Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NYPost)   Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws   (nypost.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, New York, arms trafficking, gangster movie, gun dealers, Rikers Island, manhattan da, assault weapons, Sentell Smith  
•       •       •

12441 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



212 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-25 09:15:51 AM  
Time to put those "existing laws" to good use.
 
2013-01-25 09:27:33 AM  
And he is in jail.
 
2013-01-25 10:10:58 AM  
Who was the gun stolen from? And why didn't they defend themselves with it?
 
2013-01-25 10:11:56 AM  
Are you implying that street criminals DON'T obey changes to laws?
Pass the smelling salts!
 
2013-01-25 10:12:02 AM  
Before all of the TINGLE LIBERALLLLLLLLINGLE WINNNNNNGLE starts, I'd like to point out that holy shiat that is a rough looking 30 years old.
 
2013-01-25 10:12:39 AM  
Do you know who else had laws?
 
2013-01-25 10:15:23 AM  
Gun control really only affects law-abiding citizens. If you think for one second that banning semi-automatic weapons will prevent crazies or criminals getting ahold of them; I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would sell you.

/ plus, a rock that prevents tiger attacks
 
2013-01-25 10:16:02 AM  
Well this article was a little pants pissy... still doesn't mean the laws don't need to be beefed up.

Aaaand let the flaming begin!

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 10:17:28 AM  
I don't know what the big deal is; he's selling tools, that's all, no different than selling cars or hammers.
 
2013-01-25 10:18:03 AM  

iheartscotch: Gun control really only affects law-abiding citizens. If you think for one second that banning semi-automatic weapons will prevent crazies or criminals getting ahold of them; I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would sell you.

/ plus, a rock that prevents tiger attacks


People like to say this crap about cities like New York and Chicago but many of those guns come from the surrounding areas and states where the laws are looser. If that weren't the case the GC laws in those cities would be more effective.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 10:18:20 AM  

oldfarthenry: Are you implying that street criminals DON'T obey changes to laws?
Pass the smelling salts!


No, the article is stating that they do not obey laws. It is also stating that, in at least this case, disobeying the law gets them arrested. That's kind of the whole idea behind law enforcement.

If making a law meant no one broke it, we wouldn't need cops.
 
2013-01-25 10:19:59 AM  

BunkoSquad: I don't know what the big deal is; he's selling tools, that's all, no different than selling cars or hammers.


They're called "automobiles". Since you don't know the properly terminology we can assume you are an idiot and dismiss any opinions you have on the subject.
 
2013-01-25 10:20:58 AM  
dis money is mines
 
2013-01-25 10:21:33 AM  
The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?

Pretty much every human civilization in the history of the world?
 
2013-01-25 10:23:18 AM  
And here I thought this was going to be abpout a lcensed firearms dealer selling weapons willy nilly on a street corner. Instead it is about a felon being felonious.

There was an article here recently about people getting paid to shill for certain causes......which modmin greened this?
 
2013-01-25 10:23:38 AM  
I don't see why we have theft control laws. Things are stolen everyday, proving that these laws are ineffective. If you think that theft control laws will stop criminals from stealing, you're an idiot.
 
2013-01-25 10:24:42 AM  
Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws the second lowest rate of gun deaths in the country.
 
2013-01-25 10:25:26 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?


Hammurabi?
 
2013-01-25 10:28:50 AM  
dancingczars.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-25 10:29:58 AM  
"Sentell is caught on surveillance tape tossing the Remington .223-caliber rifle - along with its magazine clip and five rounds"

Next it will be military-grade magazine clips and then we are all farked.
 
2013-01-25 10:30:04 AM  

Giltric: There was an article here recently about people getting paid to shill for certain causes


What cause does this shill for?

If anything, I would think gun lovers like you would like to see more articles like this. Existing gun laws were enforced to catch a man in the act of selling a weapon in the criminal market. Without requiring any new gun control laws.
 
2013-01-25 10:30:34 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?


The Celts?
 
2013-01-25 10:32:17 AM  

DubyaHater: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 504x367]


Totes... and it's STILL happening! The Canadian government has been slaughtering millions!

Don't be like Canada.
 
2013-01-25 10:36:38 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-25 10:37:12 AM  
NEWSFLASH! CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS!!!!!

Next up on the RomeroReport: THINGS FALL DOWN WHEN YOU DROP THEM!!!!
 
2013-01-25 10:38:47 AM  

maddogdelta: NEWSFLASH! CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS!!!!!

Next up on the RomeroReport: THINGS FALL DOWN WHEN YOU DROP THEM!!!!


NEWSFLASH! AN ENORMOUS PART OF WHAT NEWSPAPERS REPORT ON IS CRIMINALS BREAKING LAWS!
 
2013-01-25 10:41:49 AM  

DubyaHater: dancingczars.files.wordpress.com


Yes, because owning firearms would have totally prevented WW2. Brilliant.

Back in the musket days, the only equalizer was the cannon (and equivalent). Unless you propose that ordinary citizens start owning 155mm howitzers, TOW anti-tank missiles, M1A2 tanks, B2 bombers, C130 gunships, and of course nuclear weapons, this revolution fantasy circle jerk is stunningy ignorant and naive. The ONLY way that citizens would be able to resist tyranny is the way that it's unfolded across the world: get factions of the military to side with you. And that's got 0% to do with owning frigging small arms.
 
2013-01-25 10:42:46 AM  
thurstonxhowell [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2013-01-25 10:18:20 AM

oldfarthenry: Are you implying that street criminals DON'T obey changes to laws?
Pass the smelling salts!

No, the article is stating that they do not obey laws. It is also stating that, in at least this case, disobeying the law gets them arrested. That's kind of the whole idea behind law enforcement.

If the administration enforced existing gun laws perhaps lives would be saved...

"And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form

-- vice president joe biden (you know the oba messiah's hand picked right hand man)

Because doing our job is harrrrrd *sob*
 
2013-01-25 10:48:52 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: There was an article here recently about people getting paid to shill for certain causes

What cause does this shill for?

If anything, I would think gun lovers like you would like to see more articles like this. Existing gun laws were enforced to catch a man in the act of selling a weapon in the criminal market. Without requiring any new gun control laws.


I approve this message.

Criminal did criminal things. Cops did cop things. The laws worked. He is off the street. Also, amusing Hard Derp on the stand.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:10 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: "Sentell is caught on surveillance tape tossing the Remington .223-caliber rifle - along with its magazine clip and five rounds"

Next it will be military-grade magazine clips and then we are all farked.


I'm still lolling over the phrase "magazine clips." Why strive for accuracy when you can just make shiat up?
 
2013-01-25 10:54:30 AM  

kenny-j: StoPPeRmobile: "Sentell is caught on surveillance tape tossing the Remington .223-caliber rifle - along with its magazine clip and five rounds"

Next it will be military-grade magazine clips and then we are all farked.

I'm still lolling over the phrase "magazine clips." Why strive for accuracy when you can just make shiat up?


It's like they aren't even trying anymore.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:56 AM  

here to help: Well this article was a little pants pissy... still doesn't mean the laws don't need to be beefed up.

Aaaand let the flaming begin!

*fart*


you're not helping... just thought i would point that out.
 
2013-01-25 10:55:36 AM  
In this thread, retards will pretend that laws are supposed to work like magic, and if they don't, it silly to have them in the first place.

Many will also display their ignorance on the concept of gun free zones, again referring to the lack of magic.
 
2013-01-25 10:56:29 AM  
Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws

hmmm... hey subby, where you come from, do laws prevent people from breaking them? like, a speed limit law stops cars in your town from being able to go faster than 55?

cause, where i come from, laws just tell people that certain behaviors will get them a date with the justice system. which this gun dealer now has.
 
2013-01-25 10:56:29 AM  
Obam's war on the Constitution and the American People is going to work as well as Regan's War on Drugs.

I for one pledge to never purchase another firearm legally since the government insist on now maintaining a database of people exercising their civil and human rights.

Nothing like creating a new and improved black market.

/The free speech licensing and the regulation of the news won't be far behind.
//Heck, many so-called-progressives have been proposing bills to limit the media for years.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:15 AM  

here to help: BunkoSquad: I don't know what the big deal is; he's selling tools, that's all, no different than selling cars or hammers.

They're called "automobiles". Since you don't know the properly terminology we can assume you are an idiot and dismiss any opinions you have on the subject.


Oh... unless of course you are completely against any kind of licensing or registration processes to own and operate automobiles. Then you can be a stupid as you want. It's even better if you throw in some threats of violence against the government.
 
2013-01-25 10:58:30 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: you're not helping... just thought i would point that out.


Why do people keep saying that?

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 10:59:01 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I for one pledge to never purchase another firearm legally since the government insist on now maintaining a database of people exercising their civil and human rights.


Don't kill yourself when you need to account for your civil disobedience.
 
2013-01-25 11:03:04 AM  

here to help: HindiDiscoMonster: you're not helping... just thought i would point that out.

Why do people keep saying that?

*fart*


because of your name?
 
2013-01-25 11:03:04 AM  

here to help: BunkoSquad: I don't know what the big deal is; he's selling tools, that's all, no different than selling cars or hammers.

They're called "automobiles". Since you don't know the properly terminology we can assume you are an idiot and dismiss any opinions you have on the subject.


Also, it's not "hammer". It's heavy-bangy-nail-pounder-stick-thingy.
 
2013-01-25 11:03:08 AM  
TFA: Sentell is caught on surveillance tape tossing the Remington .223-caliber rifle - along with its magazine clip and five rounds...

He apparently complied with one of the new laws -- that ought to work in his favor.

Now, about those old ones...
 
2013-01-25 11:05:03 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: because of your name?


Nah... that can't be it.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 11:05:20 AM  

maddogdelta: NEWSFLASH! CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS!!!!!

Next up on the RomeroReport: THINGS FALL DOWN WHEN YOU DROP THEM!!!!


That proves that things are useless!
 
2013-01-25 11:06:11 AM  
If you think the Mexicans are having fun running drugs into the US, just wait till the demand for guns goes way up.

you can't really expect much else when you ban something that is in high demand.
 
2013-01-25 11:07:16 AM  

here to help: iheartscotch: Gun control really only affects law-abiding citizens. If you think for one second that banning semi-automatic weapons will prevent crazies or criminals getting ahold of them; I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would sell you.

/ plus, a rock that prevents tiger attacks

People like to say this crap about cities like New York and Chicago but many of those guns come from the surrounding areas and states where the laws are looser. If that weren't the case the GC laws in those cities would be more effective.

*fart*


And, how do they do that? Not legally. It is unlawful to sell a handgun to anyone not a resident of the state you are selling in. You cannot transfer it to them, and they would know immediately when they got the ID and reviewed the 4473. To sell a handgun to an out-of-state buyer, the seller must transfer the firearm to an FFL in the state of residence of the purchaser, who will complete the transaction upon receipt of the firearm.

Further, private sales are also unlawful when conducted with persons out of state, because it counts as an inter-state sale, and an FFL must be involved.

So, that means that if the guns are coming in from out of state without any of this process having been completed, they're being sold and transferred illegally, and the ATF should be involved as this constitutes gun running and is a major felony, based on existing laws.

It sounds to me like you want to blame other states' laws for the failure of gun laws in cities with strict gun control, when the people obtaining and bringing in those guns are criminals breaking the goddamn law. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, if there were a more concerted effort to curtail gun running into these places among the criminal element, the laws would be more effective on criminals and not just the law-abiding citizens?

