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.

(SFGate)   You get into an argument with a neighbor. Do you C) pull out an AK-47 and shoot up their house?   (sfgate.com) divider line 175
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

5967 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 9:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-25 08:07:05 PM  
If that house had been allowed to carry a firearm this never would have happened!

/amidoinitrite?
 
2013-02-25 08:11:07 PM  
I don't want to do a gun thread again today.
 
2013-02-25 08:11:56 PM  
"Criminals don't adhere to any laws," Esparza said. "That's why they are criminals."


If there's one thing I've learned, it's that litterers and speeders and people that rip tags from mattresses are only waiting for the opportunity to murder someone.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2013-02-25 08:25:06 PM  
i.imgur.com

Dear Diary,

Today wasn't a good day....
 
2013-02-25 08:34:30 PM  
Another responsible gun owner heard from.
 
2013-02-25 08:37:58 PM  
An armed society is a polite society.
 
2013-02-25 08:38:01 PM  
Its been my opinion that if you want to own a full auto machine gun , you shouldn't
own one .
 
2013-02-25 08:38:41 PM  
not with today's ammo prices
 
2013-02-25 08:51:08 PM  
Would if I could.
 
2013-02-25 08:57:39 PM  
Where were the armed teachers?
 
2013-02-25 09:05:00 PM  
California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.
 
2013-02-25 09:05:40 PM  
blog.robballen.com

/obligatory
 
2013-02-25 09:08:53 PM  

ultraholland: not with today's ammo prices


chrisrockbulletonlayaway.mkv
 
2013-02-25 09:30:14 PM  
If we outlaw spraying your neighbor's house with automatic gunfire, only outlaws will spray their neighbors' houses with automatic  gunfire.
 
2013-02-25 09:31:00 PM  
Nope. And he didn't either.
 
2013-02-25 09:31:15 PM  
This is why a bullet should cost FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!
 
2013-02-25 09:32:19 PM  
when will we outlaw automatic weapons and stop this madness?
 
2013-02-25 09:32:35 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nope. And he didn't either.


Wait, what the hell? He did it with a real AK-47? I just assumed that a criminal would be abiding by the laws of the city and state he lives in.
 
2013-02-25 09:33:24 PM  
AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.
 
2013-02-25 09:33:53 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.


you need permission from the Treasury department IIRC
 
2013-02-25 09:34:22 PM  
Despite spraying the place with bullets, he only shot his victim in the leg once. Clearly, the perpetrator is a bad guy in an action movie.
 
2013-02-25 09:35:31 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.


Not in California, unless you're special.
 
2013-02-25 09:37:09 PM  
Well it is the rational thing to do

/Can't trust neighbours
 
2013-02-25 09:37:32 PM  

ArkAngel: [blog.robballen.com image 400x600]

/obligatory


[citation needed]
 
2013-02-25 09:38:02 PM  
Wait, how did he get a deadly assault weapon in Kalifornistan?
 
2013-02-25 09:38:43 PM  
Is this a trick question?
 
2013-02-25 09:38:54 PM  

enry: ArkAngel: [blog.robballen.com image 400x600]

/obligatory

[citation needed]


Errr welcome to fark?

/Catch up on the memes
 
2013-02-25 09:38:57 PM  
Hey every story has two sides. Maybe the guy had it coming.
 
2013-02-25 09:40:23 PM  
AK-47?

No, I'm pretty sure it must have been an AR-15.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-02-25 09:40:36 PM  

sithon: Another responsible gun owner heard from.


The gun he used is illegal to own in CA. Even if it was semi-auto, a gun legal to own in most other states, it would have still been illegal to own in CA.  And if it's a semi-auto that he converted to full auto, he also violated Federal law by willfully violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- a crime that carries a max sentence of five years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine -- as well as Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. It's very likely he violated the Gun Control Act of 1986.

So how about go be an ignorant trollish dickhead somewhere else?
 
2013-02-25 09:41:08 PM  
I only use my AK for hunting rabid deer. People like this give gun owners a bad name.
 
2013-02-25 09:41:24 PM  
Perhaps the NRA would like to suggest the government put armed officers in every house, to protect our freedoms?


I'm still confused why they supported the govnmt putting armed guards in every school...
 
2013-02-25 09:42:01 PM  

wee: sithon: Another responsible gun owner heard from.

The gun he used is illegal to own in CA. Even if it was semi-auto, a gun legal to own in most other states, it would have still been illegal to own in CA.  And if it's a semi-auto that he converted to full auto, he also violated Federal law by willfully violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- a crime that carries a max sentence of five years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine -- as well as Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. It's very likely he violated the Gun Control Act of 1986.

So how about go be an ignorant trollish dickhead somewhere else?


not to mention his terrible sentence structure
 
2013-02-25 09:42:06 PM  
Not only would a full auto AK be a NFA weapon, and thus extremely expensive and difficult to own legally where state law doesn't prohibit them, California specifically outlaws them.  The war on guns is working just as well as the war on drugs.
 
2013-02-25 09:42:36 PM  
I thought AK-47s were the assault rifle of choice for the last century, and now the AR-15 was the weapon of choice for the discriminating individual.
 
2013-02-25 09:43:23 PM  
Those are speedholes.  They make the house go faster.
 
