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  
•       •       •

12445 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 12 of 212 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


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