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.

(Fox News)   In response to a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Vermont gun range starts a ban of their own   (foxnews.com) divider line 536
    More: Dumbass, semi-automatic rifle, gun ranges, Vermont, capability management  
•       •       •

24495 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 10:12:59 AM  
Good. I was at the Smuggler's Notch Primitive Biathlon this last weekend, that's up in that area.
 
2013-01-29 10:19:10 AM  
I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.
 
2013-01-29 10:23:51 AM  
Is this that town council that declared Bush a war criminal? They may be a tad big for their britches.
 
2013-01-29 10:36:05 AM  
And the argument over federal, state, and local law continues unabated.

BTW:  Good book if you have a chance to pick it up.  Fellow alum. -- The Thirteen American Arguments.
 
2013-01-29 11:06:44 AM  
I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.
 
2013-01-29 11:19:47 AM  
This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.
 
2013-01-29 11:58:16 AM  

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


This.
 
2013-01-29 12:23:41 PM  

dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.


Damn right, that.

Also, the dumbass tag is misplaced here. Should have been a hero tag.
 
2013-01-29 12:24:11 PM  

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.
 
2013-01-29 12:24:14 PM  

dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.


North Hollywood Shootout.
 
2013-01-29 12:24:51 PM  

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


Why does nobody get this?
Probably the 'b-b-b-but warondrugs!'
 
2013-01-29 12:26:10 PM  
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUUUUNSSS!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
I REFUSE TO RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITAH!!!!!
 
2013-01-29 12:26:11 PM  
It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.
 
2013-01-29 12:26:13 PM  
Would they consider letting cops train with knives?
 
2013-01-29 12:26:28 PM  

Antimatter: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.


No they are not the same as the military. State/Municipal/County =/= Federal
 
2013-01-29 12:26:50 PM  

Antimatter: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.


Look up the phrase posse cometatus, and the difference between Title 10 and Title 32 federal employees.
 
2013-01-29 12:27:25 PM  
Burlington can't do this without changing the state law by the way, and the Democrat in charge withdrew a gun control bill already because he knows it has no chance. Burlington can choke on a dick.
 
2013-01-29 12:27:25 PM  
Good! It's about time we started standing up to the TYRANNY of these government thugs. The next time you have to deal with one of these Statist Pigs, I want you to remain calm, cool, and colllected, but be ready to exercise your right to protect yourself as laid forth by the Founding Fathers to prevent this type of tyranny at the hands of "lawmen".

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Or, you could just take it right to the BROWNSHIRTS and don't wait for them to come for you. The Tyrants never expected this. I bet 0bamma was quaking in his loafers when he heard about this True Patriot.
 
2013-01-29 12:28:09 PM  
I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.
 
2013-01-29 12:28:31 PM  

MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

North Hollywood Shootout.


Automatic weapons wouldn't have made a difference vs. semi-automatic. They were wearing body armor. There's a reason they asked the nearest gun shop for hunting rifles.
 
2013-01-29 12:28:35 PM  

MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

North Hollywood Shootout.


What about it?
 
KIA
2013-01-29 12:28:50 PM  
Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???
 
2013-01-29 12:29:41 PM  

Antimatter: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.


Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?
 
2013-01-29 12:29:45 PM  

Antimatter: They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.


No. Not at all.

But thanks for playing. Here's a copy of our home game.
 
2013-01-29 12:30:18 PM  

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


They've tried this, with mixed results.
www.seeing-stars.com

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.
 
2013-01-29 12:30:33 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.


Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.
 
2013-01-29 12:30:45 PM  
That's actually a pretty measured response, dislike what the government does? Boycott it in a sense.
 
2013-01-29 12:30:46 PM  
It's the owner's business; they are well within their rights to disallow any person from the range that they want to.

How many jobs would a comprehensive ban cost? Lots. Not only in the manufacturering sector, but also the retail gun industry. It would end up costing each state millions in hunting permits; FFL fees, ect. It would also destroy the farm game bird industry.
 
2013-01-29 12:31:44 PM  

MadCat221: ...
North Hollywood Shootout.


Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.
 