2013-02-25 09:43:38 PM  
"Criminals don't adhere to any laws,"

That's a pretty calous and blanket statement to make
I'm sure criminals follow all sorts of laws
Its not like they go around all day long willy nilly stealing, shooting, running red lights, pushing little old ladies down flights of stairs
They really wouldn't be able to function very well with cops chasing them around all the time
 
2013-02-25 09:43:59 PM  

potterydove: Not only would a full auto AK be a NFA weapon, and thus extremely expensive and difficult to own legally where state law doesn't prohibit them, California specifically outlaws them.  The war on guns is working just as well as the war on drugs.


This!  Don't even get me started on the war on drunk driving.
 
2013-02-25 09:45:33 PM  

albatros183: enry: ArkAngel: [blog.robballen.com image 400x600]

/obligatory

[citation needed]

Errr welcome to fark?

/Catch up on the memes


I keep seeing that meme, doesn't mean it's any good.  Or even correct.

/and I used a meme to comment on a meme.  Try to keep up.
 
2013-02-25 09:49:06 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: SpdrJay: This is why a bullet should cost FIVE THOUSANDONE MILLION DOLLARS!

[www.cinemaretro.com image 468x537]

/ftfy


Hey!  That would give the Mexican Cartels a reason to exist when drugs are legalized!
 
2013-02-25 09:49:09 PM  
Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".
 
2013-02-25 09:49:16 PM  

Relatively Obscure: "Criminals don't adhere to any laws," Esparza said. "That's why they are criminals."


If there's one thing I've learned, it's that litterers and speeders and people that rip tags from mattresses are only waiting for the opportunity to murder someone.


For a minute, I thought you said Liters.
 
2013-02-25 09:51:26 PM  
Whats the use of having an AK-47 if your not going to USE it?
 
2013-02-25 09:53:11 PM  

Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".


You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.
 
2013-02-25 09:53:19 PM  
SCAR Heavy is better, no?
 
2013-02-25 09:54:26 PM  
Had friends who used to live in that neighborhood. They used to find shell casings in the street. That was back when there was a housing project nearby, but it doesn't sound like the place had changed much.
 
2013-02-25 09:54:42 PM  
Seems to me like the group called "law-abiding gun owners" just gets smaller and smaller every day.
 
2013-02-25 09:55:08 PM  
Yeahhhh; it's almost like prohibition doesn't work in any form.

/ I always wonder why some people think that making a gun illegal will help keep said gun out of a criminal's mitts. It only effects people who try to legally own a gun.

// it doesn't work for marijuana; why do you think that it will work for guns?
 
2013-02-25 09:55:57 PM  

skullkrusher: when will we outlaw automatic weapons and stop this madness?


I drive an automatic and it can be used as a weapon. What say you?
 
2013-02-25 09:56:49 PM  

frankencj: Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".

You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.


Who has forgotten about it? Just because there are a buttload of restrictions that we're OK with doesn't mean we're not going to fight the ones we're NOT OK with.
 
2013-02-25 09:56:49 PM  
When this sort of stuff happens happens in Oakland the reaction from SF is "OMG look at all the violent blacks in Oakland!!"  When it happens in SF, the reaction is "OMG, we need federal gun control!"  Just a pet peeve as an Oaklander.
 
2013-02-25 09:57:23 PM  

Rambino: AK-47?

No, I'm pretty sure it must have been an AR-15.


Either way, given that fully automatic weapons are the most dangerous thing that has ever existed evar, it's no surprise that he killed his neighbor, his wife, their dogs, and 246 other women and children.

/oh, wait
 
2013-02-25 09:58:46 PM  

enry: ArkAngel: [blog.robballen.com image 400x600]

/obligatory

[citation needed]


If you read enough of the "breaking news" stories on gun violence, and you know something about guns, you'll quickly notice that journalists don't have a freaking clue as to what they're talking about.  The graphic was done by Robb Allen. In fact people hot-link to his blog.  Robb's a gun gun.  Pretty funny, too.

Off the top of my head here's some of the notable gun errors I've seen:

- Goofball college kid enters campus with a Wolf .50 caliber muzzle loader, news stories feature a Barrett M82A1 .50BMG rifle as the graphic.

- '40mm Glock service revolver' comes up fairly often.  Despite it being a .40 caliber (not 40 mm, that's a 1.75" wide bullet) and not a revolver.

- I've actually seen a story go from an idiot shooting his kid's football coach with an AK-47 end up being a .45 caliber pistol by the end of the day.  That one was funny because a co-worker found the story as it broke, I scoffed at the "AK" claim, and before work was out the story was down to a pistol.

And, despite this story saying it was a fully automatic AK, I doubt it really was.  Wouldn't be surprised if ends up just being an old SKS or something.  Police don't generally know much about guns.  Hell, I've seen video of an ATF field agent test firing a gun he declared a machine gun (it wasn't, it was just malfunctioning with soft primered ammo, unsafely at that) and the field agent couldn't even field strip the gun.  The defense's expert witness had to do it and showed him the decayed 15 cent spring that was leading to the malfunction.  Dumb thing was slamfiring, that's all.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-02-25 10:00:24 PM  

rich_mitch: When this sort of stuff happens happens in Oakland the reaction from SF is "OMG look at all the violent blacks in Oakland!!"  When it happens in SF, the reaction is "OMG, we need federal gun control!"  Just a pet peeve as an Oaklander.


I have a lot of friends in Oakland (and a couple good memories of the Jingletown Market).  I also worked in the City for a while.  So yes, this is true.
 
2013-02-25 10:00:57 PM  
The Fillmore district still has its share of assholes.

I don't know what I hate worse- thugs with guns, or gentrifying yuppies who price everyone who isn't rich out of the city.
 
2013-02-25 10:01:53 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: skullkrusher: when will we outlaw automatic weapons and stop this madness?

