FARK.com: (7562086) In response to a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Vermont gun range starts a ban of their own

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.

		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)		46
		More: Dumbass, semi-automatic rifle, gun ranges, Vermont, capability management

• • •

24454 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7562086

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Funniest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Dimensio		2013-01-29 10:19:10 AM

13 votes:

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.

Frank N Stein		2013-01-29 12:52:48 PM

4 votes:

Rapmaster2000		2013-01-29 12:27:25 PM

4 votes:

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.

Eirik		2013-01-29 01:20:04 PM

3 votes:

AbiNormal: "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."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

The 1st doesn't specify what religion won't be infringed, either.

/I'm looking at you, Presbyterians...

Frank N Stein		2013-01-29 12:55:50 PM

3 votes:

Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Why? Because they hurt your feelings or something? Get over it, pussy.

dickfreckle		2013-01-29 12:54:36 PM

3 votes:

dabbletech: I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

Came for a Coat Factory reference. Leaves satisfied.

dabbletech		2013-01-29 12:39:26 PM

3 votes:

I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

I drunk what		2013-01-29 12:38:25 PM

3 votes:

Onkel Buck		2013-01-29 12:34:49 PM

3 votes:

Just have the range call 911, there wont be a cop there for hours!

BgJonson79		2013-01-29 12:56:29 PM

2 votes:

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

What, you never have fart wars with your wife?

BgJonson79		2013-01-29 12:54:46 PM

2 votes:

dr-shotgun: Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

Most art history majors never took a college-level course in stats, so they wouldn't know how it works.

kombat_unit		2013-01-29 12:48:51 PM

2 votes:

Representative of the unwashed masses		2013-01-29 12:47:14 PM

2 votes:

The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

odinsposse		2013-01-29 12:29:41 PM

2 votes:

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?

Deep Contact		2013-01-29 12:26:13 PM

2 votes:

Would they consider letting cops train with knives?

oldfarthenry		2013-01-29 12:26:10 PM

2 votes:

guns

guns

GUNS!

GUNS!!

GUUUUNSSS!!!
i1151.photobucket.com

I REFUSE TO RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITAH!!!!!

Cythraul		2013-01-29 11:06:44 AM

2 votes:

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

untaken_name		2013-01-29 09:41:59 PM

1 votes:

Apik0r0s: My dick is above average, so I have no dog in this fight, ban them all. I could care less. The only people I know who rant about guns are right wing whackjobs who would be precluded from owning a firearm in any sensible society, based on the deep and far ranging disorders they suffer from.

That's so sweet how you call your boyfriend your dick.

Facetious_Speciest		2013-01-29 08:57:05 PM

1 votes:

Has anyone ever wondered who all the gun owners and anti-firearms people who hook up man-on-man style are? I know it seems like an odd couple kind of thing, but there are a lot of anti-firearms guys who have apparently sucked a lot of gun owner dick. They're always talking about it...the size, their feelings about it, etc. Always when people are talking about firearms, these guys come in and start talking about other guys' junk, and to listen to them, they've obviously had a pretty large sample size.

Obviously, I'm not painting either gun-owners or anti-firearms people as closeted homosexuals...that would be silly...but these guys who really have nothing to add to a discussion about weapons other than talking about all the gun-owner dick they've experienced...they're pretty weird.

redmid17		2013-01-29 08:17:23 PM

1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.

I mean he was being completely sarcastic and patronizing the entire time. I believe he called himself a robot at one point. Pretty sure the answer is he's just trolling you given how pro-gun he has been in other threads.

vudukungfu		2013-01-29 08:10:14 PM

1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.

You can be a target holder at the range.

Dimensio		2013-01-29 04:05:19 PM

1 votes:

OgreMagi: Kit Fister: Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.

Those police officers recognized the importance of a safe work environment. For criminals.

Epicedion		2013-01-29 03:43:05 PM

1 votes:

Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

OgreMagi		2013-01-29 03:06:42 PM

1 votes:

dittybopper: chairborne: It also kind of deconstructs all that idiotic talk about the 2nd amendment being outdated because of drones and tanks. First off, the military isn't full of robots with no free will. Second a drone or a tank is useless when the person behind it is removed from the equation. Third, veterans and other capable citizens *vastly* outnumber every cop, soldier and fed combined. That's always been kind of the point, any government bad enough to warrant the citizenry engaging in armed resistance is going to be farked.

There is something else that is rarely talked about: A significant portion of the military would join an insurgency, if the motivation was confiscation of guns.

That's because a very significant fraction of the military, especially combat arms specialties, come from people raised in the "Gun Culture". Why? Because they get to play with guns while getting paid to do so.

My brother went 0300 as a Marine, and became a marksmanship instructor, precisely because of that.

