to act swinishly, as it were, and to have noisy and nasty fights. It is not unknown for them to eat their own young and even their own excrement, while their tendency to random and loose gallantry is often painful to the more fastidious eye. But it has often been noticed that pigs left to their own devices, and granted sufficient space, will keep themselves very clean, arrange little bowers, bring up families and engage in social interaction with other pigs." -Hitch

/bacon
//bacon
 
2013-01-25 10:06:07 AM

SpectroBoy: This is the gun the Iowa police need to feel safe.

[www.evike.com image 640x391]


I need to get a spork-adapter for my AR.
 
2013-01-25 10:07:13 AM

violentsalvation: There are other ideas but they are shouted down, I guess for simply accepting the reality of the situation and not being idealistic enough. I'd like a tax credit considered for purchasers of approved and properly installed gun safes. O


That's cute.

Gun safe: $200

Gun safe tax credit as of June 1 2014: $150

Gun safe as of March 1 2014: $350

Sales slump, then "Buy this $350 gun safe, it's okay though because the Government will give you like half of the cost back in taxes!"
 
2013-01-25 10:09:33 AM

give me doughnuts: SpectroBoy: This is the gun the Iowa police need to feel safe.

[www.evike.com image 640x391]

I need to get a spork-adapter for my AR.


I recommend a spoon attachment, rather than a spork.

/Because it's dull, you idiot.
//It'll hurt more.
 
2013-01-25 10:10:32 AM

soj4life: Incidents that prompted this change in tools will not be prevented from happening in the future. Those that carry out these attacks know that law enforcement will be coming, they usually take their lives when they hear the sirens. Response time matters more.


....which is why they want the AR15s. Then they can appropriately respond to an incident right away, vs waiting for SWAT.
 
2013-01-25 10:13:55 AM

Fail in Human Form: Deep Contact: muck4doo: The best war is not to get in war at all. But if you are going to have weapons, know them.

/War is stupid.

Sometimes you need a 30 year war. That's what humans do.

Due to the cost of a modern military operation, a 30 year war would be ruinous.


hushkit.files.wordpress.com
22 years and counting.

/but, but...
 
2013-01-25 10:13:56 AM

NewportBarGuy: Keep playing semantics. It's all you have.


Semantics is all anyone has if we want to understand what each other is talking about. We have to use the correct terms for things. We can't just decide that we want to start using an INCORRECT term for something and assume everyone will know what we're talking about.

Seriously, the people that biatch and whine and yell out "SEMANTICS IS ALL YOU HAVE!!" when they are corrected on terminology when trying to discuss this subject are being idiots. If you want to talk seriously about this, and try to find solutions, WE ALL HAVE TO BE SPEAKING THE SAME FARKING LANGUAGE.

After all of these threads is there really anyone left here that doesn't know there is an actual difference between a "clip" and a "magazine"? Is there anyone left that doesn't understand that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are not the same thing? Yet people still insist on using incorrect words and get their panties in a bunch when corrected.

fark it. The ones who are being willfully ignorant can keep on keeping on. Call a magazine a diddly-dooder and call an assault rifle a blangity-blang. What's it matter? It's just semantics after all.
 
2013-01-25 10:14:30 AM

liam76: way south: liam76: violentsalvation: The backdoor registration bothers me, because that has a hint of "oh hey we changed our minds, fork it over". I'd hope legislation allowing private parties to access the NICS would understand that a private sale is not the same as someone who is explicitly in the business of selling firearms

In terms of preventing criminals or mentally unstable from getting guns there is no difference.

In terms of your privacy, there is a big difference.

You are effectively making public an instant access list of "untrustworthy persons", which is as bad as publicizing the no-fly list depending on how its handled.
Quite a few people will end up having a problem with this when they realize what it could mean.

/and it still doesn't answer the question of why we have a growing problem with mentally unstable people.
/keeping weapons out of their hands may prove to be a poor exchange when compared to what we have to give up.

That list has already been made. 99% of people are fine with felons, and mentally unstable not having guns.

The problem now is you can get around having to check that list with private sales.

I don't think we have a huge problem with keeping guns from mentally unstable. Most of our gun crime comes from people getting guns illegally, not nuts "slipping througth the cracks".


The list itself isn't the problem so much as open access to it.
Right now you have to go through FFLs who are registered themselves.

The question is how will joe public, who may not always live in reasonable distance of an ffl or who may not wish to pay a twenty dollar transfer fee on a hundred dollar gun, access this information without abusing it.
The follow up question is if these lists are worth the trouble.

Criminal buyers at present go for the private sale route because there is no check. When there is one, they'll opt for theft or import.
I'm not convinced this solves a crime problem so much as it simply moves the stat to another column.