Then again, don't you think that maybe if there were a greater focus on compliance and enforcement with the thousands of gun laws already ON the books across the country, obtaining guns by criminals would be a fair bit harder? And if the application of the penalties involving guns and crime would act as more of a deterrent to all but the most desperate or hardened of criminals?
 
2013-01-25 11:08:25 AM  
2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672

If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer
 
2013-01-25 11:10:23 AM  
And if you say I own guns because I have a small penis it's not because you are implying that I'm an insecure little man who's afraid of invisible boogeymen. It's because you are a homosexual... who wants to do homosexual things... to my penis... because you are a homosexual... which doesn't arouse me at all... because I'm not a homosexual... like you are.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:16 AM  

Kit Fister: ?


I COULD read all that but instead I'll just say... less guns = less guns.

Simple really.
 
2013-01-25 11:13:56 AM  

here to help: Kit Fister: ?

I COULD read all that but instead I'll just say... less guns = less guns.

Simple really.


Ah, got it, you're a troll. Sorry, I missed that my first time around.
 
2013-01-25 11:15:57 AM  

Gunderson: 2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672

If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer


I don't see people driving their guns to work every day. Could it be that there are more vehicular deaths because they are used far more regularly by far more people? If that's the case then then gun deaths should be far lower than the vehicle deaths... n'est ce pas?
 
2013-01-25 11:18:05 AM  

Kit Fister: Ah, got it, you're a troll. Sorry, I missed that my first time around.


That's pretty funny coming from a raging shill who just did everything he could to sidestep the real issue I brought up.

Stay golden, bro. Stay golden.

Now where's pedrop? It ain't a party without pedrop.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:20 AM  
"Brazen gun dealer." How scary.

I'm scared.
 
2013-01-25 11:26:32 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: DubyaHater: dancingczars.files.wordpress.com

Yes, because owning firearms would have totally prevented WW2. Brilliant.

Back in the musket days, the only equalizer was the cannon (and equivalent). Unless you propose that ordinary citizens start owning 155mm howitzers, TOW anti-tank missiles, M1A2 tanks, B2 bombers, C130 gunships, and of course nuclear weapons, this revolution fantasy circle jerk is stunningy ignorant and naive. The ONLY way that citizens would be able to resist tyranny is the way that it's unfolded across the world: get factions of the military to side with you. And that's got 0% to do with owning frigging small arms.


You know nothing of guerrilla warfare, Jon Snow.
 
2013-01-25 11:30:07 AM  
FYI: Not Assault Rifle was USED in the Newtown tragedy... it was in his trunk, only hand guns were used.
 
2013-01-25 11:31:25 AM  
FTFA: The gun is the same caliber as the AR-15-style assault-weapon used in the Newtown massacre.

FFS, I hate journalists.
 
2013-01-25 11:34:22 AM  
Brazen?

BRAZEN???

I'll show you freaking twits some brazen ...

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Us v. Them, biatches

Choose a side
 
2013-01-25 11:34:53 AM  

here to help: Gunderson: 2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672

If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer

I don't see people driving their guns to work every day. Could it be that there are more vehicular deaths because they are used far more regularly by far more people? If that's the case then then gun deaths should be far lower than the vehicle deaths... n'est ce pas?


But if it saves just one life it's worth it according to Uncle Joe Firebird.  So why would anyone object to lowering the speed limit on all roads to 20MPH?  There's no doubt that would save lives.  Clearly if you object to this proposal it's because you have a small penis and driving faster than 20MPH is how you compensate for that.  Oh and you must want children to die too.  Why do you hate children?
 
2013-01-25 11:35:08 AM  

Gunderson: If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer


We do limit the speed at which cars can travel legally, there are medical conditions that can cause you to be disallowed from having a driver's license, the waiting period between my permit and my license was a lot longer than 7 days, and the President is protected by an armored car driven by someone who is highly trained in operating that vehicle.

Gunderson: 2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672


As for this pile of attempting to sound smart nonsense. In 2010, no people were killed by nuclear weapons. At least one person was killed by a belt. ZOMG, belts are more dangerous than nuclear weapons!!!!
 
2013-01-25 11:36:38 AM  

here to help: Kit Fister: Ah, got it, you're a troll. Sorry, I missed that my first time around.

That's pretty funny coming from a raging shill who just did everything he could to sidestep the real issue I brought up.

Stay golden, bro. Stay golden.

Now where's pedrop? It ain't a party without pedrop.


Shill? Nope. Gun owner and someone who supports the 2a and people not generally being blatant liars and idiots? Yep. But you go ahead and keep thinking that, precious. I love you anyway.
 
2013-01-25 11:37:40 AM  

Callous: But if it saves just one life it's worth it according to Uncle Joe Firebird. So why would anyone object to lowering the speed limit on all roads to 20MPH? There's no doubt that would save lives. Clearly if you object to this proposal it's because you have a small penis and driving faster than 20MPH is how you compensate for that. Oh and you must want children to die too. Why do you hate children?


You suck at satire.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 11:39:51 AM  

here to help: Callous: But if it saves just one life it's worth it according to Uncle Joe Firebird. So why would anyone object to lowering the speed limit on all roads to 20MPH? There's no doubt that would save lives. Clearly if you object to this proposal it's because you have a small penis and driving faster than 20MPH is how you compensate for that. Oh and you must want children to die too. Why do you hate children?

You suck at satire.

*fart*


Wasn't satire, it was pointing out how ridiculous you gun-grabbers look to everyone else.
 
2013-01-25 11:42:24 AM  

392Zaphod: FYI: Not Assault Rifle was USED in the Newtown tragedy... it was in his trunk, only hand guns were used.


Wrong.

Now tell us about LIBOR and parents really being actors.
 
2013-01-25 11:43:34 AM  

here to help: Gunderson: 2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672

If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer

I don't see people driving their guns to work every day. Could it be that there are more vehicular deaths because they are used far more regularly by far more people? If that's the case then then gun deaths should be far lower than the vehicle deaths... n'est ce pas?


Criminals drive.
 
2013-01-25 11:44:02 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: Brazen?

BRAZEN???

I'll show you freaking twits some brazen ...

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Us v. Them, biatches

Choose a side


When do you start the revolution?
 
2013-01-25 11:45:00 AM  

Kit Fister: Shill? Nope. Gun owner and someone who supports the 2a and people not generally being blatant liars and idiots? Yep. But you go ahead and keep thinking that, precious. I love you anyway.


Show me where I lied? I support the rights of sane and responsible to acquire reasonable firepower for home defense and hunting... but there is no point discussing any of that with you and your ilk because you will never listen to reason. You will shout down even the people on your side if they don't hold the exact level of extremism as you do until they throw their hands in the air and leave the thread. Then the thread will turn into a masturbatory discussion on all your toys with the other patriots.

Therefore I say...

*fart*

No hard feelings.
 
2013-01-25 11:46:27 AM  

Vernon Freedom: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 259x195]


You magnificent bastard.
 
2013-01-25 11:46:52 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: Brazen?

BRAZEN???


Yes, the gun dealer who waves around fanned out large amounts of cash and deals illegal weaponry wrapped in a pillow case in broad daylight is brazen. Do you have a problem with that?
 
2013-01-25 11:46:55 AM  

Callous: Wasn't satire, it was pointing out how ridiculous you gun-grabbers look to everyone else.


Uh, so you were serious?
 
2013-01-25 11:49:26 AM  

trappedspirit: Callous: Wasn't satire, it was pointing out how ridiculous you gun-grabbers look to everyone else.

Uh, so you were serious?


He thinks cars are guns, which isn't ridiculous.
 
2013-01-25 11:49:27 AM  

Callous: Wasn't satire, it was pointing out how ridiculous you gun-grabbers look to everyone else.


The problem with your comparison is in gun terms the current laws would allow people who have never taken a driving lesson in their life or even read a driver's manual buy an unregistered tractor trailer and drive through residential neighborhoods drunk at 120 mph.

Just want to see you guys get the training, screening and responsibility tests that would make it more likely you'll be safely driving vehicles you can actually handle.
 
2013-01-25 11:51:39 AM  
I stopped reading TFA at "magazine clip"
 
2013-01-25 11:54:45 AM  

Farkage: I stopped reading TFA at "magazine clip"


The article is pretty darned stupid. They could have made their point very easily using correct terminology and not tossing out disingenuous fear phrases every second sentence.

And according to the Constitution Brigade I'm a gun grabbing libby libturd 0booger felcher.
 
2013-01-25 11:55:35 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Gunderson: If we really cared about our children, we would limit all cars to 45hp, require a background check, mental health evaluation and a 7-day waiting period before a driver's license is issued, and protect the President with cars manned by the best NASCAR drivers this country has to offer

We do limit the speed at which cars can travel legally, there are medical conditions that can cause you to be disallowed from having a driver's license, the waiting period between my permit and my license was a lot longer than 7 days, and the President is protected by an armored car driven by someone who is highly trained in operating that vehicle.

Gunderson: 2010 motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,687

2010 firearm deaths: 31,672

As for this pile of attempting to sound smart nonsense. In 2010, no people were killed by nuclear weapons. At least one person was killed by a belt. ZOMG, belts are more dangerous than nuclear weapons!!!!


Sounds reasonable.

I'm all for more sensaible, reasonable, and sane automobile-control. People don't need to use an automobile anytime they want. You don't need to go to the park. I'm fine with people using them for work, school, worship, food, or medical care. But if you want to use them to go carelessly joyriding or going to the beach then your privlege ends where my right to a safe automobile trip to work or church, begins. This selfishness and inability to understand and listen to sound, sensible and logical reasoning has clogged up this countries crumbling infrastructure and cost the countless deaths of innocent children.

Why don't you care?
 
2013-01-25 11:56:15 AM  

here to help: Kit Fister: Shill? Nope. Gun owner and someone who supports the 2a and people not generally being blatant liars and idiots? Yep. But you go ahead and keep thinking that, precious. I love you anyway.

Show me where I lied? I support the rights of sane and responsible to acquire reasonable firepower for home defense and hunting... but there is no point discussing any of that with you and your ilk because you will never listen to reason. You will shout down even the people on your side if they don't hold the exact level of extremism as you do until they throw their hands in the air and leave the thread. Then the thread will turn into a masturbatory discussion on all your toys with the other patriots.

Therefore I say...

*fart*

No hard feelings.


And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns

I just don't see the need for additional bans that do nothing to actually stop the vast majority of gun crime.
 
2013-01-25 11:58:52 AM  
Well, obviously all laws are silly, because some people violate laws even when there are laws.
 
2013-01-25 11:59:12 AM  

Kit Fister: And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns


Then we are more alike than I'm sure you want to admit.

The horror!
 
2013-01-25 12:04:59 PM  

i877.photobucket.com

I keep myself pleasantly groomed

 
2013-01-25 12:06:49 PM  

here to help: Kit Fister: And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns

Then we are more alike than I'm sure you want to admit.

The horror!


And here's another one:

Abolish the National Guard. Citizens want to own so-called "Assault rifles"? Well, every citizen that is desiring to own them now also is volunteered for training in the use of an assault rifle and military tactics, and must train two weekends a month and two weeks a year as part of the Militia.

I'm okay with this.
 
2013-01-25 12:07:24 PM  

here to help: Kit Fister: And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns

Then we are more alike than I'm sure you want to admit.

The horror!


I'm in agreement with all those things as well. The effort being put into "Ban the scary stuff that we have decided you don't 'need'" would be much more effectively used on the above, and would actually get the results, whereas a ban will not.

Seems like every time that comes up, the main response is, "Yes, we know. But we also really need to ban..." and 'round and 'round we go...
 
