FARK.com: (7633680) Host of "A Rifleman's Journal" TV show shot and killed when local man feels his wife takes too keen an interest in victim's rifle

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.

		Host of "A Rifleman's Journal" TV show shot and killed when local man feels his wife takes too keen an interest in victim's rifle (greatfallstribune.com)		204
		More: Scary, Sportsman Channel, man of feeling, Global Adventure Outfitters, Sugar Land, rifles, Flathead County

• • •

9439 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 8:08 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7633680

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

204 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

James F. Campbell		2013-03-08 05:59:45 PM

This would have never have happened if the victim had been ar --oh.

Well, who cares.

dj_bigbird		2013-03-08 06:04:06 PM

It wasn't clear how Rodriguez and the woman were acquainted.

Yeah, sure. Rodriguez was probably putting bullets in her, if ya know what I mean.

hardinparamedic		2013-03-08 06:18:09 PM

He was hunting the elusive and dangerous bunfish, by the sounds of it.

violentsalvation		2013-03-08 06:22:11 PM

Link

Barfmaker		2013-03-08 06:31:00 PM

He probably had a huge magazine and emptied it into her.

/I mean he put his large penis in her vagina and ejaculated.

dr_blasto		2013-03-08 06:33:34 PM

violentsalvation: Link

"The former editor ofGuns & Ammo magazine is accused of using a gun and ammo to kill a man visiting his house yesterday."

Heh.

dr_blasto		2013-03-08 06:35:57 PM

dj_bigbird: It wasn't clear how Rodriguez and the woman were acquainted.

Yeah, sure. Rodriguez was probably putting bullets in her, if ya know what I mean.

They had an explosive relationship.

violentsalvation		2013-03-08 06:51:02 PM

dr_blasto: violentsalvation: Link

"The former editor ofGuns & Ammo magazine is accused of using a gun and ammo to kill a man visiting his house yesterday."

Heh.

I used to enjoy his articles and how he'd dismantle the anti-gun talking points.

And then the jackass became an anti-gun talking point.

ecmoRandomNumbers		2013-03-08 06:59:18 PM

Want your kid to kill somebody someday? Name him Wayne.

doglover		2013-03-08 07:48:25 PM

Ban straight marriage

ox45tallboy		2013-03-08 07:51:23 PM

Hey subby:

cameroncrazy1984		2013-03-08 07:52:42 PM

violentsalvation: dr_blasto: violentsalvation: Link

"The former editor ofGuns & Ammo magazine is accused of using a gun and ammo to kill a man visiting his house yesterday."

Heh.

I used to enjoy his articles and how he'd dismantle the anti-gun talking points.

And then the jackass became an anti-gun talking point.

The expression of something other than the literal intention! That. Is. Irony!

doglover		2013-03-08 07:55:19 PM

I don't always kill the host of A Rifleman's Journal, beat my wife, take my toddler to a relative's house, drive 25 miles home, and then kill myself; but when I do I make it a Dos Equis.

jehovahs witness protection		2013-03-08 07:58:36 PM

So, only one of them was shooting blanks.

edmo		2013-03-08 08:10:27 PM

Another responsible gun owner sacrifices innocent victims in the name of Constitutional Freedoms.

iheartscotch		2013-03-08 08:11:06 PM

dj_bigbird: It wasn't clear how Rodriguez and the woman were acquainted.

Yeah, sure. Rodriguez was probably putting bullets in her, if ya know what I mean.

Indeed; I figure this is a story about a woman cheating on her hubby. How else would you explain it?

AcesFull		2013-03-08 08:13:48 PM

Good thing the fishing guy had already left....

Perducci		2013-03-08 08:16:55 PM

Host of "A Rifleman's Journal" TV show shot and killed when local man feels his wife takes too keen an interest in victim's rifle

That seems like an overly complicated headline. Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "Gun nut shot and killed by another gun nut"?

TomD9938		2013-03-08 08:17:32 PM

edmo: Another responsible gun owner sacrifices innocent victims in the name of Constitutional Freedoms.

Dont mow another guys lawn.

TotallyHeadless		2013-03-08 08:18:28 PM

It seems the hunter has become the hunted (and dead).

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo		2013-03-08 08:18:48 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Want your kid to kill somebody someday? Name him Wayne.

I think that all goes back to fathers who idolized The Duke and then parented the way they think he would. Their kids grow up broken sociopaths.