Meanwhile, in the post patriot act era, government is collecting and distributing more of your personal information to God only knows who. We've got no idea what it plans to tell them either.
I'm fearing that in a search for security, we risk getting ourselves locked up sooner than any crook.
Because at least the crook is aware of his crimes and is working to cover them up.
 
2013-01-25 10:15:45 AM

GanjSmokr: NewportBarGuy: Keep playing semantics. It's all you have.

Semantics is all anyone has if we want to understand what each other is talking about. We have to use the correct terms for things. We can't just decide that we want to start using an INCORRECT term for something and assume everyone will know what we're talking about.

Seriously, the people that biatch and whine and yell out "SEMANTICS IS ALL YOU HAVE!!" when they are corrected on terminology when trying to discuss this subject are being idiots. If you want to talk seriously about this, and try to find solutions, WE ALL HAVE TO BE SPEAKING THE SAME FARKING LANGUAGE.

After all of these threads is there really anyone left here that doesn't know there is an actual difference between a "clip" and a "magazine"? Is there anyone left that doesn't understand that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are not the same thing? Yet people still insist on using incorrect words and get their panties in a bunch when corrected.

fark it. The ones who are being willfully ignorant can keep on keeping on. Call a magazine a diddly-dooder and call an assault rifle a blangity-blang. What's it matter? It's just semantics after all.


Perhaps we should refer to assault weapons ban advocates as "child molesters". Should they protest, we will be able to accuse them of arguing "semantics".
 
2013-01-25 10:16:36 AM

salsashark1: The AR-15 appears nowhere in the constitution.

FACT!


Neither does "Internet" or "Television" or "Smartphone".

Better start unplugging yourself there, Sparky.
 
2013-01-25 10:20:32 AM

Farce-Side: I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.


Why does a cop get to have a choice as to her weapon but not a civilian?
 
2013-01-25 10:24:11 AM

The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.
 
2013-01-25 10:29:08 AM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."

/but you already knew that...
 
2013-01-25 10:29:31 AM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.


You have confused a justification with a condition. Your assertion is also demonstrably contradicted by case law and thus is incorrect.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:27 AM
I'm kinda surprised they don't already have them.
 
2013-01-25 10:48:45 AM
AR-15? Were all the pellet guns sold out? I'd prefer officers carry something with a little stopping power.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:41 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Farce-Side: I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.

Why does a cop get to have a choice as to her weapon but not a civilian?


Cops *ARE* civilians.

I hate the casual reference to non-LEOs as "civilians".
 
2013-01-25 10:59:31 AM

way south: The list itself isn't the problem so much as open access to it.
Right now you have to go through FFLs who are registered themselves.

The question is how will joe public, who may not always live in reasonable distance of an ffl or who may not wish to pay a twenty dollar transfer fee on a hundred dollar gun, access this information without abusing it.


There is no reason they have to go to the FFL in person.

I don't really care if you don't want to pay for the transfer fee. You have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to sell them to anybody you want with no hassle. There are lots of dangerous things that you have to be responsble for if you want to get rid of or sell.

way south: Criminal buyers at present go for the private sale route because there is no check. When there is one, they'll opt for theft or import.
I'm not convinced this solves a crime problem so much as it simply moves the stat to another column.


That is a very weak argument. Using that logic we should get rid of all background checks to cut down on gun thefts and importing.

I think many of the people doing "private sales" do so knowing they are going to people they shouldn't, but it is hard to catch them. With this law it will make it much easier to catch them. Buying a gun from a guy who isn't breaking the law by selling to you with no background check isn't as easy as stealing a gun, it will cut down on guns going to criminals.

way south: Meanwhile, in the post patriot act era, government is collecting and distributing more of your personal information to God only knows who. We've got no idea what it plans to tell them either.
I'm fearing that in a search for security, we risk getting ourselves locked up sooner than any crook.
Because at least the crook is aware of his crimes and is working to cover them up


There is no additional data collected by the govt about you for this.
 
2013-01-25 11:00:21 AM

dittybopper: Cops *ARE* civilians.

I hate the casual reference to non-LEOs as "civilians".


Yeah, this. I don't mind if LEOs carry rifles (AR-15s are pretty ideal for urban environments anyway) but I think there should be parity between what police and non-police can own.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:34 AM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: humans are, indeed, scumbags


Considering that we're the only species on earth that has ever been observed in its natural habitat killing off members of its own species for fun, I'd say you're a very strong contender for Understatement Of The Decade.
 