2013-01-25 12:08:55 PM  
Still, there were 177 shooting victims in the borough last year, resulting in 24 deaths.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:39 PM  

here to help: Kit Fister: And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns

Then we are more alike than I'm sure you want to admit.

The horror!


Which of those requirements would have prevented Newtown?
 
2013-01-25 12:12:15 PM  
#3 and #4, easily.
 
2013-01-25 12:12:27 PM  

trappedspirit: Still, there were 177 shooting victims in the borough last year, resulting in 24 deaths.


And I'm sure none were done with the evil "assault rifles"
 
2013-01-25 12:13:12 PM  
What a NYC gun dealer might look like.
jamesriverfilm.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-25 12:13:49 PM  

Kit Fister: And here's another one:

Abolish the National Guard. Citizens want to own so-called "Assault rifles"? Well, every citizen that is desiring to own them now also is volunteered for training in the use of an assault rifle and military tactics, and must train two weekends a month and two weeks a year as part of the Militia.

I'm okay with this.


Then who will fight in a war in another country?
 
2013-01-25 12:14:23 PM  

Kit Fister: here to help: Kit Fister: And yet, I'm all for:

- Improved background checks that invests in the infrastructure between all Law Enforcement Agencies and Courts in order to improve accuracy of NICS checks
- Increased funding for enforcement of existing laws regarding guns
- Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage
- Requirements for safety training in order to obtain a firearm
- Requirements for universal background checks
- Ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing drugs that do not cause physical harm
- Increased spending on urban renewal, job growth, training programs, and outreach for communities blighted by gang violence
- Increased penalties for committing crimes involving guns

Then we are more alike than I'm sure you want to admit.

The horror!

And here's another one:

Abolish the National Guard. Citizens want to own so-called "Assault rifles"? Well, every citizen that is desiring to own them now also is volunteered for training in the use of an assault rifle and military tactics, and must train two weekends a month and two weeks a year as part of the Militia.

I'm okay with this.


The coast guard is not a militia. And along the same lines, if you own a car you must now spend 2 days a month using it as a taxi and complete taxi driver training as well. Just because I've decided it's the right thing to do.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:05 PM  

StoPPeRmobile:
Which of those requirements would have prevented Newtown?


Kit Fister: - Increased mental health care availability
- Requirements for safe storage

 
2013-01-25 12:18:12 PM  

Kit Fister: And here's another one:

Abolish the National Guard. Citizens want to own so-called "Assault rifles"? Well, every citizen that is desiring to own them now also is volunteered for training in the use of an assault rifle and military tactics, and must train two weekends a month and two weeks a year as part of the Militia.

I'm okay with this.


That'd be pretty funny.

You probably won't like this one but I've been contemplating it for a while now. I personally don't think anyone needs anything beyond some pistols for home and about town protection (preferably low capacity revolvers), rifles for hunting specific local game and a shotgun. Considering a lot of the talk surrounding the issue is that the people who want to own the super high powered military stuff for "sport" then sure... you can own them... but they have to be stored at the range. That way you can fire them whenever your heart desires but if you get drunk or have a mental breakdown you can't just grab it and go shooting up public places. To transport them you need to fill out paperwork and declare where they are being moved to and what the time frame will be. If they do not arrive at their destination in time you have now broken the law and a warrant is issued.

People get to play with whatever crazy gun they can afford and keep reasonable firepower for protection and hunting in their homes.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:56 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Which of those requirements would have prevented Newtown?


That is one of the more obtuse arguments from the pro gun nuts. You can't stop all murders. You can lessen their frequency though.

Now say something intelligent or else I will unleash more anal vapors.
 
2013-01-25 12:23:42 PM  
What is a 'brazen gun' and do we need stronger laws governing their acquisition and use?
 
2013-01-25 12:27:25 PM  

here to help: Kit Fister: And here's another one:

Abolish the National Guard. Citizens want to own so-called "Assault rifles"? Well, every citizen that is desiring to own them now also is volunteered for training in the use of an assault rifle and military tactics, and must train two weekends a month and two weeks a year as part of the Militia.

I'm okay with this.

That'd be pretty funny.

You probably won't like this one but I've been contemplating it for a while now. I personally don't think anyone needs anything beyond some pistols for home and about town protection (preferably low capacity revolvers), rifles for hunting specific local game and a shotgun. Considering a lot of the talk surrounding the issue is that the people who want to own the super high powered military stuff for "sport" then sure... you can own them... but they have to be stored at the range. That way you can fire them whenever your heart desires but if you get drunk or have a mental breakdown you can't just grab it and go shooting up public places. To transport them you need to fill out paperwork and declare where they are being moved to and what the time frame will be. If they do not arrive at their destination in time you have now broken the law and a warrant is issued.

People get to play with whatever crazy gun they can afford and keep reasonable firepower for protection and hunting in their homes.


1. I happen to be fortunate enough to live just a few minutes from an indoor range. But it's only 25 yards, hardly a challenge for my .308. So, I travel to my family's property half an hour north of here when I want to shoot it. To my knowledge there is no 500 yard range within 6 hours of here.

2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes? How would this have prevented something like that? Yup, I'mma take my guns to this other range an hour from here...then I leave with them and go shoot up someplace.

3. What of the large portion of the country situated HOURS from a shooting range?
 
2013-01-25 12:27:29 PM  

Farkage: The coast guard is not a militia. And along the same lines, if you own a car you must now spend 2 days a month using it as a taxi and complete taxi driver training as well. Just because I've decided it's the right thing to do.


I didn't say COAST guard. I said NATIONAL guard. You know, the weekend warriors. The amateur leaguers they send to screw stuff up in Iraq and A-stan.

What I'm saying is, we have those of us who train and train and play with guns also stand in as the homeland defense rather than having a special paramilitary force which can be misused to fight wars, while also providing help and support during disasters, etc.

Better training, better availability of equipment, but at the same time, you have the requirement for training so that the nutjob 'tards get identified really fast and taken care of.

Sort of like Switzerland, except keeping a standing army for EXTERNAL defense.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:21 PM  

morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes? How would this have prevented something like that? Yup, I'mma take my guns to this other range an hour from here...then I leave with them and go shoot up someplace.


As I said... you can't stop all murders but you can reduce their frequency.


3. What of the large portion of the country situated HOURS from a shooting range?


Then there is a very good business opportunity for many folks. People drive out of their way to get to golf courses all the time. I think you can manage.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:48 PM  
All of my weapons are military based, including the black powder 50 cal rifle I use.
My favs are belt fed weapons like the maxim, but the tommy is fun too... It doesn't have a magazine or clip, it has a drum...
 
2013-01-25 12:31:06 PM  

iheartscotch: Gun control really only affects law-abiding citizens. If you think for one second that banning semi-automatic weapons will prevent crazies or criminals getting ahold of them; I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would sell you.

/ plus, a rock that prevents tiger attacks



I would really like one of those rocks.
 
2013-01-25 12:32:20 PM  
Sentell is caught on surveillance tape tossing the Remington .223-caliber rifle - along with its magazine clip and five rounds...The gun is the same caliber as the AR-15-style assault-weapon used in the Newtown massacre.

Really? Just HAD to throw that in.

Remington .223 caliber rifle:
img2.findthebest.com
 
2013-01-25 12:33:47 PM  

morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?


Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:12 PM  

here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.


frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.
 
2013-01-25 12:36:50 PM  

here to help: StoPPeRmobile: Which of those requirements would have prevented Newtown?

That is one of the more obtuse arguments from the pro gun nuts. You can't stop all murders. You can lessen their frequency though.

Now say something intelligent or else I will unleash more anal vapors.


Does this have something to do with criminals breaking laws?
 
2013-01-25 12:37:48 PM  

Kit Fister: Farkage: The coast guard is not a militia. And along the same lines, if you own a car you must now spend 2 days a month using it as a taxi and complete taxi driver training as well. Just because I've decided it's the right thing to do.

I didn't say COAST guard. I said NATIONAL guard. You know, the weekend warriors. The amateur leaguers they send to screw stuff up in Iraq and A-stan.

What I'm saying is, we have those of us who train and train and play with guns also stand in as the homeland defense rather than having a special paramilitary force which can be misused to fight wars, while also providing help and support during disasters, etc.

Better training, better availability of equipment, but at the same time, you have the requirement for training so that the nutjob 'tards get identified really fast and taken care of.

Sort of like Switzerland, except keeping a standing army for EXTERNAL defense.


My mistake, I meant National Guard. I was talking to someone while I typed that, but my statement of you "volunteering" for taxi duty still applies. Thank you for your service.
 
2013-01-25 12:38:55 PM  

DubyaHater: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 504x367]


ahh the ol' Hitler gun control myth...

research...is fun

/yes it would require reading
 
2013-01-25 12:39:15 PM  

here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.


It could however stop some massacres by:

a) verifying the person picking up the weapons is indeed the owner of said weapons

b) if the gun owner is acting sketchy or a warrant has already been put out for their arrest or their gun owner status has changed due to the onset of mental problems

c) it can give police a list of potential suspects if a crime takes place making it easier for them to track them down
d) general deterrent and a chance for someone in rage mode have an opportunity to calm down/think about what they are about to do and possibly choose not to
 
2013-01-25 12:40:40 PM  

Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.


Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??
 
2013-01-25 12:40:58 PM  

Farkage: Kit Fister: Farkage: The coast guard is not a militia. And along the same lines, if you own a car you must now spend 2 days a month using it as a taxi and complete taxi driver training as well. Just because I've decided it's the right thing to do.

I didn't say COAST guard. I said NATIONAL guard. You know, the weekend warriors. The amateur leaguers they send to screw stuff up in Iraq and A-stan.

What I'm saying is, we have those of us who train and train and play with guns also stand in as the homeland defense rather than having a special paramilitary force which can be misused to fight wars, while also providing help and support during disasters, etc.

Better training, better availability of equipment, but at the same time, you have the requirement for training so that the nutjob 'tards get identified really fast and taken care of.

Sort of like Switzerland, except keeping a standing army for EXTERNAL defense.

My mistake, I meant National Guard. I was talking to someone while I typed that, but my statement of you "volunteering" for taxi duty still applies. Thank you for your service.


I did that in Colorado -- I volunteered to pick people up that traveled along the same route to work I did, and dropped them off at their jobs, and then gave them a ride back to the designated spots where they wanted to go. Split the cost of gas and all that, and occasionally they'd buy the coffee/breakfast.

That being said, I think that if we're really serious about saying "Look, I own this weapon for self defense, defense of home, etc." then it's rather dumb that those same people wouldn't say, on a voluntary basis, "sure, I'd like to get more skilled at other aspects of defense that would make me more effective" and at the same time acknowledge that the oft-touted Militia clause of the US Code means that, should it be necessary, they are there to backstop the Police and the Military in aiding for the common defense of the country.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:15 PM  

Kit Fister: frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.


Unless of course a family member or acquaintance manages to get a hold of the key on the sly or through force... which is what seems to have happened in Newtown. But I'm not clear as to whether the mother actually had the guns under lock and key but the point still stands.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:19 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?


i had lols....then i had them again. for the lols..

OH LAWS...never mind...

this guy..he has kids so..he has laws....

data.whicdn.com
 
2013-01-25 12:42:41 PM  

Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??


Just wait, with tools, until you leave.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:41 PM  

Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??


Good enough for me, but I ain't the one ya gotta deter, brother.
 
2013-01-25 12:46:11 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??

Just wait, with tools, until you leave.


