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 02:03:20 PM  

Dimensio: Big_Fat_Liar: 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...

I am an employee of a university whose funding is only partially provided by the state. My salary is public information, however. Am I entitled to fully automatic firearms?


I guess you are if you can pass the background check and other regulations and the gun you own was registered prior to 1986

/not an expert, just going by the comments in the thread.
 
2013-01-29 02:04:01 PM  

robbiex0r: 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!'


Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just  might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

/I do not in any way, shape, or form support police of all people getting their hands on any weapon that is more than a basic pistol, but the argument that they should only be allowed access to civilian weapons because 'they're civilians' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what police do and are.
 
2013-01-29 02:04:05 PM  

justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.


I love fiction, are you a novelist? I doubt I'll read anything more disconnected from reality today than this right here.
 
2013-01-29 02:04:31 PM  

justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both?

How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots?

Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.


Actually that is NOT how society works. Society works that we punish the guilty for the sins of the guilty, not the whole for the sins of the few.

What you are talking about, is typically called Despotism, or tyranny, or Dictatorship..

Something I am 100% sure you love the idea of.
 
2013-01-29 02:04:54 PM  

justtray: Funny, i would say the same to you.


Only the punishment here wouldn't be preemptive, would it?
 
2013-01-29 02:07:01 PM  

justtray: Facetious_Speciest: justtray

It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be.

And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance.

I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword.

Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one.


Really? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

Gun sales are at an all-time high. Gun owners are becoming younger and more female, and the talk now is the split between "Gun Culture 1.0" and "Gun Culture 2.0". The number of hunting licenses sold has started to increase after a couple decades of decline. It's up 9% over the last 5 years.
 
2013-01-29 02:07:52 PM  

Rustblade: 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.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.


Coming from a guy whose country didn't even have a constitution til around 20 years ago, you probably have a little catching up to do on what a "right" is.

Here in the United States, that right is elucidated like so: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it. Nice combo you got going there sport.
 
2013-01-29 02:11:27 PM  

Epicedion: This isn't a good argument, as it's not about giving the bad guys a fair chance. It's about not giving automatic weapons to yahoos that couldn't get a job better than 'cop' while I'm somehow too untrustworthy to let buy a 15 round magazine for my target pistol.


I grew up around cops and still know a few. I guarantee they work harder and are more discipline than the average person. There's a reason they're given special rights to provide a safe society.

Facetious_Speciest: We (citizens) are the good guys. Why is it so important for the police to outgun us? Why would you want both police and criminals to have an advantage over us?


Most citizens are good guys, but most bad guys are also citizens.

craig328: How about the victims? Considering the criminal rarely gives the victim time and opportunity to call the police such that the police practically never show up in time to stop a crime as its being committed, don't you think the victims ought to have the choice of having "a fair chance"?


You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner.

If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be.
 
2013-01-29 02:12:29 PM  

Rustblade: 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.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.


You know, we didn't make that right up out of whole cloth. It has roots in our common legal history that go back a thousand years. We just decided that it was more important than your immediate ancestors, apparently.

I can understand why you deride it, just like I can understand how the phrase "money doesn't make you happy" is a perennial favorite of the economically downtrodden. I mean, it's sad in a "sour grapes" sort of way, but I understand how you feel.
 
2013-01-29 02:13:34 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: Facetious_Speciest: justtray

It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be.

And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance.

I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword.

Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one.

Really? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

Gun sales are at an all-time high. Gun owners are becoming younger and more female, and the talk now is the split between "Gun Culture 1.0" and "Gun Culture 2.0". The number of hunting licenses sold has started to increase after a couple decades of decline. It's up 9% over the last 5 years.


I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.
 
2013-01-29 02:13:37 PM  

craig328: In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it.


Well, he *IS* Canadian. That's "America-Lite".
 
2013-01-29 02:13:40 PM  

craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"


How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.
 
2013-01-29 02:14:05 PM  
"In the absence of federal legislation or state law we feel it has come upon us as a city to take the measures we feel are necessary to protect our citizens," Burlington City Councilman Norman Blais said.

By disarming citizens? I would say this is what they call "Infringement". I say surround all public officials with gun free zones, so they will be just as protected as we are.

in·fringe·ment noun \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Definition of INFRINGEMENT
1: the act of infringing : violation
2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
Examples of INFRINGEMENT

First Known Use of INFRINGEMENT
 
2013-01-29 02:14:11 PM  

justtray: If you're implying I think they should have no limit, again, poor mischaracterization of my argument. Im simply stating they should be at an advantage from the 'dangerous criminals' as you put it.


...the same criminals which prey upon the general public, who in your world is less equal than police and has no "need" or "worth" to defend themselves from such dangers.

You are the very type of person the Continental Army was shooting at.

And someone like yourself gaining power in this nation and attempting to implement your ideologies is exactly the contingency the 2nd Amendment was written to address.