There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms. The responses were predictable, to anyone familiar with the military and the gun culture.

I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order?

dittybopper		2013-01-29 02:13:37 PM

1 votes:

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".

violentsalvation		2013-01-29 02:04:05 PM

1 votes:

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.

pedrop357		2013-01-29 02:02:39 PM

1 votes:

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.

Poe's law?

The_Sponge		2013-01-29 01:45:56 PM

1 votes:

justtray: 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.

If you're going to go that route, since you love gun control so much, why don't you move to North Korea?

Facetious_Speciest		2013-01-29 01:26:57 PM

1 votes:

AbiNormal

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

Right? If only the authors had numerous other writings to clarify their intent...

BgJonson79		2013-01-29 01:24:54 PM

1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 425x279]

Unfamiliar with bell curves and standard deviation, aren't you? Communications major?

david_gaithersburg		2013-01-29 01:10:25 PM

1 votes:

dr-shotgun: justtray: Go ahead and compare rifle homicides as a percentage of total homicides to total rifles as a percentage of guns.

Someone doesn't understand statistics, and its you.

Oh, you mean the statistics that say roughly 60% of all firearms are long guns, yet long guns (rifles and shotguns) are used in only 8% of firearm crimes?

Data:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

And don't forget, all assault rifles are a mere fraction of overall firearms in the population, yet are used in less than 2% of all firearm crimes. To say nothing of the fact that it isn't as if those murders would disappear; as I said in another thread, it isn't like someone intent on committing a crime is gonna say "I can't have the big evil looking gun I want, so instead of killing this guy, I'm gonna go play xBox."

Oh, and another fun thing to not forget - even though assault rifle sales have been staggeringly massive over the last 5 years (to the tune of about a million ARs and AKs being sold a year), murders with rifles have declined at an even faster rate (a 14% decline in all firearm murders since 2007, while rifle murders have declined 28%).

.
Careful there. Citing facts on Fark can get one banned for 24 hours.

macadamnut		2013-01-29 01:10:22 PM

1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: There are 4,000,000 weapons manufactures in the US! Holy farking shiat!

Much like a political party, its members are not necessarily its constituents.

david_gaithersburg		2013-01-29 01:07:40 PM

1 votes:

macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

.
There are 4,000,000 weapons manufactures in the US! Holy farking shiat!

Gosling		2013-01-29 01:06:14 PM

1 votes:

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.

david_gaithersburg		2013-01-29 01:05:04 PM

1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: david_gaithersburg: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

.
If we all had access the bomb may have never been invented.

All had access to what? The bomb that hadn't been invented yet?

"Try" reading this.

justtray		2013-01-29 01:02:05 PM

1 votes:

craig328: justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly. Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

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

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits his crimes ...

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.

Eirik		2013-01-29 01:01:04 PM

1 votes:

ronaprhys: 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.

I could easily be wrong, but haven't people been arrested and prosecuted in D.C. for exactly this, transporting guns or magazines that violate the city laws though the city limits? Didn't someone in New Jersey go to prison for something akin to this (though, IIRC, his case had some odd complications).

Keeve: 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.

The gun club doesn't have many options here to protest where the city will feel it. Assuming that they are the only place where the police can practice that's reasonably close by or affordable, they have a legal way to protest that will effect the city bottom line. Now, they either have to find a different facility that may be further away or more expensive or build their own somewhere. The city can choose either to have their ordinance or pay more money out.

What else is he going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

BgJonson79		2013-01-29 01:00:58 PM

1 votes:

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.

You're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person...

BgJonson79		2013-01-29 12:57:29 PM

1 votes:

Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

cubic_spleen		2013-01-29 12:49:49 PM

1 votes:

In this thread: Gun Nuts, States' Rights Nuts, Sovereign Citizen Nuts, Libertarian Nuts, 2nd Amendment Nuts, Anti-police Nuts, and Wing Nuts. None of whom have any balls.

/should have used the ironic tag instead.

justtray		2013-01-29 12:48:31 PM

1 votes:

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

Murder deprives others of their natural rights. Ownership of weapons or drugs or whatever else, by itself, does not. This is the distinction.

Wtf are you talking about? Is this the kind of cognitive dissonance required to keep believing in illogical arguments?

Big_Fat_Liar		2013-01-29 12:45:38 PM

1 votes:

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?

That's a tough one. I think everyone can agree you are at least eligible for three round burst. We'll have to set up a committee to determine if we can go any further than that.

Big_Fat_Liar		2013-01-29 12:38:33 PM

1 votes:

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...

chevydeuce		2013-01-29 12:35:12 PM

1 votes:

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"..

ronaprhys		2013-01-29 12:29:45 PM

1 votes:

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.

Antimatter		2013-01-29 12:24:11 PM

1 votes:

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.

Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.