Look, there's no way that ANY system of preventing weapons from getting into the hands of criminals will work. Banned from private ownership? Kill a cop and steal his guns. Can't do that? Break into a Nat'l Guard armory and steal their guns. That doesn't work? Call up some well-connected drug dealers and buy 'em from the Cartels who bought them from the Bolivian military among other people. Cartels out? Travel to the middle east and buy some from the terrorists. Or, know a crooked machine shop? Pay them to make you an AK (which can be done in crude 3rd world countries with little sophistication).

The ONLY way to theoretically prevent ANY gun crimes from EVER occurring is to completely rid the planet of them, and the knowledge of how to make them, and the materials used to make them, and any other weapon possibly used to kill until you lock everyone up in a pod and let them out only in a virtual world.
 
2013-01-25 12:46:16 PM  

here to help: iheartscotch: Gun control really only affects law-abiding citizens. If you think for one second that banning semi-automatic weapons will prevent crazies or criminals getting ahold of them; I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I would sell you.

/ plus, a rock that prevents tiger attacks

People like to say this crap about cities like New York and Chicago but many of those guns come from the surrounding areas and states where the laws are looser. If that weren't the case the GC laws in those cities would be more effective.

*fart*


So although all of Canada has very strict rules governing access to handguns, the ease with which criminals are able to aquire them is because they are easier to get in nearby countries with looser laws like Mexico and Russia?
 
2013-01-25 12:46:21 PM  

here to help: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

It could however stop some massacres by:

a) verifying the person picking up the weapons is indeed the owner of said weapons

b) if the gun owner is acting sketchy or a warrant has already been put out for their arrest or their gun owner status has changed due to the onset of mental problems

c) it can give police a list of potential suspects if a crime takes place making it easier for them to track them down
d) general deterrent and a chance for someone in rage mode have an opportunity to calm down/think about what they are about to do and possibly choose not to


A) Indeed, only the person who owns the gun could use it to commit a crime. A *possible* reduction in crime.
B) Who defines sketchy? Since when is the minimum-wage lackee behind the counter a qualified psychologist?
C) Who cares about a list of suspects if the shooting already happened. Arrest and prosecution don't undo the crime.
D) Maybe, but often in mass murder, the plot was planned out for a while...you have to use mass killings as the test because the original plan was to leave revolvers and such at home which would mean one could still murder a few people at will without checking out their gun first.
 
2013-01-25 12:48:23 PM  

here to help: I personally don't think anyone needs anything beyond some pistols for home and about town protection (preferably low capacity revolvers), rifles for hunting specific local game and a shotgun.


What about shop keepers during a riot, or in a natural disaster like a hurricane? Infrequent, to be sure, but not unheard of.

Also, are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?
 
2013-01-25 12:48:40 PM  

Kit Fister: Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??

Good enough for me, but I ain't the one ya gotta deter, brother.


Agreed, but there is just only so far you can go as well. You can make the argument that places that seel blasting supplier are vulnerable to someone with the time and determination to get them.
Personally, I refuse to let mine walk away. Can someone get them? Yep. Will they at least have to earn the hell out of it? Yep.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:03 PM  
Of course, I could do that and it wouldn't be illegal.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:04 PM  

morgen_benner: A) Indeed, only the person who owns the gun could use it to commit a crime. A *possible* reduction in crime.
B) Who defines sketchy? Since when is the minimum-wage lackee behind the counter a qualified psychologist?
C) Who cares about a list of suspects if the shooting already happened. Arrest and prosecution don't undo the crime.
D) Maybe, but often in mass murder, the plot was planned out for a while...you have to use mass killings as the test because the original plan was to leave revolvers and such at home which would mean one could still murder a few people at will without checking out their gun first.


You are not interested in discussing solutions.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 12:52:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Also, are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?


Pistols and shotguns are good enough to defend yourself until you can escape a volatile situation. What are you, freaking Rambo? You're gonna start machine gunning down a riot instead of getting the frack out of there? lol... responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-25 12:52:31 PM  
This article refers to him as a gun dealer.....I call bullfark.....what is his FFL License number.....He is not a dealer he is just a criminal.
 
2013-01-25 12:53:01 PM  

Farkage: Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??


Mine is slightly lighter, slightly fewer bolts, but is anchored to the cement slab underneath my living room with 6 Red Head anchors. We have 4 IP cameras that record locally and in a cloud application, and a remote monitored alarm. I feel like I have done as much as or possibly more than a range would do to guarantee the safety of my firearms.
 
2013-01-25 12:53:19 PM  

Farkage: Kit Fister: Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??

Good enough for me, but I ain't the one ya gotta deter, brother.

Agreed, but there is just only so far you can go as well. You can make the argument that places that seel blasting supplier are vulnerable to someone with the time and determination to get them.
Personally, I refuse to let mine walk away. Can someone get them? Yep. Will they at least have to earn the hell out of it? Yep.


If I really wanted to, I could get explosives from construction sights. They're not even all that well secured, comparatively. It's a matter of desire.
 
2013-01-25 12:55:25 PM  

Kit Fister: Farkage: Kit Fister: Farkage: Kit Fister: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

frankly, there're enough options out there to store firearms securely and prevent the theft of weapons that casual theft should be extremely difficult. Someone should have to literally cut open your safe, or cut off a body part to steal your weapon, because it's secured in such a way as to be inaccessible by anyone.

Mine are in a 900+lb safe that has 14 1.5" hardened steel locking bolts and it's bolted to the floor. This is in a house with nobody living in it but me. Good enough??

Good enough for me, but I ain't the one ya gotta deter, brother.

Agreed, but there is just only so far you can go as well. You can make the argument that places that seel blasting supplier are vulnerable to someone with the time and determination to get them.
Personally, I refuse to let mine walk away. Can someone get them? Yep. Will they at least have to earn the hell out of it? Yep.

If I really wanted to, I could get explosives from construction sights. They're not even all that well secured, comparatively. It's a matter of desire.


Yeah, pretty much my point...
 
2013-01-25 12:58:26 PM  
Anyway... got some stuff to do. I find it a little weird that the thread I came into acting like a complete arsehole is the one that garnered an actual reasonable discussion as opposed to the threads I've participated in being reasonable and then getting hammered on.

Perhaps there is hope for Fark after all.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:15 PM  

here to help: morgen_benner: A) Indeed, only the person who owns the gun could use it to commit a crime. A *possible* reduction in crime.
B) Who defines sketchy? Since when is the minimum-wage lackee behind the counter a qualified psychologist?
C) Who cares about a list of suspects if the shooting already happened. Arrest and prosecution don't undo the crime.
D) Maybe, but often in mass murder, the plot was planned out for a while...you have to use mass killings as the test because the original plan was to leave revolvers and such at home which would mean one could still murder a few people at will without checking out their gun first.

You are not interested in discussing solutions.

*fart*


First, the little "Fart" thing is cute...in like 4th grade.

Second, I am interested in discussing solutions. Safe storage requirements, fine. Education for firearms owners, fine. Greater penalties and enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal purchases, fine. Better access to mental care, fine. Spending my tax money on mental care, fine.

The proposed solution didn't work because a revolver is just as deadly as an AR-15 if you're trying to shoot one or two people. The proposed solution only attacked the rare mass shooting instead of the all-too-common single homicide. The vast majority of people killed with firearms are killed with the kind it was proposed to leave unattended with their owner.
 
2013-01-25 01:02:43 PM  

here to help: Pistols and shotguns are good enough to defend yourself until you can escape a volatile situation.


Not when it's your home. Not when you are outnumbered, not when you cannot get away. If you can get away, you shouldn't even be resorting to a gun in the first place.

I'm not a gun nut (fired a gun four times in my whole life). But I am pointing out that it is a bit much for you to feel that your opinion of "likely scenarios" is sufficient to determine what you consider to be the "acceptable minimum defensive weapon" is. We saw this in the various LA riots, in the wake of Katrina, etc. Again, not a common scenario, but not unheard of either. The police cannot be everywhere. A shop-owner has the right to defend his livelihood.

In most cases, just the prescence of a gun is sufficient to convince a gang of hoodlums to move on down the street, and that's the ideal.

But I'm not quite following your presumption that citizens with a constitutional right should only be allowed the minimum level of protection.

To say nothing of why the criminal acts of a tiny fraction of people cause us to strip away the property and accesability to the weapon of their choice from millions and millions of citizens who have never broken the law? I'm just not seeing the logic. It won't stop a single criminal or madman.
 
2013-01-25 01:02:46 PM  

Kit Fister: The ONLY way to theoretically prevent ANY gun crimes from EVER occurring is to completely rid the planet of them, and the knowledge of how to make them, and the materials used to make them, and any other weapon possibly used to kill until you lock everyone up in a pod and let them out only in a virtual world.


Bingo!

So let solve some other problems that significantly affect more people first then get back to this minority issue.
 
2013-01-25 01:07:39 PM  

here to help: People like to say this crap about cities like New York and Chicago but many of those guns come from the surrounding areas and states where the laws are looser. If that weren't the case the GC laws in those cities would be more effective.


And if the entire USA banned guns (and pressed the magic button that destroyed every single gun in civilian hands), then guns would be smuggled in from Mexico, just like Illegals and Drugs are now.

What's your point?
 
2013-01-25 01:10:08 PM  

fredklein: here to help: People like to say this crap about cities like New York and Chicago but many of those guns come from the surrounding areas and states where the laws are looser. If that weren't the case the GC laws in those cities would be more effective.

And if the entire USA banned guns (and pressed the magic button that destroyed every single gun in civilian hands), then guns would be smuggled in from Mexico, just like Illegals and Drugs are now.

What's your point?


I think the point is, fear.
 
2013-01-25 01:10:44 PM  

Farkage: I stopped reading TFA at "magazine clip"


Ditto after a laugh and a facepalm.

It's like they don't know what to call it so they call it everything just to be safe.

"...along with its magazine clip bullet sheath and 5 bullet rounds of hollow-point teflon-coated cop-killer shells."
 
2013-01-25 01:15:29 PM  

GanjSmokr: Farkage: I stopped reading TFA at "magazine clip"

Ditto after a laugh and a facepalm.

It's like they don't know what to call it so they call it everything just to be safe.

"...along with its magazine clip bullet sheath and 5 bullet rounds of hollow-point teflon-coated cop-killer shells."


Hahaha! Well put!!
 
2013-01-25 01:28:15 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I don't see why we have theft control laws. Things are stolen everyday, proving that these laws are ineffective. If you think that theft control laws will stop criminals from stealing, you're an idiot.


Laws regarding theft are intended to penalize the act, laws banning guns (or anything else) are intended to prevent the act. Fail analogy is fail.
 
2013-01-25 01:35:37 PM  

generallyso: thurstonxhowell: I don't see why we have theft control laws. Things are stolen everyday, proving that these laws are ineffective. If you think that theft control laws will stop criminals from stealing, you're an idiot.

Laws regarding theft are intended to penalize the act, laws banning guns (or anything else) are intended to prevent the act. Fail analogy is fail.


Laws banning theft are intended to prevent your things being stolen. They penalize someone stealing your things.
Laws banning guns are intended to prevent the ownership of guns. They penalize the ownership of guns.
 
2013-01-25 01:37:22 PM  

JerseyTim: Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws the second lowest rate of gun deaths in the country.


So where is NYC on the total deaths? Oh and can you compare NYC to Chicago and DC please?
 
2013-01-25 01:41:26 PM  

thurstonxhowell: If anything, I would think gun lovers like you would like to see more articles like this. Existing gun laws were enforced to catch a man in the act of selling a weapon in the criminal market. Without requiring any new gun control laws.


We do, this is exactly what needs to be happening. The only problems I have with the article is the headline that implies he's a legal dealer rather than his true status as a fence/thief//previously convicted felon and a few politically slanted lines. As far as the actual prosecution goes, they can lock him up forever and I wouldn't care.
 