Go back to Singapore.
 
2013-01-29 02:16:29 PM  

justtray: david_gaithersburg: craig328: Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

.
Wouldn't homicide be a subset of the violent crime category?

Yes. Meaning if a violent crime occurs on you, you're 4x4 = 16 times more likely to be killed by it in the US as opposed to the UK. Wonder why that could be... Anything but the guns im sure


Math fail. The murder rate in the US is 4x the UK. The UK has 4X the villent crime rate. Not sure why anyone would think that once you have decided a you are a victim of crime you now get to multiply the two numbers together to arrive at how much more likely you are to die in the US. Guess it seemed like a good idea at the time?
 
2013-01-29 02:17:11 PM  

justtray: Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though..


Is the Chav rate statistically correlated to the ubiquity of firearms?

I was kidding but now that I think about it there's probably something there.
 
2013-01-29 02:17:34 PM  
Wayne 985

Most citizens are good guys, but most bad guys are also citizens.

So the majority should be made less safe...being the ones who are preyed upon by violent criminals...so that cops can outgun the criminals?

Cops don't guard peoples' houses. They aren't required to help you. They can literally decide not to respond to your cries for help, and nothing will happen to them. The fact that they would be better-armed than the criminals who ran away after doing their work would be scant comfort.
 
2013-01-29 02:17:41 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.


I would support this law.

I'm tired of SWAT teams being used to serve warrants for non-violent offenses that gets innocent people killed. Take away their assault rifles, flash bangs, and tanks.
 
2013-01-29 02:18:46 PM  

Wayne 985: You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner.

If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be.


Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year.
 
2013-01-29 02:19:15 PM  

justtray:
That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ...


I'm not sure if you are trolling or merely incredibly uninformed. Virginia tech resulted in far more deaths using two pistols with standard magazine capacities, one of which was a 10 shot 22lr. Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban. Aaron Harris fired by far the most shots using a 9mm gun that had 10 round magazines. The level of "distruction" of the round an AR15 is chambered in is much, much less than that of a typical deer rifle or pump shotgun, weapons which will likely never be banned.

You talk an awful lot about things you don't understand. I recommend Assaultweapon.info as a nice introduction into the basics.
 
2013-01-29 02:21:00 PM  
It's the Dichotomy of Living in Vermont.
You got your sensitive city slickers in Burlington, who happily lived with one of Charley Manson's girls walking among them, Fearing the big bad boogie man with a gun. Made up of Sensitive ponytailed dudes in Birkenstocks, and lesbians in full regalia on any given day, Walking about church street, letting their freak flags fly.
35 miles away, you got Lamoille County. Bunch of small towns, joined by Rt 15, and covered in cow shiat.
Different attitudes and different ideas. Now because some of the fine people of Lamoille County have friends in the city, and the city government wants to impose a non federal and non state regulation on them, they decide not to cow tow to the city boys. Especially those who have used the range pro bono for years. Seems fair.
Let them put their own gun range in on the farking intervale.
Let them build their own range in the city. With city tax dollars.
Me, I live in the cow shiat covered town and can shoot in my own back yard when I want to, and if I see a state trooper on my road, I walk out, because he's probably lost, anyway.
 
2013-01-29 02:21:41 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.

You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)...


Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.
 
2013-01-29 02:22:01 PM  

justtray: kyrg: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: 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...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.
It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ...


and five kids in the US die eveyday from child abuse, that's a Sandy Hook every week ..

but it's the guns, not the lack of mental health treament ..

/but the children
//where's all the outrage
 
2013-01-29 02:22:15 PM  
stonicus

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

How cute...you don't understand how asymmetric warfare works.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

I would love to hear more about this. Please, go on.
 
2013-01-29 02:24:33 PM  

craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year.


Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common.
 
2013-01-29 02:24:38 PM  

chairborne: round an AR15 is chambered in is much, much less than that of a typical deer rifle or pump shotgun, weapons which will likely never be banned.


Been to England lately?

OgreMagi: 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.



Good idea. In fact lets also let teachers be considered Civilians and allow them to arm themselves just like the cops.
 
2013-01-29 02:25:03 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Holocaust Agnostic: justtray: Itstoearly: 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...

What point are they making?

I really want to hear someone successfully argue why police shouldnt be better armed than civilians without using petty semantic arguments. (the gun nut favorite go-to)

Because they are civillians themselves and in no sense need to outgun the public to perform their duties.

I said without semantic argument. Police are law enforcement. Civilians are NOT.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms.


memecrunch.com
 
2013-01-29 02:26:40 PM  

stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.


And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?
 
2013-01-29 02:26:56 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: So the majority should be made less safe...being the ones who are preyed upon by violent criminals...so that cops can outgun the criminals?

Cops don't guard peoples' houses. They aren't required to help you. They can literally decide not to respond to your cries for help, and nothing will happen to them. The fact that they would be better-armed than the criminals who ran away after doing their work would be scant comfort.