I drive an automatic and it can be used as a weapon. What say you?


you should be a man and drive stick?
 
2013-02-25 10:02:59 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: frankencj: Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".

You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.

Who has forgotten about it? Just because there are a buttload of restrictions that we're OK with doesn't mean we're not going to fight the ones we're NOT OK with.



And a good fight it is...wish we did not have to do this every 10 years or so.  I wish folks would realize that there are plenty of laws now and that the 2nd is heavily regulated...and taxed per firearm and ammo.
 
2013-02-25 10:03:48 PM  
This is basically the whole point of owning guns in this day and age.

How is the average gun owing husband supposed to sleep with his wife if he can't hold the threat of imminent death over her head?  How is he supposed to get his teenage kids to take out the trash?  Or, relate to a neighbor?

I don't really want to know the answer to this but - you guys do have the gun in your mouth while you jerk off, right?
 
2013-02-25 10:04:41 PM  
It is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47. "Criminals don't adhere to any laws," Esparza said. "That's why they are criminals."
 
2013-02-25 10:05:19 PM  

Big Dave: This is basically the whole point of owning guns in this day and age.

How is the average gun owing husband supposed to sleep with his wife if he can't hold the threat of imminent death over her head?  How is he supposed to get his teenage kids to take out the trash?  Or, relate to a neighbor?

I don't really want to know the answer to this but - you guys do have the gun in your mouth while you jerk off, right?


No, it's in your wife's mouth while we tag her.

Troll. Idiot. Retard.
 
2013-02-25 10:06:05 PM  
*I'm ok with this* img
 
2013-02-25 10:07:52 PM  
Isn't that how some subsets of successful and attractive blah types usually solve things?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

Argue with neighbors get in their face....they didn't earn that, take your fair share.
 
2013-02-25 10:09:15 PM  

jbuist: Robb's a gun gun


You said gun twice.
 
2013-02-25 10:12:34 PM  
Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

//sigh
 
2013-02-25 10:13:20 PM  
i306.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-25 10:13:23 PM  
I wonder how long it takes before this fully automatic AK47 transforms into a semiautomatic SKS or something similar.
 
2013-02-25 10:13:54 PM  

Glenechocreek: The Fillmore district still has its share of assholes.

I don't know what I hate worse- thugs with guns, or gentrifying yuppies who price everyone who isn't rich out of the city.


I'd bet that living in a thugs with guns neighborhood would help you to make that decision quickly.
 
2013-02-25 10:15:46 PM  

RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

//sigh


Nah, neighbour should have just pulled out his AR-15, that's how Real 'MuricansTMhandle things.

/kidding
//sadly there are people who subscribe to this line of thought though
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-02-25 10:15:47 PM  

ReapTheChaos: It is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47


No it isn't.  A friend owns one.  I own a fully-automatic weapon.  They're not illegal at all unless your state prohibits them.  You just have to get a stamp from the BATFE saying you paid the tax to transfer the weapon from the dealer to you.

But in order to get that stamp, you have to pass a local background check (pics and prints, takes maybe 2-3 months or never), then send another set of photos and prints along with $200 into the BATFE for a Federal background check (FBI, INTERPOL, etc; takes around 9 months). Once they say you're an upstanding citizen, they send a letter back to the dealer.  Then you give that dealer a ridiculous amount of money and pick up your gun.

In general, it's hideously expensive and generally a pain in the ass.  But once someone has that stamp, you can be fairly well assured that the person hasn't so much as been in a car accident, because they can and will deny for almost anything.
 
2013-02-25 10:16:05 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: SpdrJay: This is why a bullet should cost FIVE THOUSANDONE MILLION DOLLARS!

[www.cinemaretro.com image 468x537]

/ftfy


Seriously?

OK on your FANTASY ISLAND !

/Ricoardo
//hey your so fine
///Obscure
 
2013-02-25 10:16:13 PM  

ArkAngel: [blog.robballen.com image 400x600]

/obligatory


Wrong sir third one down on left column is an anti-aircraft weapon.
 
2013-02-25 10:16:24 PM  
Ban houses?
 
2013-02-25 10:22:29 PM  
Long term, incidents like this are only good news for ONE group:

i.imgur.com


When only criminals have guns, wild pigs will rule the land
 
2013-02-25 10:23:43 PM  
I gotta say--SFist wins the net for their graphic to go with this story--it's either laziness or genius, or some combination thereof:

sfist.com
 
2013-02-25 10:25:35 PM  
Sometimes you just need to make things quadruple illegal.
 
2013-02-25 10:25:41 PM  

RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.


Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."
 
2013-02-25 10:26:08 PM  
Oh Boy! Another gun thread!

This has got to be better than arguing with Nancy-boys who think writing BASIC programs on a Rasberry Pi with a gayboard is the same as crafting brilliant sketches on an Arduino.
 
2013-02-25 10:27:15 PM  

Bontesla: I don't want to do a gun thread again today.


Then don't. I'm sure there will be other to take up the slack.

/you just did another gun thread
 
2013-02-25 10:28:00 PM  

violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.


Actually, we do. I've seen too many dumbfarks up at the range that never should have been able to pass the HSC. That thing is too easy. Even our CCW testing here is easy.

Criminals will always get guns from other criminals. We can, and should, take steps to make sure that there are less weapons for them to steal and resell to their criminal buddies. The best way to do that is to make sure that we put hopelessly stupid or careless people in the same "no guns for you!" category that we try to keep crazy people.