2013-01-25 01:45:14 PM  

davidab: JerseyTim: Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws the second lowest rate of gun deaths in the country.

So where is NYC on the total deaths? Oh and can you compare NYC to Chicago and DC please?


The gun laws in Chicago and DC are more strict than in NYC, which is why there is less gun crime there.
 
2013-01-25 01:46:48 PM  

here to help: The problem with your comparison is in gun terms the current laws would allow people who have never taken a driving lesson in their life or even read a driver's manual buy an unregistered tractor trailer and drive through residential neighborhoods drunk at 120 mph.


Questionable, likely dishonest metaphor. Firing a gun in most non-rural areas is illegal, outside of shooting ranges. I'd be prepared to accept "rural highways" instead of "residential neighborhoods."
 
2013-01-25 01:49:03 PM  

Farkage: The gun laws in Chicago and DC are more strict than in NYC, which is why there is less gun crime there.

mybroadband.co.za
 
2013-01-25 01:49:14 PM  
Some of these arguments would be ridiculous if they were referencing medicine. Just because you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue harm reduction.
 
2013-01-25 01:49:50 PM  

morgen_benner: Laws banning theft are intended to prevent your things being stolen. They penalize someone stealing your things.


If you're under the notion that punishment functions as a deterrent I'm just going to point you to the death penalty.
 
2013-01-25 01:50:22 PM  

JustGetItRight: thurstonxhowell: If anything, I would think gun lovers like you would like to see more articles like this. Existing gun laws were enforced to catch a man in the act of selling a weapon in the criminal market. Without requiring any new gun control laws.

We do, this is exactly what needs to be happening. The only problems I have with the article is the headline that implies he's a legal dealer rather than his true status as a fence/thief//previously convicted felon and a few politically slanted lines. As far as the actual prosecution goes, they can lock him up forever and I wouldn't care.


It's like "gunshow loophole."

Intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-25 01:51:53 PM  

here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.


Define "high powered."
 
2013-01-25 01:52:51 PM  

GUTSU: here to help: morgen_benner: 2. The Newtown shooting unfolded in what a few minutes?

Oh and that part of my proposal is aimed at keeping high powered weapons from being sold to/stolen by the filthy criminals ya'll claim to be so worried about.

Define "high powered."


Weapons that peasant are not allowed to have.
 
2013-01-25 01:56:56 PM  

generallyso: If you're under the notion that punishment functions as a deterrent I'm just going to point you to the death penalty.



Can you cite a similar society to ours, but without theft laws, to show that theft rates remain unchanged?
 
2013-01-25 02:01:12 PM  
Hey, that cop purchased an illegal firearm. He should be arrested and charged.
 
2013-01-25 02:02:06 PM  

untaken_name: Hey, that cop purchased an illegal firearm. He should be arrested and charged.


There was no crime until the cop showed up.

Isn't Satan the tempter?
 
2013-01-25 02:06:51 PM  

WordyGrrl: Some of these arguments would be ridiculous if they were referencing medicine. Just because you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue harm reduction.


And if those medicines/drugs were widely available from other sources illegally, people would still take them. It's a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise millions wouldn't be addicted to coc-wait, no, they are. Well, weed then...oops, my bad... Meth? Hmmm, nope, that's pretty prolific too...What about regulated prescription meds that are only taken by doctor's directives? What? people still buy and take those all the time illegally? Well, shiat, isn't there ANYTHING that restricting drugs has done for us to reduce harm? What's that you say? Nearly 60% of non-suicide gun crimes are related to drugs/gangs that sell drugs? And over 80% of our federal prison population is because of drugs?

Yep, that pursuit of harm reduction sure did prove effective there, WordyGrrl!
 
2013-01-25 02:08:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: There was an article here recently about people getting paid to shill for certain causes

What cause does this shill for?

If anything, I would think gun lovers like you would like to see more articles like this. Existing gun laws were enforced to catch a man in the act of selling a weapon in the criminal market. Without requiring any new gun control laws.


if the article read like the existing laws were working I would approve. However the language used is pandering to the fear mongering going on with these weapons. The truth is rifles (all rifles including bolt action rifles) killed fewer than 350 people in 2011, while fists and feet killed more than 1600 the same year.

Offensive language designed to demonize the Auto-loading Rifle model 15 (yes that is AR 15)
* he carried a loaded assault rifle - Assuault rifles were banned in 1934
* according to evidence in a frightening Manhattan weapons trafficking trial - wait a minute didnt the article also say this happens more than once a month (on average)? "in 2010, the Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit, working with NYPD undercover cops, has taken down 15 trafficking rings"
* magazine clip (the same phrase used by Diane Feinsten who is the face of this movement)
* same caliber as the AR-15-style assault-weapon used in the Newtown massacre - how is the caliber or Newtown pertinent to this case? Isnt it illegal to hunt deer with .223 in a lot of states because it is under powered?

secondamendmentsupporters.com
 
2013-01-25 02:08:13 PM  

here to help: BojanglesPaladin: Also, are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?

Pistols and shotguns are good enough to defend yourself until you can escape a volatile situation. What are you, freaking Rambo? You're gonna start machine gunning down a riot instead of getting the frack out of there? lol... responsible gun owner.


Pffft, right? How dare people defend their homes, business, and families?
 
2013-01-25 02:08:47 PM  

davidab: JerseyTim: Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws the second lowest rate of gun deaths in the country.

So where is NYC on the total deaths? Oh and can you compare NYC to Chicago and DC please?


With an overall homicide rate of 6.3 per 100,0000, New York CIty is 46th out of 73 American cities with populations over 250,000. New Orleans has the highest rate (57.6) and Lincoln, Nebraska has the lowest (1.5).

And, no, you can't compare NYC to Chicago and DC. NYC is a much better city.
 
2013-01-25 02:12:36 PM  

Kit Fister: WordyGrrl: Some of these arguments would be ridiculous if they were referencing medicine. Just because you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue harm reduction.

And if those medicines/drugs were widely available from other sources illegally, people would still take them. It's a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise millions wouldn't be addicted to coc-wait, no, they are. Well, weed then...oops, my bad... Meth? Hmmm, nope, that's pretty prolific too...What about regulated prescription meds that are only taken by doctor's directives? What? people still buy and take those all the time illegally? Well, shiat, isn't there ANYTHING that restricting drugs has done for us to reduce harm? What's that you say? Nearly 60% of non-suicide gun crimes are related to drugs/gangs that sell drugs? And over 80% of our federal prison population is because of drugs?

Yep, that pursuit of harm reduction sure did prove effective there, WordyGrrl!


I can't get what used to be a common OTC drug for allegies, any more. I am harmed.
 
2013-01-25 02:12:48 PM  

Kit Fister: WordyGrrl: Some of these arguments would be ridiculous if they were referencing medicine. Just because you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue harm reduction.

And if those medicines/drugs were widely available from other sources illegally, people would still take them. It's a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise millions wouldn't be addicted to coc-wait, no, they are. Well, weed then...oops, my bad... Meth? Hmmm, nope, that's pretty prolific too...What about regulated prescription meds that are only taken by doctor's directives? What? people still buy and take those all the time illegally? Well, shiat, isn't there ANYTHING that restricting drugs has done for us to reduce harm? What's that you say? Nearly 60% of non-suicide gun crimes are related to drugs/gangs that sell drugs? And over 80% of our federal prison population is because of drugs?

Yep, that pursuit of harm reduction sure did prove effective there, WordyGrrl!


ftfm
 
2013-01-25 02:19:44 PM  

davidab: However the language used is pandering to the fear mongering going on with these weapons.



Look at how well it's working on people. Like 9/11 all over again. People clamoring for the government to take whatever they want, just make them safe from that event that's statistically about as likely as being struck by lightning.

I'm sure that this first round of legislation will nip that problem right in the bud, too. After all, the first round of PATRIOT legislation worked just fine. No further restrictions and bannings, because the criminals just gave up, and didn't do anything like shifting tactics in response. Nope, when crimes committed with pistols are utterly unaffected by these laws, I'm certain that we won't see any legislation targeting them. After all, why does someone in an urban environment actually need a pistol? They aren't hunting with it.
 
2013-01-25 02:20:42 PM  
Wait, he sold the weapon to an undercover cop. Cops are allowed to have those weapons, so why is everyone making a big deal out of this?

also,
what a magazine clip might look like:
t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-25 02:25:26 PM  

JerseyTim: davidab: JerseyTim: Brazen gun dealer shows us how you sell guns on the streets of New York. You know, that city with all those laws the second lowest rate of gun deaths in the country.

So where is NYC on the total deaths? Oh and can you compare NYC to Chicago and DC please?

With an overall homicide rate of 6.3 per 100,0000, New York CIty is 46th out of 73 American cities with populations over 250,000. New Orleans has the highest rate (57.6) and Lincoln, Nebraska has the lowest (1.5).

And, no, you can't compare NYC to Chicago and DC. NYC is a much better city.


So what you are telling me is that despite the fact NYC has the the second lowest rate for gun murders, they do not have the second lowest rate of killings (46 out of 73)? I am shocked! NYC took away all the guns away and people are still killing each other! I also like how you avoided comparing the other two cities that are big on gun control who happen to have massive amounts of gun death.
 
2013-01-25 02:25:38 PM  

MythDragon: Wait, he sold the weapon to an undercover cop. Cops are allowed to have those weapons, so why is everyone making a big deal out of this?

also,
what a magazine clip might look like:
[t3.gstatic.com image 248x204]


MythDragon: Wait, he sold the weapon to an undercover cop. Cops are allowed to have those weapons, so why is everyone making a big deal out of this?

also,
what a magazine clip might look like:
[t3.gstatic.com image 248x204]


Great! Now we have to ban clips.
 
2013-01-25 02:28:39 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: DubyaHater: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 504x367]

ahh the ol' Hitler gun control myth...

research...is fun

/yes it would require reading


Was it a myth when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
 
2013-01-25 02:30:29 PM  

Deep Contact: Haliburton Cummings: DubyaHater: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 504x367]

ahh the ol' Hitler gun control myth...

research...is fun

/yes it would require reading

Was it a myth when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


No more than it was a myth the Germans have a base on the Moon, and that's where Hitler's brain is actually being kept...
 
2013-01-25 02:32:42 PM  
Hahaha! Yeah, because pistols and shotguns are TOTES useless for self defense. I mean you might as well threaten your attacker with a wet noodle!

Hilarious.

I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to be the pants sh*tting cowards. Get your stories straight.

Seriously some of you are acting as if you live in a freaking war zone. Most cops do perfectly fine with their handguns and shotguns. If you can't defend yourself with those tools you should probably move somewhere a little safer.
 
2013-01-25 02:33:32 PM  
Was the AR used in the Newtown shooting? I hear so many differing stories on this.
 
2013-01-25 02:34:56 PM  

here to help: Hahaha! Yeah, because pistols and shotguns are TOTES useless for self defense. I mean you might as well threaten your attacker with a wet noodle!

Hilarious.

I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to be the pants sh*tting cowards. Get your stories straight.

Seriously some of you are acting as if you live in a freaking war zone. Most cops do perfectly fine with their handguns and shotguns. If you can't defend yourself with those tools you should probably move somewhere a little safer.


Please, continue to dictate what I can and cannot use to defend myself. I'm sure you're an expert on this subject.
 
2013-01-25 02:36:15 PM  
BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.
 
2013-01-25 02:36:17 PM  

BigNumber12: davidab: However the language used is pandering to the fear mongering going on with these weapons.