Keeping fully automatic guns out of civilian hands makes people more safe. I'd rather keep what exists in the hands of police and military. It's the same rationale we use to prohibit grenades and rocket launchers.
 
2013-01-29 02:28:23 PM  

Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?

 
2013-01-29 02:28:50 PM  

PsiChick: Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just  might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.


I don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).

Wayne 985: I grew up around cops and still know a few. I guarantee they work harder and are more discipline than the average person. There's a reason they're given special rights to provide a safe society.


I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public?
 
2013-01-29 02:28:52 PM  

Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year.

Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common.


Okay then, let's pretend it's pre 1986 and civilian ownership of these isn't constrained by cost.
 
2013-01-29 02:29:30 PM  

stonicus: Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia,


Nope. Go see the Heller decision and try again.
 
2013-01-29 02:29:44 PM  
Did they ban this guy as well?
i203.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-29 02:31:48 PM  
This is a great step for man. As NWA would say.... "Fark the Police"

They have their own ranges and could suck a long hard one. Why allow or make them more powerful you idiots, it is better if the public is stronger than the government. ALWAYS. I like the cut of his jib.
 
2013-01-29 02:32:24 PM  

Wayne 985: Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?


DC v Heller:

"Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms"). "
 
2013-01-29 02:32:29 PM  
Wayne 985

Keeping fully automatic guns out of civilian hands makes people more safe. I'd rather keep what exists in the hands of police and military.

I'd rather not have a civilian paramilitary group (police) have a decisive advantage over the people they're supposed to be protecting. Hells, I'd rather we not have such a large military with such advantage. Near-monopolies on effective violence rarely end well for those outside said monopoly.

I hear what you're saying, though. I just disagree.
 
2013-01-29 02:35:06 PM  

Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.


Yeah, how about the cops try the landfill. Watch out for the crows though!
 
2013-01-29 02:35:29 PM  

Joe Blowme: And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?


Middle school? My bad, I thought you were older. Thank you for showing how young and uninformed you are.
Read this if you can.
 
2013-01-29 02:35:58 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.


The cops would have been better served with leverguns in .45-70.

Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year.

Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common.


Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one.
 
2013-01-29 02:37:23 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.


They would need a warrant for each and every person who was entering the facilities. The 4th Amendment specifically bars the government from arbitrary searches and seizures. And no, a blanket warrant is not legal.
 
2013-01-29 02:38:08 PM  

Dimensio: You are correct. Such a claim is ... stupid and irrational...


Wait... then why did you make it?

Also, thank god my original comment got deleted as a "personal attack" even though the person allegedly "attacked" managed to get the blindingly obvious satirical point.
 
2013-01-29 02:39:08 PM  

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.


Because the Constitution is supposed to be important. That's why. You want it to change? Fine, there are procedures to make changes. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. You can't simply change the meaning of the Constitution just because you don't like something.
 
2013-01-29 02:40:32 PM  

Wayne 985: I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.


I've never had paranoid delusions about either myself.

I *HAVE* talked about the subject in the abstract, of course, at least the idea of an armed citizenry potentially resisting a government that becomes tyrannical. If you want me to list the reasons why it could be more effective than you might think, I can.

Besides which, we've taken that name back: I'm a proud gun nut. You know what I own? A couple of bolt action rifles, and a flintlock. That's it. But I'm a gun nut nonetheless, and I stand in solidarity with my fellow gun nuts.
 
2013-01-29 02:40:32 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dimensio: You are correct. Such a claim is ... stupid and irrational...

Wait... then why did you make it?

Also, thank god my original comment got deleted as a "personal attack" even though the person allegedly "attacked" managed to get the blindingly obvious satirical point.


I am attempting to learn the proper use of the human technique known as "sarcasm". I have yet to master the practice, however.
 
2013-01-29 02:40:37 PM  
I wondering if there is actually any real gun debate or whether this is just the best viral marketing campaing for firearms ever created.

/sales numbers dont lie
 
2013-01-29 02:41:05 PM  

stonicus: Read this if you can.


It is irrelevent in the context of the law. Again the Heller Decision held that the prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Sorry dude, if you don't like it, go amend the Constitution.
 
2013-01-29 02:42:05 PM  

Epicedion: PsiChick: Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just  might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

I don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).


...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is  not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.
 
2013-01-29 02:43:24 PM  

FC Exile: Did they ban this guy as well?
[i203.photobucket.com image 268x247]


Oh, is that Obama shooting skeet? Yeah, he really looks like he knows what he's doing there. Heh. From now on, I shall call him "Shotgun Urkel".
 
2013-01-29 02:45:13 PM  
Not that it's really important, but to avoid the easy conversational usage for a moment, police are civilians. In fact, that's where the word "civilian" comes from...civil servants.

Just because the current American police like to play commando doesn't mean they're part of the American military. Pretending they are is another step down the road to Nogoodsville.
 
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


Report