Mandatory training classes, then mandatory testing should be beefed up and required for ANY firearm, with repeat tests every few years, just like we do for cars. Very strict fines and loss of the weapon if someone loans an unlicensed person their weapon, even if the borrower does not commit a crime. Prison time for the loaner if they do, equal to the same amount their criminal buddy has to do. Loss of weapons for storing them unsecured or in such a manner they are easily stolen. Must have a firearms license to purchase ammo. None of these things would bother me one bit. The only thing that would change for me is I'd have to show a license to get ammo, something I don't think any state requires right now.

In my wildest dreams people with a CCW are legally permitted to take weapons from idiots who obviously have no business with them and beat them with their own weapon. Might knock sense into them and I'd totally keep it if allowed. If nothing else, there'd be one less dumbfark with a gun.

/non-nutty gun nut
 
2013-02-25 10:30:31 PM  

BravadoGT: I gotta say--SFist wins the net for their graphic to go with this story--it's either laziness or genius, or some combination thereof:


That is beautiful.
 
2013-02-25 10:37:11 PM  

MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."


So make it even more illegal than it currently is?
 
2013-02-25 10:43:33 PM  

jbuist: - I've actually seen a story go from an idiot shooting his kid's football coach with an AK-47 end up being a .45 caliber pistol by the end of the day.  That one was funny because a co-worker found the story as it broke, I scoffed at the "AK" claim, and before work was out the story was down to a pistol.


I bet the coach was happy to hear he was shot with "only" a .45 instead of an AK47.
 
2013-02-25 10:44:15 PM  
The house clearly threatened him by acting like it had a gun, so he was completely within his Second Amendment rights
 
2013-02-25 10:47:32 PM  
Esparza said he did not know exactly what charges Benton could face, but noted that it is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47.
"Criminals don't adhere to any laws," Esparza said. "That's why they are criminals."


But when they break the laws, you can arrest them, fine them, execute them, or whatever.
That's why there are laws.
 
2013-02-25 10:54:21 PM  

cretinbob: The house clearly threatened him by acting like it had a gun, so he was completely within his Second Amendment rights


Not in California, he wasn't! He has to try to retreat to safety. If the house gives chase, THEN he can shoot it. Dude should have just waited for an earthquake or, if it's on a hill, a heavy rain. Then he could have yelled "It's comin' right for me!!!" when it started moving and blasted the crap outta it.
 
2013-02-25 10:56:50 PM  

CruiserTwelve: I bet the coach was happy to hear he was shot with "only" a .45 instead of an AK47.


Well, yeah, probably.  He lived.  Pistol rounds aren't all that deadly when compared to even intermediate rounds like the 7.62x39 that the AK-47 clones fire.  Not all gunshot wounds are equal.  Pistol rounds basically push through you but don't cause much damage outside their path.  The intermediate rifle rounds start making gel out of things near the bullet path due to hydrostatic shock.  Actual "full power" rifle rounds like 30-06, .270 Win, and 8mm Mauser (among many others) do a whole lot more damage due to their speed.
 
2013-02-25 10:57:15 PM  
Why do you hate the 2nd amendment, subby?
 
2013-02-25 11:02:01 PM  
What an amazing display of freedom.
 
2013-02-25 11:04:26 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.

Actually, we do. I've seen too many dumbfarks up at the range that never should have been able to pass the HSC. That thing is too easy. Even our CCW testing here is easy.

Criminals will always get guns from other criminals. We can, and should, take steps to make sure that there are less weapons for them to steal and resell to their criminal buddies. The best way to do that is to make sure that we put hopelessly stupid or careless people in the same "no guns for you!" category that we try to keep crazy people.

Mandatory training classes, then mandatory testing should be beefed up and required for ANY firearm, with repeat tests every few years, just like we do for cars. Very strict fines and loss of the weapon if someone loans an unlicensed person their weapon, even if the borrower does not commit a crime. Prison time for the loaner if they do, equal to the same amount their criminal buddy has to do. Loss of weapons for storing them unsecured or in such a manner they are easily stolen. Must have a firearms license to purchase ammo. None of these things would bother me one bit. The only thing that would change for me is I'd have to show a license to get ammo, something I don't think any state requires right now.

In my wildest dreams people with a CCW are legally permitted to take weapons from idiots who obviously have no business with them and beat them with their own weapon. Might knock sense into them and I'd totally keep it if allowed. If nothing else, there'd be one less dumbfark with a gun.

/non-nutty gun nut


Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.
 
2013-02-25 11:07:25 PM  
He was just standing his ground.
 
2013-02-25 11:07:59 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.


Not in California.
 
2013-02-25 11:13:42 PM  
Worth pointing out that the only legal AK-47 automatic rifles are pre 1968 (sporting requirement effectively banned importing NFA weapons), and converted semi-auto variants prior to 1986.  Either way, they're not cheap and definitely not something you'll find at every gun store.
 
2013-02-25 11:16:21 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
sub orbital ion cannon
 
2013-02-25 11:18:05 PM  

Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.


I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.
 
2013-02-25 11:19:45 PM  

SuperDuper28: I only use my AK for hunting rabid deer. People like this give gun owners a bad name.


Yes.  Yes they do.

How many rotten apples spoil the bunch?

How many mouse turds ruin a pot of porridge?

How many gun whackos before we say "OK, that's enough now."

Granted, America has a fairly high tolerance for whackos.
 
2013-02-25 11:21:08 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.


NRA member is already in the hands of the feds, and those nuts will be the first to have their guns confiscated. Because they're nuts, and shouldn't have guns. Because they're nuts.
 