Look at how well it's working on people. Like 9/11 all over again. People clamoring for the government to take whatever they want, just make them safe from that event that's statistically about as likely as being struck by lightning.

I'm sure that this first round of legislation will nip that problem right in the bud, too. After all, the first round of PATRIOT legislation worked just fine. No further restrictions and bannings, because the criminals just gave up, and didn't do anything like shifting tactics in response. Nope, when crimes committed with pistols are utterly unaffected by these laws, I'm certain that we won't see any legislation targeting them. After all, why does someone in an urban environment actually need a pistol? They aren't hunting with it.


Patriot Act lets them eavesdrop without a warrant
NDAA lets them detain you without Due Process if the government decides you are a terrorist
Second amendment put in place by people who just rebelled from their government and were labeled terrorists
Why do people want to keep these military style weapons?
Why were the hippies against Big Brother?

Why did they make songs with lyrics like this:
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
 
2013-01-25 02:39:49 PM  

GUTSU: Please, continue to dictate what I can and cannot use to defend myself. I'm sure you're an expert on this subject.


You want a bazooka, don't you? How about some sarin gas or anthrax? I mean no one should tell YOU what is and isn't acceptable for self defense.
 
2013-01-25 02:42:29 PM  

here to help: GUTSU: Please, continue to dictate what I can and cannot use to defend myself. I'm sure you're an expert on this subject.

You want a bazooka, don't you? How about some sarin gas or anthrax? I mean no one should tell YOU what is and isn't acceptable for self defense.


I've mined my lawn with claymores and bouncing betty's. I got tired of those uppity teenagers on my lawn.
 
2013-01-25 02:45:41 PM  

here to help: BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.


If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.
4.bp.blogspot.com
While you're letting the mob have it's way with your wife, I'll be defending myself like those fine korean gentlemen up there.
 
2013-01-25 02:45:44 PM  

here to help: GUTSU: Please, continue to dictate what I can and cannot use to defend myself. I'm sure you're an expert on this subject.

You want a bazooka, don't you? How about some sarin gas or anthrax? I mean no one should tell YOU what is and isn't acceptable for self defense.


Only $350 - http://www.panzermeyerhelmets.com/bazookaforsale.htm

/fark throws the link away
 
2013-01-25 02:45:55 PM  

here to help: Hahaha! Yeah, because pistols and shotguns are TOTES useless for self defense. I mean you might as well threaten your attacker with a wet noodle!

Hilarious.

I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to be the pants sh*tting cowards. Get your stories straight.

Seriously some of you are acting as if you live in a freaking war zone. Most cops do perfectly fine with their handguns and shotguns. If you can't defend yourself with those tools you should probably move somewhere a little safer.


Somewhere else? Like a place with armed guards? You know those are expensive for a reason.

Maybe move to Pearl Harbor. No one would ever attack you there.
 
2013-01-25 02:48:31 PM  

IRQ12: Was the AR used in the Newtown shooting? I hear so many differing stories on this.


Yes.
 
2013-01-25 02:49:49 PM  

GUTSU: If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.


That is very improbable and that's what the shotgun/pistols are for. Blast your way out and get the f*ck out of there. You sure have some twisted, paranoid fantasies.
 
2013-01-25 02:52:09 PM  

GUTSU: here to help: BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.

If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x400]
While you're letting the mob have it's way with your wife, I'll be defending myself like those fine korean gentlemen up there.


A good citizen waits for the police to arrive and take a report.
 
2013-01-25 02:53:52 PM  

here to help: GUTSU: Please, continue to dictate what I can and cannot use to defend myself. I'm sure you're an expert on this subject.

You want a bazooka, don't you? How about some sarin gas or anthrax? I mean no one should tell YOU what is and isn't acceptable for self defense.


Are you insinuating that sarin and anthrax are firearms, you do realize there are fundamental differences. You're comparing apples to lug bolts. Also, if someone is able to hop through the ATF hoops to be able to get a functional bazooka I don't see why they shouldn't be able to use it to defend themselves if they felt the need. It's their house, and the intruder was going to die one way or another.
 
2013-01-25 02:54:08 PM  

here to help: Hahaha! Yeah, because pistols and shotguns are TOTES useless for self defense. I mean you might as well threaten your attacker with a wet noodle!

Hilarious.

I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to be the pants sh*tting cowards. Get your stories straight.

Seriously some of you are acting as if you live in a freaking war zone. Most cops do perfectly fine with their handguns and shotguns. If you can't defend yourself with those tools you should probably move somewhere a little safer.


Shotguns are great for your home. Rifles are necessary for defending your street, or neighborhood (Hurricane Katrina, Storm Sandy, LA Riots of 1992, 2011 England riots).

Rifles are also necessary to fight other people with rifles. The Second Amendment is not about defending your home from the "gangsters." The 2A is about fighting a tyrannical government to preserve freedom. Between Clinton, George W, and Obama, the last 20 years have increased the likely hood a dictator can come to power more than the rest of the presidents combined.

I think I can safely say very few of us want to live in a war zone (or even one without law enforcement); but if you were forced to, would you rather have a rifle or not? I want the choice to have a rifle.
 
2013-01-25 02:57:19 PM  
And as usual the nutters are acting as if I said that all weapons should be forcibly taken away and smelted then crime victims should get on all fours and present their anuses for the inevitable gang rape.

Damn... and we were doing so well for a while there.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 02:58:11 PM  

here to help: GUTSU: If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.

That is very improbable and that's what the shotgun/pistols are for. Blast your way out and get the f*ck out of there. You sure have some twisted, paranoid fantasies.


Yes, go out of the relatively safe, defensible building and onto the street with the mob, you know, the one that wants to kill you? Who knows maybe I'm wrong in thinking that it would be better having people funneled towards my gun, maybe it is better to be completely surrounded.
 
2013-01-25 03:00:24 PM  

davidab: Shotguns are great for your home. Rifles are necessary for defending your street, or neighborhood (Hurricane Katrina, Storm Sandy, LA Riots of 1992, 2011 England riots).

Rifles are also necessary to fight other people with rifles. The Second Amendment is not about defending your home from the "gangsters." The 2A is about fighting a tyrannical government to preserve freedom. Between Clinton, George W, and Obama, the last 20 years have increased the likely hood a dictator can come to power more than the rest of the presidents combined.

I think I can safely say very few of us want to live in a war zone (or even one without law enforcement); but if you were forced to, would you rather have a rifle or not? I want the choice to have a rifle.


I didn't say all rifles should be banned. Show me where I said that.

And I got news for you... if the US government wanted to take you down there really isn't much you are gonna be able to do about it. Probably should have thought of that before dumping trillions into the military, huh?
 
2013-01-25 03:01:03 PM  

davidab: here to help: Hahaha! Yeah, because pistols and shotguns are TOTES useless for self defense. I mean you might as well threaten your attacker with a wet noodle!

Hilarious.

I thought it was the lefties who were supposed to be the pants sh*tting cowards. Get your stories straight.

Seriously some of you are acting as if you live in a freaking war zone. Most cops do perfectly fine with their handguns and shotguns. If you can't defend yourself with those tools you should probably move somewhere a little safer.

Shotguns are great for your home. Rifles are necessary for defending your street, or neighborhood (Hurricane Katrina, Storm Sandy, LA Riots of 1992, 2011 England riots).

Rifles are also necessary to fight other people with rifles. The Second Amendment is not about defending your home from the "gangsters." The 2A is about fighting a tyrannical government to preserve freedom. Between Clinton, George W, and Obama, the last 20 years have increased the likely hood a dictator can come to power more than the rest of the presidents combined.

I think I can safely say very few of us want to live in a war zone (or even one without law enforcement); but if you were forced to, would you rather have a rifle or not? I want the choice to have a rifle.


Yeah, why hasn't the goverment stopped "gangsters?" Haven't they had enough time to do it?
 
2013-01-25 03:05:58 PM  

here to help: And as usual the nutters are acting as if I said that all weapons should be forcibly taken away and smelted then crime victims should get on all fours and present their anuses for the inevitable gang rape.


I'm not a nutter, and you haven't responded to my question.
 
2013-01-25 03:06:38 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, why hasn't the goverment stopped "gangsters?" Haven't they had enough time to do it?


Corruption, a vested interest in keeping people scared to justify the current for profit justice system and an unwillingness to deal with true problem that inspires folks to turn to crime... which is... wait for it... poverty.

Ta da!
 
2013-01-25 03:09:18 PM  

GUTSU: here to help: GUTSU: If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.

That is very improbable and that's what the shotgun/pistols are for. Blast your way out and get the f*ck out of there. You sure have some twisted, paranoid fantasies.

Yes, go out of the relatively safe, defensible building and onto the street with the mob, you know, the one that wants to kill you? Who knows maybe I'm wrong in thinking that it would be better having people funneled towards my gun, maybe it is better to be completely surrounded.


Only if you practice the art of the Gun Katas.
 
2013-01-25 03:13:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm not a nutter, and you haven't responded to my question.


What question? All I see are attempts at justifying why you should be able to do whatever the hell you want despite the will of what is now becoming the majority of the people. That's right... most people are now in favor of at least some new gun control. In fact most of the stuff the president has proposed is EXACTLY what that majority want. So where's the problem? Do you not believe in democracy? Do you not respect the will of the people?
 
2013-01-25 03:15:01 PM  

Kit Fister: GUTSU: here to help: GUTSU: If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.

That is very improbable and that's what the shotgun/pistols are for. Blast your way out and get the f*ck out of there. You sure have some twisted, paranoid fantasies.

Yes, go out of the relatively safe, defensible building and onto the street with the mob, you know, the one that wants to kill you? Who knows maybe I'm wrong in thinking that it would be better having people funneled towards my gun, maybe it is better to be completely surrounded.

Only if you practice the art of the Gun Katas.


True, but I'm afraid that 'here to help' hasn't actually put all that much thought into "running into the crowd of hundred with a shotgun."
 
2013-01-25 03:18:36 PM  

here to help: BojanglesPaladin: I'm not a nutter, and you haven't responded to my question.

What question? All I see are attempts at justifying why you should be able to do whatever the hell you want despite the will of what is now becoming the majority of the people. That's right... most people are now in favor of at least some new gun control. In fact most of the stuff the president has proposed is EXACTLY what that majority want. So where's the problem? Do you not believe in democracy? Do you not respect the will of the people?


Well it's a good thing we live in a republic then, tell me if the majority of people wanted the government to install cameras in everyone's home, would you have a problem with that? Do you not believe in democracy? Do you not respect the will of the people?
 
2013-01-25 03:21:53 PM  

here to help: BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.


Uzi's have been a controlled item forever - Gun Control Act of 1968 and before that the National Firearms act of 1934, and yes shooting someone trying to take your stuff is murder (depending on the state you live in).

That being said the Second Amendment and the primary reason we get to have these guns is not to stop a person from taking your TV. It is to stop a government from telling us we no longer have the right to protest their actions.

Take a group of protesters... People have a right to protest whatever they want as long as they do it peacefully and lawfully. What happens when law enforcement or the national guard gets called in to remove these people? They come in with riot gear, less lethal items like tear gas, and they have their rifles (M4s and M16s loaded with .223/5.56mm).

What if their orders were to arrest the protesters, even if the protesters were having a lawful demonstration?
What if a second group of protesters picks up where the first group left off, but they are armed? Now their demand is that they be allowed to protest and not be arrested unlawfully. How will law enforcement react? Some LE will refuse to obey orders, and some will continue to follow orders. If we are really lucky, a bloodbath does NOT follow.