2013-01-29 12:31:48 PM  
I don't think there'd be an issue with transporting your firearm from home to the shoot. I believe a Federal law already exists that allows one to transport a firearm, even if it's banned in that locality, without fear of reprisal or seizure.
 
2013-01-29 12:31:59 PM  
"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

Boivin argues city-by-city gun rules would create a multitude of challenges.

"If you're going to a shoot, say in one end of Vermont to the other, you have to check the laws for every town in between, and you will pass through a half a dozen different towns, and that makes it almost impossible for someone to stay as a legal gun owner, and that's what we're concerned about," he said.


Very good points
 
2013-01-29 12:32:54 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.


They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...
 
2013-01-29 12:33:41 PM  
This will teach them cops to make laws we don't like!
 
2013-01-29 12:33:51 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.


ametia.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-29 12:33:51 PM  

Itstoearly: Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.


Burlington leadership you mean. The average Burlington resident is not so different. But... the thousands of college kids, progressive city leaders are way out of whack. The more reasonable Burlington people just don't make much noise. They showed up at city hall to protest the gun ban though.
 
2013-01-29 12:34:49 PM  
Just have the range call 911, there wont be a cop there for hours!
 
2013-01-29 12:35:07 PM  

FreetardoRivera: UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

[ametia.files.wordpress.com image 470x325]


Not that I don't get your point, but those are fire fighters in your picture.
 
2013-01-29 12:35:12 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.


the city doesn't have its own range, so they had been using the club range for their (required) training/qualifying....the City said they wanted to ban "assault" weapons and magazines, so the club said "don't expect us to allow you to use our facilities then"..
 
2013-01-29 12:35:38 PM  

IRQ12: MadCat221: ...
North Hollywood Shootout.

Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.


And amphedamines! No civilian has any need for assault drugs.

Cythraul: I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.


Vermont's a very liberal state that's also very firearms friendly. That is, Vermont understands people can have nice things without bowing down to totalitarianism.
 
2013-01-29 12:35:44 PM  
Burlington cops are pretty thuggish by the way. Taser happy.
 
2013-01-29 12:35:47 PM  
While you shouldn't really ever use it and it seems to be the source of most of this website's awfulness you really can't use the standard left/right paradigm in Vermont.
 
2013-01-29 12:36:37 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.


I think your first assumption is correct. The gun club is mad at the city council so they're taking it out on the cops. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.
 
2013-01-29 12:36:40 PM  
There would need to be transportation exemptions, or you're violating federal interstate commerce laws.

/Only useful thing i have to say
 
2013-01-29 12:37:17 PM  

FreetardoRivera: While you shouldn't really ever use it and it seems to be the source of most of this website's awfulness you really can't use the standard left/right paradigm in Vermont.


This is probably the best comment in the entire thread
 
2013-01-29 12:37:56 PM  

utahraptor2: IRQ12: MadCat221: ...
North Hollywood Shootout.

Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.

And amphedamines! No civilian has any need for assault drugs.

Cythraul: I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.

Vermont's a very liberal state that's also very firearms friendly. That is, Vermont understands people can have nice things without bowing down to totalitarianism.


Umm, no. Vermont has the worst economic outlook of any state. Highest overall tax rate. Rich people, trust funders, complete welfare people make up the bulk. It has been downhill here for a long time. We look good on paper, but it is because we are childless older people for the most part. ONly reason some people have nice things is they got wealth somewhere else and moved here, or mommy and daddy gave them a trust, or they get loads of free stuff.

Even Shumlin is coming around to the idea that we can't keep the welfare state up much longer.
 
2013-01-29 12:37:58 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.


You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?


WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...
 
2013-01-29 12:38:25 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-29 12:38:33 PM  

odinsposse: Antimatter: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?


Yes, I think it does. Also, the people driving the plow trucks for the county. They get fun guns too. And anybody on public aid...
 
2013-01-29 12:38:52 PM  

KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???


New Hampshire.
 
2013-01-29 12:39:02 PM  

Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.


Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

/ Not for the ban or stupid arguments.
 
Displayed 50 of 536 comments

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