2013-02-25 11:22:18 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.


In other words, they were too dedicated to fighting for rights instead of being pragmatic and helping convert rights into privileges?  Good.  It's why I'm a life member of the NRA and GOA.

The ACLU is actually more zealous about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments than the NRA is about the 2nd.

Should we have balance in the positions of groups that are anti-slavery?  I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?
 
2013-02-25 11:22:38 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse.


Interesting how that coincides with the rise in nutjobs in the GOP in the last 30 years.

Also interesting how it coincides with boomers reaching retirement age.

I'm sure it's all just correlatory.
 
2013-02-25 11:23:07 PM  

Benjamin Orr: MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

So make it even more illegal than it currently is?


If only there were some way to, you know, enforce existing laws? Nah, that would be crazy. We should just keep repeating what we're doing and expecting a different outcome.
 
2013-02-25 11:24:59 PM  

pedrop357: I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?


Sure, it's called "minimum wage."

Typically part time slavery, with no health benefits.
 
2013-02-25 11:28:13 PM  

pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.


this
 
2013-02-25 11:34:28 PM  
Guns don't shoot people, neighbors shoot people.  Ban neighborhoods.  Separate corners, all of you!
 
2013-02-25 11:35:53 PM  

MrEricSir: Benjamin Orr: MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

So make it even more illegal than it currently is?

If only there were some way to, you know, enforce existing laws? Nah, that would be crazy. We should just keep repeating what we're doing and expecting a different outcome.


If it turns out this was actually an illegal rifle the state of kalifornia will make sure to charge him with all those extra charges.
 
2013-02-25 11:39:02 PM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.

In other words, they were too dedicated to fighting for rights instead of being pragmatic and helping convert rights into privileges?  Good.  It's why I'm a life member of the NRA and GOA.

The ACLU is actually more zealous about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments than the NRA is about the 2nd.

Should we have balance in the positions of groups that are anti-slavery?  I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?


Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.
 
2013-02-25 11:40:32 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.


In other words, some rights are more equal than others.
 
2013-02-25 11:40:54 PM  
Esparza said he did not know exactly what charges Benton could face, but noted that it is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47.

Well lets see Mr Police Spokesman, other than the possession of a fully automatic weapon without a tax stamp, how about: Attempted Murder, Destruction of Private Property, Unlawful Use of a Firearm, Assault and Battery, and at the very least Disorderly Conduct. Any of these charges ring a bell in your book? I am glad he's a only a spokesman and not the prosecutor, though considering how he talks about crimes I am certain he is not a good spokesman either!
 
2013-02-25 11:48:31 PM  

sendtodave: Granted, America has a fairly high tolerance for whackos.


Yes, America does. There aren't all that many people that don't have some whackadoodle idea, and thanks to the First Amendment and the anonymity of the Internet they are free to express them at will.
 
2013-02-25 11:50:51 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.


Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?
 
2013-02-25 11:54:28 PM  

ArkAngel: /obligatory


Damn it.
 
2013-02-25 11:55:15 PM  
ultraholland
not with today's ammo prices


If you can even find any bullets at any California gun store.

/Total shortage
//Everyone has been hoarding ammo since December/January
 
2013-02-25 11:56:48 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sendtodave: Granted, America has a fairly high tolerance for whackos.

Yes, America does. There aren't all that many people that don't have some whackadoodle idea, and thanks to the First Amendment and the anonymity of the Internet they are free to express them at will.


art.penny-arcade.com

So, like this, but replace "Anonymity" with "Freedom of Speech?"

Hm.  Seems legit.
 
2013-02-25 11:58:48 PM  

willfullyobscure: Long term, incidents like this are only good news for ONE group:

[i.imgur.com image 604x768]


When only criminals have guns, wild pigs will rule the land


Where do I go to subscribe to your newsletter?

/Really that pic is assume
 
2013-02-26 12:05:48 AM  

wee: rich_mitch: When this sort of stuff happens happens in Oakland the reaction from SF is "OMG look at all the violent blacks in Oakland!!"  When it happens in SF, the reaction is "OMG, we need federal gun control!"  Just a pet peeve as an Oaklander.

I have a lot of friends in Oakland (and a couple good memories of the Jingletown Market).  I also worked in the City for a while.  So yes, this is true.


The last time I visited the Bay Area I stayed with friends in Oakland and I felt safer there than I did in San Francisco. Seemed like everywhere I went in SF was crawling with emergency vehicles. And I certainly encountered less panhandlers in Oakland than in Berkeley.
 
2013-02-26 12:11:24 AM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.

In other words, some rights are more equal than others.


No. That doesn't even make sense in this context. It's almost like you are implying "We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Driving a car makes me happy and gives me a greater amount of personal liberty, so everyone has the right to drive even if they are an idiot, unsafe and a danger to themselves and others" but with guns.

Insisting that we should maintain our current level of less controls on guns than we have over who can and cannot operate a car is just nuts. It also concerns me greatly that the ability to use common sense safety and pass a test about it in order to legally even obtain something designed to be deadly - like a gun - is enough to cause outrage among those who already have them. I kind of wonder if half the people I see at the range could even pass a test.

It is in our best interests, as people who enjoy shooting or hunting (or both) and who own guns, to make sure that only those who are competent may legally obtain them. YOU may be competent and concerned about losing your rights, but not everyone is competent. Those are the types we should be working on, not those of us who are competent and responsible. It will impact us, sure, but I'd rather do things I'm mostly doing anyway because I am competent and responsible - which is why I do them in the first place - than have the danger of those who are not standing next to me up at the firing range.
 