That is the power of the second amendment.
Everything past this first show of arms is a fight to determine who is right, and it will likely be fought with bullets for a while before we get back to words.
 
2013-01-25 03:24:26 PM  

here to help: What question? All I see are attempts at justifying why you should be able to do whatever the hell you want despite the will of what is now becoming the majority of the people. That's right... most people are now in favor of at least some new gun control.


First off, "Some measure of gun control" does not equal Fiensteins craptacular tiger attack preventing rock legislation. Many of us here have put forward reasonable and (most importantly) effective proposals.

But the question was:

"Also, are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?"
 
2013-01-25 03:24:42 PM  

GUTSU: True, but I'm afraid that 'here to help' hasn't actually put all that much thought into "running into the crowd of hundred with a shotgun."


Dude, you are not going to get swarmed by a rioting mob. If you ever end up in that situation any currently legal firearm isn't likely to help you much more than the ones I've suggested. You are ridiculous person spouting ridiculous hypotheticals. Please go look up how many people have been murdered in a riot in the last 20 years vs. the amount of... oh lets say accidental gun deaths. I think you'll notice a very significant gap between the two numbers. Hell... let's narrow it down even further. Go for accidental gun deaths of CHILDREN vs those killed in riots.

Now stop being silly.

Again... I am not anti gun. I'm anti irresponsible lunacy.
 
2013-01-25 03:28:25 PM  

here to help: And as usual the nutters are acting as if I said that all weapons should be forcibly taken away and smelted then crime victims should get on all fours and present their anuses for the inevitable gang rape.

Damn... and we were doing so well for a while there.

*fart*


are you advocating the restriction of semi-automatic rifles?
 
2013-01-25 03:28:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: First off, "Some measure of gun control" does not equal Fiensteins craptacular tiger attack preventing rock legislation. Many of us here have put forward reasonable and (most importantly) effective proposals.

But the question was:

"Also, are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?


Did I say I supported Feinstein? And I hardly think pistols, rifles and shotguns constitute the minimum means of defending ones self. That would mean my wet noodle would be banned as well.

Alright... it's getting pretty derptacular in here so I'm gonna disengage from this "conversation". It's been a slice ya'll. Hope you had as much fun as I did.
 
2013-01-25 03:33:49 PM  

here to help: GUTSU: If a large group of people of people are in the process on breaking into my store, business, home, I'm not going to assume they want to "steal/break stuff" I'm going to assume they are going to kill me, and then steal my shiat.

That is very improbable and that's what the shotgun/pistols are for. Blast your way out and get the f*ck out of there. You sure have some twisted, paranoid fantasies.


Please look to post 2013-01-25 02:45:41 PM with the picture of the Koreans in the LA Riots. That is a fringe benefit of the Second Amendment (still not the primary reason for the 2A). Still it can't be effectively accomplished with pistols and shotguns.
 
2013-01-25 03:38:11 PM  

here to help: davidab: Shotguns are great for your home. Rifles are necessary for defending your street, or neighborhood (Hurricane Katrina, Storm Sandy, LA Riots of 1992, 2011 England riots).

And I got news for you... if the US government wanted to take you down there really isn't much you are gonna be able to do about it. Probably should have thought of that before dumping trillions into the military, huh?


If the government wants to get me, then they will as you say) take me down. If the government wants to control a population without slaughtering them with bombs, then they will have to fight with guns. What good is it to be king if you don't have subjects?
 
2013-01-25 03:51:37 PM  

davidab: Please look to post 2013-01-25 02:45:41 PM with the picture of the Koreans in the LA Riots. That is a fringe benefit of the Second Amendment (still not the primary reason for the 2A). Still it can't be effectively accomplished with pistols and shotguns.


I've mentioned rifles multiple times already. I'm okay with rifles that don't fart out a hail of bullets with a mild suggestion. This is why these conversations are pointless. Nobody listens to what is said. They just see someone who is open to the idea of tightening up the laws a bit and start pounding away.

The funny part is that you hear the SCREAMS that Fark is some lefty gun grabbing utopia yet if you read this thread I am pretty much the only one here on the side of GC... and my views are actually pretty damned watered down.

Ya'll are so persecuted.

Here's an idea... how about look at the real issues behind gun violence? Dealing with poverty, the WoD and proper healthcare. But oh no... that's freaking communism. It's only become acceptable to discuss those things now that your guns are on the line. If the GC advocates said "fine... we'll leave the guns alone but we have to fix this other sh*t" then the kvetching about those issues would begin again and absolutely nothing would get done... as usual.

Pathetic.
 
2013-01-25 03:57:27 PM  

here to help: BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.


By the way, most 'gun nuts' do too.

I like guns. I have over 30. I carry a concealed handgun out about town. I dont condone laying automatic fire down because some people might want to get into you house.

/once they get *in*, though, thats a different matter.
 
2013-01-25 04:01:05 PM  

MythDragon: here to help: BTW I think standing in front of your home/business and mowing people down with an uzi just because they want to steal/break your stuff counts as murder.

By the way, most 'gun nuts' do too.

I like guns. I have over 30. I carry a concealed handgun out about town. I dont condone laying automatic fire down because some people might want to get into you house.

/once they get *in*, though, thats a different matter.


Then you might want to have a talk with GUTSU because that seems to be acceptable to him. Makes your side of the debate look really bad. Of course I'll be the one who gets crapped on because... well I don't even freaking know.

I should have just stuck with the fart jokes.

*fart*
 
2013-01-25 04:02:27 PM  

IRQ12: Was the AR used in the Newtown shooting? I hear so many differing stories on this.


I have reason to believe not and I know some of you will jump to the "truther" label but the news is too conflicting. In fact I am convinced Sandy Hook was a hoax and I know this might bother people but I mean seriously out of "600" kids they say attended the school we only get interviews of 3 sets parents? None of whom seem really affected by the loss. I have yet to hear from the staff about the incident cause come on the teachers didn't lose kids so that is just not CNN worthy.

There is a video of police pulling the shotgun out of the trunk. The video is odd because that appears to be the first place they look. Also according to various sources the car they read the license plate on belonged to someone named Rodia. Also there was only one ambulance on the scene. It's quite the convenient story, Sandy Hook massacre no survivors, nobody witnessing the shooting and getting away alive. I mean at least columbine had witnesses and video.

I have a hard time believing that if Sandy were true, that Adam/Ryan/Chris/whatever used an AR-15 style gun. I have shot them (S&W MP15 and Windham SRC) and I have a hard time thinking this was the primary weapon used considering other crimes where handguns were more efficient. Also Sig and Glock seem to be excluded from the whole thing but not Bushmaster....

Sandy Hook seems like a blanket story for crowd control and also money control. It was reported that MagPro the makers of 30 round mags for AR-15 style weapons did 4 years business in just 6 days once this went viral. And now when I go to gun shows I see these weapons on sale for $2000.00 and up when the actual market value is around $900.

Sandy Hook just seems like a modern Operation Gladio (CIA BlackOp in cold war era)
 
2013-01-25 04:19:37 PM  

POO_FLINGA: IRQ12: Was the AR used in the Newtown shooting? I hear so many differing stories on this.

I have reason to believe not and I know some of you will jump to the "truther" label but the news is too conflicting. In fact I am convinced Sandy Hook was a hoax and I know this might bother people but I mean seriously out of "600" kids they say attended the school we only get interviews of 3 sets parents? None of whom seem really affected by the loss. I have yet to hear from the staff about the incident cause come on the teachers didn't lose kids so that is just not CNN worthy.

There is a video of police pulling the shotgun out of the trunk. The video is odd because that appears to be the first place they look. Also according to various sources the car they read the license plate on belonged to someone named Rodia. Also there was only one ambulance on the scene. It's quite the convenient story, Sandy Hook massacre no survivors, nobody witnessing the shooting and getting away alive. I mean at least columbine had witnesses and video.

I have a hard time believing that if Sandy were true, that Adam/Ryan/Chris/whatever used an AR-15 style gun. I have shot them (S&W MP15 and Windham SRC) and I have a hard time thinking this was the primary weapon used considering other crimes where handguns were more efficient. Also Sig and Glock seem to be excluded from the whole thing but not Bushmaster....

Sandy Hook seems like a blanket story for crowd control and also money control. It was reported that MagPro the makers of 30 round mags for AR-15 style weapons did 4 years business in just 6 days once this went viral. And now when I go to gun shows I see these weapons on sale for $2000.00 and up when the actual market value is around $900.

Sandy Hook just seems like a modern Operation Gladio (CIA BlackOp in cold war era)


Holy Moly.
 
2013-01-25 04:29:24 PM  
Argue away. As a responsible gun owner I can tell you this: should the government ever pass a law saying my personal firearms are now not allowed, I won't be turning them in.

It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is my right to be possessed of the means to protect me and mine. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

And yeah, I deliberately used the word "responsible". My civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.
 
2013-01-25 05:14:20 PM  

here to help: StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, why hasn't the goverment stopped "gangsters?" Haven't they had enough time to do it?

Corruption, a vested interest in keeping people scared to justify the current for profit justice system and an unwillingness to deal with true problem that inspires folks to turn to crime... which is... wait for it... poverty.

Ta da!


Can't have rich without poor. Hell, even communists have rich people.
 
2013-01-25 05:18:08 PM  
IRQ12:Holy Moly.

Don't take my word for it, I am just skeptical on the thing. I did not jump on the conspiracy train during 9/11, Aurora and such but there are a few videos out there that point out items that make you ponder the possibility. I find it funny that there is one video of Newtown people not knowing the mother or the child at all and was like they just kept to themselves. Then there is the very awkward picture of the kid with the president. It was brought up on Anderson Cooper but the fathers response was "America should be worried about justice and blah". I know if I was that father and someone was saying my dead daughters death was fake, I would clear that shiat up real quick. I also think its freaky weird that nobody cries. I mean no tears at all. Hell I cried when Mickey died on Rocky.

Here just watch for yourself - The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

Fake witnesses
 
2013-01-25 05:21:47 PM  

POO_FLINGA: Here just watch for yourself - The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed


Keep up the good work.
 
2013-01-25 05:56:10 PM  

POO_FLINGA: IRQ12:Holy Moly.

Don't take my word for it, I am just skeptical on the thing. I did not jump on the conspiracy train during 9/11, Aurora and such but there are a few videos out there that point out items that make you ponder the possibility. I find it funny that there is one video of Newtown people not knowing the mother or the child at all and was like they just kept to themselves. Then there is the very awkward picture of the kid with the president. It was brought up on Anderson Cooper but the fathers response was "America should be worried about justice and blah". I know if I was that father and someone was saying my dead daughters death was fake, I would clear that shiat up real quick. I also think its freaky weird that nobody cries. I mean no tears at all. Hell I cried when Mickey died on Rocky.

Here just watch for yourself - The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

Fake witnesses


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2013-01-25 05:58:13 PM  

here to help: Did I say I supported Feinstein?


I have no idea. I was referring to the current gun control legislation which, forgive me, seems germaine. But since you broached the topic of your stance and that of Feinstein, do you NOT support her bill? You don't really say. Your comments would suggest an affinity for her stance at least.

here to help: Alright... it's getting pretty derptacular in here so I'm gonna disengage from this "conversation".


So... then no answer. Disapointing, but not suprising.

here to help: The funny part is that you hear the SCREAMS that Fark is some lefty gun grabbing utopia yet if you read this thread I am pretty much the only one here on the side of GC


This thread is not typical. But, yes, you are being out-argued by a few well-informed and reasonable posters (I exclude myself from consideration). I can see why you opted to cry derp and bail, trather than trying to continue a discussion where you are so clearly... outgunned.
 
