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   ( ) divider line 22
    More: Scary, New York, arms trafficking, gangster movie, gun dealers, Rikers Island, manhattan da, assault weapons, Sentell Smith  
•       •       •

12433 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
2013-01-25 10:15:23 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:34:22 AM  
2 votes:


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 10:23:18 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:19:59 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:27:33 AM  
2 votes:
And he is in jail.
2013-01-25 06:41:47 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:58:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:18:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:45:41 PM  
1 vote:

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.
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 01:35:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:02:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:19 PM  
1 vote:

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....
2013-01-25 12:13:12 PM  
1 vote:
What a NYC gun dealer might look like.
2013-01-25 11:31:25 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:30:07 AM  
1 vote:
FYI: Not Assault Rifle was USED in the Newtown tragedy... it was in his trunk, only hand guns were used.
2013-01-25 10:36:38 AM  
1 vote:

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Do you know who else had laws?
2013-01-25 10:29:58 AM  
1 vote:
"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 10:28:50 AM  
1 vote:
2013-01-25 10:25:26 AM  
1 vote:

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

2013-01-25 10:20:58 AM  
1 vote:
dis money is mines
2013-01-25 10:12:02 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:11:56 AM  
1 vote:
Are you implying that street criminals DON'T obey changes to laws?
Pass the smelling salts!
Displayed 22 of 22 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.