2013-02-26 12:21:54 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?


What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?
 
2013-02-26 12:26:24 AM  
I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.
 
2013-02-26 12:30:11 AM  

Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it.


Yes please.

You may take away those, too.

I'd feel safer if they didn't have them, even if they wouldn't.
 
2013-02-26 12:46:17 AM  
SirEattonHogg: //Everyone has been hoarding ammo since December/January

of 2009
 
2013-02-26 12:51:21 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than ...


In the case of ex-felons and the mentally incompetent, they've actually had civil rights  revoked.  So these people have been adjudicated incapable of exercising those rights.  It isn't a "restriction" of that right, it's removing individuals who aren't capable of functioning completely in society.  That doesn't affect how absolute the 1st Amendment is, it affect the pool of people who have had their civil right revoked, and now these rights are  privileges to be "awarded" over time or through proven capability.
 
2013-02-26 12:56:38 AM  

Benjamin Orr: MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

So make it even more illegal than it currently is?


Double secret illegal.
 
2013-02-26 12:59:07 AM  

fknra: pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.

this


The semiauto version is illegal in california.  Clearly the war on guns is working.
 
2013-02-26 01:02:09 AM  

potterydove: fknra: pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.

this

The semiauto version is illegal in california.  Clearly the war on guns is working.


It is illegal to murder another person in cold blood. Clearly the laws against murder are working.
It is illegal to steal property from another. Clearly the laws against theft are working.
 
2013-02-26 01:04:12 AM  

fuhfuhfuh: potterydove: fknra: pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.

this

The semiauto version is illegal in california.  Clearly the war on guns is working.

It is illegal to murder another person in cold blood. Clearly the laws against murder are working.
It is illegal to steal property from another. Clearly the laws against theft are working.


We need some common sense restrictions on the 4th amendment to stop all of these murders and thefts. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide.
 
2013-02-26 01:05:59 AM  

umad: fuhfuhfuh: potterydove: fknra: pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.

this

The semiauto version is illegal in california.  Clearly the war on guns is working.

It is illegal to murder another person in cold blood. Clearly the laws against murder are working.
It is illegal to steal property from another. Clearly the laws against theft are working.

We need some common sense restrictions on the 4th amendment to stop all of these murders and thefts. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide.


Nah, we just need to get rid of what currently exists. If they aren't working, then what good are they?
 
2013-02-26 01:14:34 AM  
If we criminalize running red lights, then only criminals will run red lights.
 
2013-02-26 01:23:49 AM  

stevarooni: That doesn't affect how absolute the 1st Amendment is, it affect the pool of people who have had their civil right revoked, and now these rights are  privileges to be "awarded" over time or through proven capability.


"They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges."  -- St. George, Who Looks Down On Us
 
2013-02-26 01:33:00 AM  
why do people always gotta shoot up the house when they smoke AK-47
 
2013-02-26 01:34:27 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.

Actually, we do. I've seen too many dumbfarks up at the range that never should have been able to pass the HSC. That thing is too easy. Even our CCW testing here is easy.

Criminals will always get guns from other criminals. We can, and should, take steps to make sure that there are less weapons for them to steal and resell to their criminal buddies. The best way to do that is to make sure that we put hopelessly stupid or careless people in the same "no guns for you!" category that we try to keep crazy people.

Mandatory training classes, then mandatory testing should be beefed up and required for ANY firearm, with repeat tests every few years, just like we do for cars. Very strict fines and loss of the weapon if someone loans an unlicensed person their weapon, even if the borrower does not commit a crime. Prison time for the loaner if they do, equal to the same amount their criminal buddy has to do. Loss of weapons for storing them unsecured or in such a manner they are easily stolen. Must have a firearms license to purchase ammo. None of these things would bother me one bit. The only thing that would change for me is I'd have to show a license to get ammo, something I don't think any state requires right now.

In my wildest dreams people with a CCW are legally permitted to take weapons from idiots who obviously have no business with them and beat them with their own weapon. Might knock sense into them and I'd totally keep it if allowed. If nothing else, there'd be one less dumbfark with a gun.

/non-nutty gun nut


I appreciate and understand some of the sentiment, unsecured firearms and irresponsible people who by all definitions are completely unqualified to even handle a firearm are a huge problem. But 1, I wonder what of that would survive a court challenge, and 2 what if anything would be accomplished. I don't know if legislating common sense here makes any sense, if the unsafe situation isn't already apparent to the individual. Though funding some safe firearms training and perhaps even tax incentives for properly installed gun safes could be useful.
 
2013-02-26 03:44:03 AM  

MBK: [i.imgur.com image 528x400]

Dear Diary,

Today wasn't a good day....


Done in four!
 
2013-02-26 03:45:53 AM  

violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.


Totally, it's not like he'll be charged or anything, or have his illegal weapon confiscated. No, siree.
 
2013-02-26 03:48:27 AM  

pedrop357: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.

In other words, they were too dedicated to fighting for rights instead of being pragmatic and helping convert rights into privileges?  Good.  It's why I'm a life member of the NRA and GOA.

The ACLU is actually more zealous about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments than the NRA is about the 2nd.

Should we have balance in the positions of groups that are anti-slavery?  I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?


The 1st, 4th and 5th aren't absolute either. Don't tell me you didn't know that.
 
2013-02-26 03:53:12 AM  

umad: fuhfuhfuh: potterydove: fknra: pedrop357: Tio_Holtzmann: AFAIK its perfectly legal to own full auto weapons if you pay the tax stamp.