2013-01-25 11:11:17 AM
Apparently some of the idiots here don't realize police in many areas have been using these rifles for decades.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:14 AM

dittybopper: StoPPeRmobile: Farce-Side: I admittedly didn't read the whole thread, because most of it is herpity derpity on both sides of the argument, especially the bits between NewportBarGuy and Frank N Stein.

I just came in to see why there were so many posts. This is not news. Every department I know of here permits officers to purchase an AR-15 or even an AK-47 and carry it in their patrol vehicle as long as they are department certified to use it. SWAT is issued M16's, and patrol seargents are issued AR's. I'm failing to see the big deal. They aren't using taxpayer money on the weapons, they're making the officers pay for it themselves.

Why does a cop get to have a choice as to her weapon but not a civilian?

Cops *ARE* civilians.

I hate the casual reference to non-LEOs as "civilians".


You're right. I should have said "peasants."
 
2013-01-25 11:12:54 AM
What a thread full of idiocy going on here.

Virtually every police department I know of has AR-15s right in the car next to their shotguns.

What exactly is the big deal for an officer to have the proper weaponry to put down someone who is shooting at people?
 
2013-01-25 11:13:18 AM

give me doughnuts: I need to get a spork-adapter for my AR.


Too late. They are sold out everywhere, and they are probably on the banned list since they look scary.

If you find one used it will be at 4 times the old price.
 
2013-01-25 11:13:22 AM
They tried this convoluted scheme to buy AR-15s here:

The115 rifles, manufactured by Rock River Arms, will cost $104,716.12 and will be temporarily paid for out of the Federal Asset Forfeiture (FAF) account. Most of the rifles will be owned by the officers who use them, and they will reimburse the FAF account for the full price over a 12-month period.


Not sure what happened; I think it got nixed by the Feds
 
2013-01-25 11:16:09 AM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.


I see that reading comprehension is definitely not your strong point, as I explained that bit in my post. Read this over and over again until you can understand it.

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Notice that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Also, the militia is not the military, the militia is a group of able bodied civilian men who can be ready to protect their rights if necessary, just like in the revolutionary war - where the Militias and the Continental army worked together to get rid of the totalitarian British rule. You forget that the Military represents the government, and that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from a government that wanted to infringe upon any of our rights - just like they did.

 
2013-01-25 11:24:25 AM

fickenchucker: What a thread full of idiocy going on here.

Virtually every police department I know of has AR-15s right in the car next to their shotguns.

What exactly is the big deal for an officer to have the proper weaponry to put down someone who is shooting at people?


I have been repeatedly informed that the AR-15 rifle is suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". As such, a different firearm model is better suited for neutralizing a single violent attacker.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:06 AM

King Something: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: humans are, indeed, scumbags

Considering that we're the only species on earth that has ever been observed in its natural habitat killing off members of its own species for fun, I'd say you're a very strong contender for Understatement Of The Decade.


Yes! Finally I'm the best at something! 8-)
 
2013-01-25 11:27:42 AM

The Only Sane Man In Florida: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.

I see that reading comprehension is definitely not your strong point, as I explained that bit in my post. Read this over and over again until you can understand it.

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Notice that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Also, the militia is not the military, the militia is a group of able bodied civilian men who can be ready to protect their rights if necessary, just like in the revolutionary war - where the Militias and the Continental army worked together to get rid of the totalitarian British rule. You forget that the Military represents the government, and that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from a government that wanted to infringe upon any of our rights - just like they did.


Ouch! Okay okay, you're much smarter than I am.
 
2013-01-25 11:31:28 AM

MythDragon: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Yeah like I'd stick my dick in anything that ends in "stein."

I made that mistake once. I was really drunk.


I got it stuck in there, so I had to finish my beer by laying on my back and doing pelvic thrusts over my head.


Pewter?! Damn near killed her!
 
2013-01-25 11:45:16 AM
MEh, my police department has had assault rifles since 2002.

/NY
 
2013-01-25 11:54:13 AM

Dimensio: fickenchucker: What a thread full of idiocy going on here.

Virtually every police department I know of has AR-15s right in the car next to their shotguns.

What exactly is the big deal for an officer to have the proper weaponry to put down someone who is shooting at people?

I have been repeatedly informed that the AR-15 rifle is suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". As such, a different firearm model is better suited for neutralizing a single violent attacker.



Trolling much? Either that, or your sarcasm is very good.
 
2013-01-25 12:01:13 PM

fickenchucker: Dimensio: fickenchucker: What a thread full of idiocy going on here.

Virtually every police department I know of has AR-15s right in the car next to their shotguns.

What exactly is the big deal for an officer to have the proper weaponry to put down someone who is shooting at people?