Infernalist		2013-03-08 08:19:11 PM

This is what happens when you take god out of TV shows.

Katolu		2013-03-08 08:21:32 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Want your kid to kill somebody someday? Name him Wayne.

Dear god, my step-son's middle name is Wayne...

MorePeasPlease		2013-03-08 08:21:37 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I think that all goes back to fathers who idolized The Duke and then parented the way they think he would. Their kids grow up broken sociopaths.

Or awesome!

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:22:37 PM

Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

Bith Set Me Up		2013-03-08 08:23:16 PM

Saying "We can't have new gun laws because criminals won't follow them." is like saying "Why should I shower? I'm gonna get dirty again.".

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:25:38 PM

Bith Set Me Up: Saying "We can't have new gun laws because criminals won't follow them." is like saying "Why should I shower? I'm gonna get dirty again.".

Actually, its more akin to saying "I already have a shower, but I need a shower in my shower before I can use it properly"

There are already laws against this behavior.

redTiburon		2013-03-08 08:26:06 PM

Hope you all feel like lowlife buttsurfers when it turns out it was his sister or something.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo		2013-03-08 08:27:16 PM

Bith Set Me Up: Saying "We can't have new gun laws because criminals won't follow them." is like saying "Why should I shower? I'm gonna get dirty again.".

Watching conservatives reconcile drug laws and gun laws is funny.

Tak the Hideous New Girl		2013-03-08 08:32:04 PM

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:33:28 PM

Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

MrHappyRotter		2013-03-08 08:34:49 PM

Why did he not shoot his wife? Clearly she's just as responsible for the infidelity as the other man. Or is it that she's considered property -- for better or worse entirely faultless?

Infernalist		2013-03-08 08:35:03 PM

atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

doglover		2013-03-08 08:36:52 PM

atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

Societal progress comes in pendulum swings. One culture will be virile and manly, the next will be fertile and womanly, then they switch back. It's the natural cycle.

First you have the Iroquois with their five nations and very sensible laws. Then you have a bunch of Europeans who come and cut them down. Then we take a step back, crib from their notes, and decide mother England is too tyrannical and cut the tie. Then, we decide a little more expansion can't hurt. Then we feel bad, start freeing the slaves. Then we decide a six gun's the only real law in the Western Territories. Then we decide that's barbaric and shut it down. Then we decide it's romantic and Wyatt Earp becomes a movie hero. But then we ban alcohol because of fights. Then we restore alcohol because wars at home and abroad. Then free love. Then preppies. Now a swarm of scruffy milquetoast hipsters who don't like violence. Their kids will be bloodthirsty spartan types. Back and forth.

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:36:56 PM

Infernalist: atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

jsfrancis		2013-03-08 08:39:01 PM

Infernalist		2013-03-08 08:40:05 PM

atomicmask: Infernalist: atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

Not a leap in logic at all. You said murdering someone was a reasonable reaction to finding him in bed with your wife. This implies that you both approve of that sort of thing. Of course, you labeled it as 'fighting for someone you love/care for', but murder's murder when you strip off the poetic words.

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:40:30 PM

doglover: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

Societal progress comes in pendulum swings. One culture will be virile and manly, the next will be fertile and womanly, then they switch back. It's the natural cycle.

First you have the Iroquois with their five nations and very sensible laws. Then you have a bunch of Europeans who come and cut them down. Then we take a step back, crib from their notes, and decide mother England is too tyrannical and cut the tie. Then, we decide a little more expansion can't hurt. Then we feel bad, start freeing the slaves. Then we decide a six gun's the only real law in the Western Territories. Then we decide that's barbaric and shut it down. Then we decide it's romantic and Wyatt Earp becomes a movie hero. But then we ban alcohol because of fights. Then we restore alcohol because wars at home and abroad. Then free love. Then preppies. Now a swarm of scruffy milquetoast hipsters who don't like violence. Their kids will be bloodthirsty spartan types. Back and forth.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. I think its all about being "against the popular established crowd" over and over again. Warrior culture to wimpy culture and back and forth.

doglover		2013-03-08 08:41:37 PM

Infernalist: What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

It's called a duel.

Go get a $20 bill. That man? He fought so many duels that "he rattled like a sack of marbles" when he was serving in the White House. There's historical precedent and enough rules, laws, and examples that it's well worth looking into.

My personal favorite is the German Judaical Duel for battles between husbands and wives.

The man had to stand in a pit and was armed with a solid club. The woman was given freedom of movement and armed with a rock in a sock.