Not in California.

this

The semiauto version is illegal in california.  Clearly the war on guns is working.

It is illegal to murder another person in cold blood. Clearly the laws against murder are working.
It is illegal to steal property from another. Clearly the laws against theft are working.

We need some common sense restrictions on the 4th amendment to stop all of these murders and thefts. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide.


There are. Haven't you heard of no-knock warrants?
 
2013-02-26 04:31:18 AM  
Apparently you can have one for $400 on the CA black market.

http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/ak-47/
 
2013-02-26 04:37:03 AM  

wee: sithon: Another responsible gun owner heard from.

The gun he used is illegal to own in CA. Even if it was semi-auto, a gun legal to own in most other states, it would have still been illegal to own in CA.  And if it's a semi-auto that he converted to full auto, he also violated Federal law by willfully violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- a crime that carries a max sentence of five years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine -- as well as Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. It's very likely he violated the Gun Control Act of 1986.

So how about go be an ignorant trollish dickhead somewhere else?


Except that if the pro-gun people had their way, the gun WOULD have been legal to own. And he STILL would have STILL shot up his neighbor's house... and this guy would have been defended by you as a "responsible gun owner" all the way up to that moment.

That's the problem with the "responsible gun owner" argument: Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" - until they do something stupid, but by then it's a bit too late isn't it? It's a label that is applied to everyone and is only ever revoked posthumously.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-26 04:45:04 AM  
This wouldn't have happened if the house had been armed.
 
2013-02-26 04:47:52 AM  

Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.


...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.
 
2013-02-26 04:59:07 AM  
No doubt a liberal plant.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-02-26 05:22:45 AM  

Smidge204: and this guy would have been defended by you as a "responsible gun owner" all the way up to that moment.


Why would I prejudge him in the absence of any knowledge about him aside from what he possessed at one time?  By your logic, anyone who owns an AK is suspect.  I don't know if you're going to embezzle from your company tomorrow, but I'm not going to call you a thief right now. The minute you commit a crime, though, of course I will. Until then I'll assume you're a law-abiding person like pretty much everyone else.
 
2013-02-26 05:39:47 AM  

wee: Why would I prejudge him in the absence of any knowledge about him aside from what he possessed at one time? By your logic, anyone who owns an AK is suspect.


This would carry weight if the gun lobby supported things like background checks and physical/mental health checks as prerequisites to gun ownership. Hell, they even oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals.

Do you suppose it's socially responsible to make no effort whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prone to violence? I mean, hasn't the argument already been made in this very article that this guy was already a criminal since he owned a banned weapon? Maybe anyone who owns an AK in California should be suspect as not being a responsible person?

What I'm getting at here is that, instead of just assuming everyone is going to be forever a law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, we can make some kind of good-faith effort to determine the risk someone poses before arming them. I don't think it's unreasonable to deny access to guns from someone who is prone to violent outbursts, for example.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-26 05:53:01 AM  

Jyster: Apparently you can have one for $400 on the CA black market.

http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/ak-47/




This can't be possible.
They are like triple illegal in California.

That means you can't own one.
 
2013-02-26 07:29:33 AM  
The AK-47 was only produced until 1959. It's much more likely he had an AKM

Ak-47
www.enemyforces.net

AKM
media.desura.com


Note the differences. Why is this so hard for people to figure out?
 
2013-02-26 07:41:22 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: SCAR Heavy is better, no?


So it looks like you're a big fan of the CoD games...
 
MFK
2013-02-26 08:00:54 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Big Dave: This is basically the whole point of owning guns in this day and age.

How is the average gun owing husband supposed to sleep with his wife if he can't hold the threat of imminent death over her head?  How is he supposed to get his teenage kids to take out the trash?  Or, relate to a neighbor?

I don't really want to know the answer to this but - you guys do have the gun in your mouth while you jerk off, right?

No, it's in your wife's mouth while we tag her.

Troll. Idiot. Retard.



HA HA. Because rape jokes are funnay!
 
2013-02-26 08:11:19 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: frankencj: Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".

You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.

Who has forgotten about it? Just because there are a buttload of restrictions that we're OK with doesn't mean we're not going to fight the ones we're NOT OK with.


So you want to fight the restriction that allows people to shoot each other?

You made one of the dumbest comments in the thread.
 
2013-02-26 08:25:13 AM  
Y'all lay off the NRA. They are just like the ACLU.

The NRA and the ACLU are both necessary evils in our society.

The NRA defends the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the ACLU defends the rights of illegal aliens, drug dealers and child pornographers.
 
2013-02-26 08:59:56 AM  

way south: Jyster: Apparently you can have one for $400 on the CA black market.

http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/ak-47/

This can't be possible.
They are like triple illegal in California.

That means you can't own one.


Legally not, no. But black markets are seldom legal.
 
2013-02-26 09:08:02 AM  

browser_snake: The NRA defends the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the ACLU defends the rights of illegal aliens, drug dealers and child pornographers.


Did you get this ignorant naturally, or did you have to work at it?
 
2013-02-26 09:10:31 AM  
Probably trying to let some GAWD in through all the little holes.
 
2013-02-26 10:13:24 AM  

Bontesla: I don't want to do a gun thread again today.


amen
 
2013-02-26 10:32:46 AM  

IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.


The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.
 
2013-02-26 12:19:11 PM  

Abacus9: violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.

Totally, it's not like he'll be charged or anything, or have his illegal weapon confiscated. No, siree.


Which would have happened in any state, be it an illegal firearm, or not.
 