I have been repeatedly informed that the AR-15 rifle is suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". As such, a different firearm model is better suited for neutralizing a single violent attacker.


Trolling much? Either that, or your sarcasm is very good.


It's genius level.
 
2013-01-25 12:08:44 PM

fickenchucker: Dimensio: fickenchucker: What a thread full of idiocy going on here.

Virtually every police department I know of has AR-15s right in the car next to their shotguns.

What exactly is the big deal for an officer to have the proper weaponry to put down someone who is shooting at people?

I have been repeatedly informed that the AR-15 rifle is suitable only for "killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible". As such, a different firearm model is better suited for neutralizing a single violent attacker.


Trolling much? Either that, or your sarcasm is very good.


Is that not the rhetoric used? Is that not one of the main reasons that the child molesters want the AR-15 banned?
 
2013-01-25 12:21:30 PM

NewportBarGuy: Frank N Stein: But Fark told me that AR-15s were designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the quickest amount of time.

Because that is entirely accurate. The AR-15 is designed to put down human beings in short fashion. That is exactly what it was designed for.

Your point?


And yet there are thousands of them owned by private citizens that have never killed a human being. Are these guns defective? Do they have a design flaw? Should they be returned for repairs?
 
2013-01-25 12:26:47 PM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: The Only Sane Man In Florida: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In your analysis you seem to suggest that the first half of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Are you saying that the Amendment would be just fine like this?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It clearly indicates a condition by which the right of people to possess arms shall be maintained. It does not guarantee it no matter what.

I see that reading comprehension is definitely not your strong point, as I explained that bit in my post. Read this over and over again until you can understand it.

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Notice that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Also, the militia is not the military, the militia is a group of able bodied civilian men who can be ready to protect their rights if necessary, just like in the revolutionary war - where the Militias and the Continental army worked together to get rid of the totalitarian British rule. You forget that the Military represents the government, and that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from a government that wanted to infringe upon any of our rights - just like they did.

Ouch! Okay okay, you're much smarter than I am.


Sure looks like it. Maybe you should go try reddit? They can help school you a bit more in how to misread things and sensationalize everything.
 
2013-01-25 12:52:07 PM
Mad shout-outs to Brony

Noticed that Newport got awfully quiet. Is this 2013's new FlyNavy?

/If I ever require EMT support, I hope Brony is in the truck.
//Doubt we live anywhere near one another.
 
2013-01-25 12:56:44 PM
Aaaaand, just read your profile, Brony.

May you continue on your path of awesome, and continue to save lives. Your area is lucky to have you. Tip o' the cap, and all that.

/No snark at all, actually cool to see a Good Person on Fark.
 
2013-01-25 01:05:43 PM

Mrbogey: jso2897: Allow me to piss off both sides of this argument by pointing out that these "assault weapons" are jive-ass toys.
They take a low-powered, innaccurate semi-auto carbine and festoon it up with "military" features that are useless to anyone but a soldier in the field, and sell it for a fat markup.
They have two real functions - to con the dollars out of stupid, macho gun-fappers pockets, and to scare the shiat out of ignorant liberals who don't know anything about guns.
That's all they are especially good for - that and enriching those who make and sell them.

Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be seen with one of the things - in my mind, they all look like this:
[i18.photobucket.com image 640x346]

Have you ever fired anything other than NATO out of an AR-15? Some of the rounds are solid hunting/distant target shooting.


They're still carbines. They're cheap imitations of guns that are for war, and accuracy was not the chief quality they were engineered for. Of course, I'd be a gullible fool to let a bunch of gun-fappers suck me into an "argument" about a relative term like "accurate". Yes, these Sears-catalogue badass toys are more accurate than a derringer. No, they are not as accurate as an 1894 model Winchester (long-barrel) that is not worn out or broken. But I'm sure as shiat not going to argue about it.
Not that I'm saying they should be banned - quite the contrary - the whole "assault weapons" narrative is bullshiat. I don't think these things are real "assault weapons", and I don't particularly respect them as tools.
Pardon the f**k out of me if my opinion offends you.
 
2013-01-25 01:14:57 PM

MassAsster: were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.


Umm... you're making an argument to ban all rifles except lever and bolt action. I'm okay with this.
 
2013-01-25 01:18:05 PM

gibbon1: MassAsster: were able able to out gun multiple officers with weapons that were better capable for a shootout at a distance then the standard issued hand gun and could simply just out do, out perform and out shoot what every officer had on scene making it so dire that police officers had to literally go to the gun store in order to compete.

Umm... you're making an argument to ban all rifles except lever and bolt action. I'm okay with this.


What a bolt action gun might look like.
gallery.gdatp.com
/electrically primed
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report