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:42:42 PM

Infernalist: atomicmask: Infernalist: atomicmask: Tak the Hideous New Girl: atomicmask: Up until around 80 years ago, this was considered a personally reasonable reason to shoot another man.

For some reason, the current generations have found no reason to fight, or defend anything they love or care for. It is a great grey blur of violations against one another and victims unable to reprise those who offend them.

So you yearn for the days when murder was the just and proper response to adultery? I believe that Afghanistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

I yearn for a time in which adults could decide for themselves if something was right and wrong without 300 people in beaucracy deciding for them. Murder was still against the law, murder in cold blood was punishable by death. However you could resolve problems at the lowest level, between the two who actually have a problem.

What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

That is a funny leap in logic, considering I state laws are already in place to prohibit murder

Not a leap in logic at all. You said murdering someone was a reasonable reaction to finding him in bed with your wife. This implies that you both approve of that sort of thing. Of course, you labeled it as 'fighting for someone you love/care for', but murder's murder when you strip off the poetic words.

No, murder is premeditated violence with the intent to kill against someone. A crime of passion is if you walk in, catch the guy, and plug him in the head with a bullet.

Again you do not seem to know what you are talking about.

stuffy		2013-03-08 08:44:16 PM

you'd think he would know better than to put his gun in another mans holster.

MisterRonbo		2013-03-08 08:45:30 PM

atomicmask: Bith Set Me Up: Saying "We can't have new gun laws because criminals won't follow them." is like saying "Why should I shower? I'm gonna get dirty again.".

Actually, its more akin to saying "I already have a shower, but I need a shower in my shower before I can use it properly"

There are already laws against this behavior.

Yeah, it's not like you could pass a law that required the gun be safely stored, so that when someone flips out the target has some chance to get away before the lead starts flyin'.

Infernalist		2013-03-08 08:46:26 PM

doglover: Infernalist: What I managed to get from your post is that you want to be able to shoot someone when they do something to piss you off, and not get in trouble.

It's called a duel.

Go get a $20 bill. That man? He fought so many duels that "he rattled like a sack of marbles" when he was serving in the White House. There's historical precedent and enough rules, laws, and examples that it's well worth looking into.

My personal favorite is the German Judaical Duel for battles between husbands and wives.

The man had to stand in a pit and was armed with a solid club. The woman was given freedom of movement and armed with a rock in a sock.

[i25.photobucket.com image 500x383]

Lol awesome, yeah, let's go back to duels. Lemme log into my lvl 90 destro lock.

angrymonday		2013-03-08 08:46:44 PM

You should get a free pass for killing the person your spouse is cheating with. Some people deserve killing.

atomicmask		2013-03-08 08:46:56 PM

MisterRonbo: atomicmask: Bith Set Me Up: Saying "We can't have new gun laws because criminals won't follow them." is like saying "Why should I shower? I'm gonna get dirty again.".

Actually, its more akin to saying "I already have a shower, but I need a shower in my shower before I can use it properly"

There are already laws against this behavior.

Yeah, it's not like you could pass a law that required the gun be safely stored, so that when someone flips out the target has some chance to get away before the lead starts flyin'.

You know he drove like, really far to kill the guy right? he had time to drive, you think he wouldn't have time to open a safe?

lakefivedi		2013-03-08 08:47:16 PM

I knew the shooter. He was as decent of a man that any could find. This situation is tragic and his wife now has to live with the fact. He loved her so much and was very happy the other day at breakfast with his son & buddies. She is totally to blame. Wayne was a lovable soul and the photo they show is kinda a smurk. But what better guy to kill than an animal killing pompus ass? RIP Wayne.

Infernalist		2013-03-08 08:47:56 PM

angrymonday: You should get a free pass for killing the person your spouse is cheating with. Some people deserve killing.

Adam Lanza certainly agreed with you.

doglover		2013-03-08 08:48:53 PM

atomicmask: Warrior culture to wimpy culture and back and forth.

Not wimpy: passive.

The passive types are way into horrible oppressive laws that are anything but wimpy. Do as I say.

The aggressive types are way into bloody war and taking lands and slaves for their warriors to be free in. Do as thou wilt.

Of course, the lower classes are always oppressed and the upper classes are always free, and it's all complicated and the best system is an alloy of many different types.... BUUUUUUUUT, in general it goes war, peace, war, peace, war, peace pretty much on the generational line.