2013-02-26 12:40:34 PM  
Obviously.
 
2013-02-26 12:48:59 PM  
When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"
 
2013-02-26 03:12:15 PM  

ArkAngel: /obligatory


/tired
 
2013-02-26 03:55:50 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?

What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?


So what you're saying is that his speech didn't directly cause the deaths of people? I only ask because you said that speech does not "have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot". Except, of course, when it does.

Whargarrbl indeed.
 
2013-02-26 04:01:00 PM  

sethen320: Adolf Oliver Nipples: frankencj: Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".

You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.

Who has forgotten about it? Just because there are a buttload of restrictions that we're OK with doesn't mean we're not going to fight the ones we're NOT OK with.

So you want to fight the restriction that allows people to shoot each other?

You made one of the dumbest comments in the thread.


No, that's not what I said, implied, hinted at, or alluded to. It's what you want to portray me as saying so that you can call me dumb. Alas, that's not the case.

The poster said about restrictions, to which I said that we are aware of restrictions, we just fight the ones we don't agree with. A guy unloading on his neighbor is a crime, not a restriction.
 
2013-02-26 07:45:43 PM  

IaxJer: When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"


no i mean rifle
 
2013-02-26 09:22:07 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?

What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?

So what you're saying is that his speech didn't directly cause the deaths of people? I only ask because you said that speech does not "have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot". Except, of course, when it does.

Whargarrbl indeed.


Do you know who else killed millions without ever picking up a gun? Just with the power of words?

It is said that he had a fear of weapons that was so great, he would faint at the sight of them?

Mao.

Don't tell me words don't kill, I was married.
 
2013-02-26 09:27:03 PM  

MythDragon: The AK-47 was only produced until 1959. It's much more likely he had an AKM

Ak-47
[www.enemyforces.net image 650x293]

AKM
[media.desura.com image 753x306]


Note the differences. Why is this so hard for people to figure out?


More importantly, was it a genuine, Izhmash Russian beauty or one of those cheap, Norinco Chinese knockoffs?
 
2013-02-26 09:47:57 PM  

sethen320: Quantum Apostrophe: SCAR Heavy is better, no?

So it looks like you're a big fan of the CoD games...


Actually, no, I don't know how but I stumbled on youtube videos of people firing the thing. Seemed impressive to me.
 
2013-02-26 11:17:26 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: IaxJer: When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"

no i mean rifle


Wanna see my gun, Sailor?

/it's a 175mm
// I call it the king of the battlefield
 
2013-02-27 12:33:47 AM  

Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.


What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?
 
2013-02-27 01:29:08 AM  

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?


Moron.
 
2013-02-27 01:31:16 AM  

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?


Yes.
 
2013-02-27 01:53:24 AM  

pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.


How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.


That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!
 
2013-02-27 02:58:16 AM  

Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!


If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.
 
2013-02-27 03:10:04 AM  

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.


You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.
 
2013-02-27 03:20:05 AM  

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.


... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.
 
2013-02-27 03:31:29 AM  

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.

... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.


You mentioned you should be allowed the right to personal nuclear weapons. That would go over real well. Seriously, you're so concerned about protecting yourself, but how should we protect ourselves from you?
 
2013-02-27 03:51:08 AM  

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.

... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.

You mentioned you should be allowed the right to personal nuclear weapons. That would go over real well. Seriously, you're so ...


You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?
 
2013-02-27 04:10:15 AM  

Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?


I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.
 
2013-02-27 04:28:42 AM  

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?

I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.


If the military is being used as a tool to control the civilian population, we've long passed 'silly.'
 
2013-02-27 04:49:14 AM  

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?

I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.

If the military is being used as a tool to control the civilian population, we've long passed 'silly.'


Agreed, I was just using your word. I remember my mom telling me about the Detroit riot in the '60s when martial law was declared. There were tanks rolling down the street and everything. I suppose the difference is, the military weren't planning on nuking Detroit, even though they have nuclear weapons (and a lot of Farkers wouldn't mind Detroit getting nuked). I don't see how that entitles citizens to nuclear weapons. Aside from the dangers, and assuming someone could competently and properly use one, how in the world is it practical? Where would it be used? How would you avoid killing tons of fellow citizens?
 
2013-02-27 10:04:03 AM  

Abacus9: Agreed, I was just using your word. I remember my mom telling me about the Detroit riot in the '60s when martial law was declared. There were tanks rolling down the street and everything. I suppose the difference is, the military weren't planning on nuking Detroit, even though they have nuclear weapons (and a lot of Farkers wouldn't mind Detroit getting nuked). I don't see how that entitles citizens to nuclear weapons. Aside from the dangers, and assuming someone could competently and properly use one, how in the world is it practical? Where would it be used? How would you avoid killing tons of fellow citizens?


What should the people do if martial law is declared and/or the army is turned against the people?  What weapons should we be able to have?

If the police/soldiers are carrying small/portable nukes to use against the populace, would that justify the ownership of small/portable nukes by the populace?
 
2013-02-28 12:20:25 AM  

pedrop357: What should the people do if martial law is declared and/or the army is turned against the people? What weapons should we be able to have?


Martial law has been declared before, when things get way out of hand (like a riot). This is not the army turning against the people, it is the army helping the police to restore order, as in my aforementioned example (Detroit Riot of '67).

pedrop357: If the police/soldiers are carrying small/portable nukes to use against the populace, would that justify the ownership of small/portable nukes by the populace?


This is literally the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever read.
 
Displayed 175 of 175 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report