2013-01-25 05:59:05 PM  

Kit Fister: WordyGrrl: Some of these arguments would be ridiculous if they were referencing medicine. Just because you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue harm reduction.

And if those medicines/drugs were widely available from other sources illegally, people would still take them. It's a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise millions wouldn't be addicted to coc-wait, no, they are. Well, weed then...oops, my bad... Meth? Hmmm, nope, that's pretty prolific too...What about regulated prescription meds that are only taken by doctor's directives? What? people still buy and take those all the time illegally? Well, shiat, isn't there ANYTHING that restricting drugs has done for us to reduce harm? What's that you say? Nearly 60% of non-suicide gun crimes are related to drugs/gangs that sell drugs? And over 80% of our federal prison population is because of drugs?

Yep, that pursuit of harm reduction sure did prove effective there, WordyGrrl!


So, you advocate the elimination of all laws "because people just break them anyway?" I'm not sure you understand the concept of "harm reduction," either. And the "War on Drugs" is a pretty crappy analogy. Had it been a "War on Drug Abuse?" That would be a much different story and a much more rational approach to the real issue: addiction and abuse (misuse).
 
2013-01-25 06:09:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: here to help: Did I say I supported Feinstein?

I have no idea. I was referring to the current gun control legislation which, forgive me, seems germaine. But since you broached the topic of your stance and that of Feinstein, do you NOT support her bill? You don't really say. Your comments would suggest an affinity for her stance at least.

here to help: Alright... it's getting pretty derptacular in here so I'm gonna disengage from this "conversation".

So... then no answer. Disapointing, but not suprising.

here to help: The funny part is that you hear the SCREAMS that Fark is some lefty gun grabbing utopia yet if you read this thread I am pretty much the only one here on the side of GC

This thread is not typical. But, yes, you are being out-argued by a few well-informed and reasonable posters (I exclude myself from consideration). I can see why you opted to cry derp and bail, trather than trying to continue a discussion where you are so clearly... outgunned.


lulz
 
2013-01-25 06:22:04 PM  

here to help: davidab: Please look to post 2013-01-25 02:45:41 PM with the picture of the Koreans in the LA Riots. That is a fringe benefit of the Second Amendment (still not the primary reason for the 2A). Still it can't be effectively accomplished with pistols and shotguns.

I've mentioned rifles multiple times already. I'm okay with rifles that don't fart out a hail of bullets with a mild suggestion. This is why these conversations are pointless. Nobody listens to what is said. They just see someone who is open to the idea of tightening up the laws a bit and start pounding away.

The funny part is that you hear the SCREAMS that Fark is some lefty gun grabbing utopia yet if you read this thread I am pretty much the only one here on the side of GC... and my views are actually pretty damned watered down.

Ya'll are so persecuted.

Here's an idea... how about look at the real issues behind gun violence? Dealing with poverty, the WoD and proper healthcare. But oh no... that's freaking communism. It's only become acceptable to discuss those things now that your guns are on the line. If the GC advocates said "fine... we'll leave the guns alone but we have to fix this other sh*t" then the kvetching about those issues would begin again and absolutely nothing would get done... as usual.

Pathetic.


Well I advocate rifles that can fart out a hail of bullets, for many reasons, and I will oppose those who want to restrict law abiding citizens from using them.

As for issues behind gun violence (and all violence) I agree we need to address those topics. Just not at the expense of the second amendment (semi-automatic rifles being the current hot 2A topic). I will happily debate the issues surrounding the methods with which we can reduce violence, all you have to do is tell me where you want to start.
 
2013-01-25 06:32:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But, yes, you are being out-argued by a few well-informed and reasonable posters


Hahaha... you go right ahead and believe that buddy.

I did appreciate the convo with Kit Fister (as I do with all honest and open discussions on this matter). The rest was the same old lame crap.

Enjoy thinking you've won. It won't mean a fart when logic, reason and compassion win the day.

...

Oh... sorry. Did I ruin your smug declaration of victory by checking the thread and posting again? My apologies.

There are no winners here, dude. People are getting killed. That has to be dealt with. It will be dealt with. With or without you. Wouldn't you prefer to be part of the debate to protect your interests? Or would you rather everyone just roll their eyes at you and go about the task of making things better and leaving you out of the discussion?

I want you to have guns if you so choose. But I also want to make damned sure you're not going to use them nefariously or irresponsibly or allow others with ill intent to acquire them. Why is that so difficult to understand? One would presume that a responsible gun owner would be all for that. Seems Mr. Obama's ideas are reasonable enough. No ones having their guns confiscated.

Seriously... what... is... the... F*CKING... PROBLEM?!!!
 
2013-01-25 06:37:40 PM  
Oh good. Three guys circle jerking over my posts. Have fun boys. Did you see the thread about the responsible gun owner pointing his spanky new AK at his daughter over getting a couple B's at school?

Yeah, that's totally reasonable. That guy totally should have had access to weapons. He didn't even buy it privately. lol

Nope, all is well. Nothing needs to change. Let's all stick our fingers in our ears and scream LALALALALALALA until the next republican comes to save us.

Buh bye.
 
2013-01-25 06:41:47 PM  

here to help: Enjoy thinking you've won.


Where do you get the "won" thing from? I've said no such thing. I think this says more than you intend about you that you feel the need to see things in those terms.

here to help: I want you to have guns if you so choose.


Good. But please note what *I* asked about. You seem to feel that you the right to determine what an 'appropriate' type of gun that someone can have is. THIS gun is acceptable, THAT gun is not. you said "Pistols and shotguns are good enough to defend yourself until you can escape a volatile situation."

But how do you arrive at the conclusion that your fellow citizens are only allowed to protect themsleves with "good enough"? Why would you oppose someone being able to defend themselves with "more than enough", especially when there is no way of knowing how much might be needed, especially in cases like riots, or other civil breakdown, where there may be multiple assailants, or when there is no viable means of escape?

I think we all agree that no one wants guns used "nefariously or irresponsibly or allow others with ill intent to acquire them." so why do you keep repeating that strawman?

But why are you comfortable dictating that your fellow citizens are only ever to be allowed the absolute minimum means of defending themselves with a gun? Why would we put the possibility of mis-use above the lawful ability of fellow citizens being best able to defend themselves?"
 
2013-01-25 06:48:36 PM  

here to help: Did you see the thread about the responsible gun owner pointing his spanky new AK at his daughter over getting a couple B's at school?


That's not responsible gun ownership, which I'm sure you know. But by your logic, we should also ban belts, in case someone somewhere gives their child a whippin' for not getting As.

No. Threataning someone with a gun is assault and it's a serious crime. Pointing a loaded firearm at anyone, especially a minor is a very serious crime. We have all kinds of laws to punish people who use their guns "nefariously or irresponsibly", and I'm sure that guy is rightfully facing jail time.

But given the sheer number of gun owning households I think you have presentedan exception that proves the rule.

here to help: Buh bye.


Are you leaving? Disapointing, but not suprising. But you know what? It's probably for the best.
 
2013-01-25 06:50:17 PM  

HotWingConspiracy

In this thread, retards will pretend that laws are supposed to work like magic, and if they don't, it silly to have them in the first place.

They don't even work like laws when those heading the law enforcement branch of government say they have no time to enforce those laws - while gun-walking thousands into the hands of violent criminals-.

But keep defending your messiah. It's not wrong when he does it.
 
2013-01-25 07:20:44 PM  

WordyGrrl: So, you advocate the elimination of all laws "because people just break them anyway?"


i672.photobucket.com

Phew... this one's coming out a lot lately.

WordyGrrl: And the "War on Drugs" is a pretty crappy analogy. Had it been a "War on Drug Abuse?"


Actually, it's spot-on. Rather than treating the underlying cause of the crime (the reason someone does drugs, the reason someone kills with a gun), it's trying to ban the symptoms, the tools people are using as a result of those causes. And, just as in the war on drugs, banning the tools will only drive their trade underground, create widespread resentment of the government, and make criminals out of tens of millions of people who were otherwise law-abiding.
 
2013-01-25 08:24:18 PM  

WordyGrrl: So, you advocate the elimination of all laws "because people just break them anyway?" I'm not sure you understand the concept of "harm reduction," either. And the "War on Drugs" is a pretty crappy analogy. Had it been a "War on Drug Abuse?" That would be a much different story and a much more rational approach to the real issue: addiction and abuse (misuse).


How about treat the disease and not the symptoms? Guns are available and privately owned in most of the first world countries people like to point out as paragons of gun control, save for the UK, and have far less crime. What exactly is the difference there?

Get started on treating the causes of crime, rather than just taking away the tools used, and you'll really make a difference. Until then, it's simply like taking away or limited hypodermics from drug addicts: They're still going to do it, and it did nothing to reduce the harm.

I suspect it's you who have not truly considered the situation of either drugs OR guns, and how our current response to them ensures both a healthy cirminal enterprise, and does nothing to stop the growth of it.

Think of it this way: What you and everyone like you propose is like attacking a kudzu vine by continuously cutting off branches, shoots, and leaves of the plant, but never bothering to kill the root. At best you can maintain a 1:1 control that means the plant is growing as fast as you're cutting off vines, but you're not killing the plant.

Instead, you need to go after the root. Once that is gone, all the aftereffects are gone.
 
2013-01-25 09:32:34 PM  

Deep Contact: Halib


yes it was. that was the Brazillions.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:08 PM  
I've always tried not to bring personal beliefs into this argument because I find the 'anti-gun' folks to be the same ones who expect others to defend them in times of need. They are also typically the same ones who must call AAA if they have a flat tire. (As a can-do military officer I really do try not to judge)

Having said that, regardless of what side of the coin you happen to be on with this debate, there are a few major problems with this piece. Here they are:

1. The headline reads 'Gun Dealer' impaling that the individual is a properly licensed seller of firearms, not a 2-bit thug selling on the street, as he was.

2. The piece uses the phrase 'Same caliber weapon as the one used in xxx massacre'. That is like saying that the 'same brand of car' was used a a car chase.

People, FFS read this fear-mongering crap for what it is.
 
2013-01-26 06:58:33 AM  

POO_FLINGA: IRQ12:Holy Moly.

Don't take my word for it, I am just skeptical on the thing. I did not jump on the conspiracy train during 9/11, Aurora and such but there are a few videos out there that point out items that make you ponder the possibility. I find it funny that there is one video of Newtown people not knowing the mother or the child at all and was like they just kept to themselves. Then there is the very awkward picture of the kid with the president. It was brought up on Anderson Cooper but the fathers response was "America should be worried about justice and blah". I know if I was that father and someone was saying my dead daughters death was fake, I would clear that shiat up real quick. I also think its freaky weird that nobody cries. I mean no tears at all. Hell I cried when Mickey died on Rocky.

Here just watch for yourself - The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

Fake witnesses


Very compelling!!!! Watch it again.
 
2013-01-26 10:26:30 PM  

Kit Fister: Instead, you need to go after the root. Once that is gone, all the aftereffects are gone.


My smartass remark to another smartass seems to have made you believe I'm a gun grabber. Not the case. The issue isn't guns as much as it is "crazy people who get their hands on guns." But instead of getting these crazy people some mental health care, we wait until they commit a crime and just lock them up in prison. I was a CO for a few months in a Texas prison. More than one inmate told me she first got her diagnosis and medications in prison -- and that if she'd been diagnosed and on those meds in the first place... she never would have committed the crime. But ya know, poor people can't afford luxuries like a trip to a $200 an hour shrink. So they self-medicate, booze it up, drug it up, go on a little crime spree, etc.
 
Displayed 212 of 212 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report