If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Colorado sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like   (foxnews.com) divider line 462
    More: Dumbass, Colorado, Weld County, John Hickenlooper, Colorado sheriff, El Paso County, undue burden, gun laws, Columbine High School  
•       •       •

15274 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 06:40:35 PM

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Reasonable infringements, you mean?


Yes. On every amendment. Or nearly so.
 
2013-03-17 06:41:04 PM

Nickster79: I want to be mad at about this...but damn, the moustache on that guy behind him is incredible

[a57.foxnews.com image 660x371]


Is the guy on his left wearing a hat?
 
2013-03-17 06:41:11 PM

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.


How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?
 
2013-03-17 06:41:25 PM

redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.


Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.
 
2013-03-17 06:41:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.

Cops on patrol are usually attacked by bears in the mountains?


Naw, mountain lions are much, much slower than human criminals and much easier to shoot.

You have to remember that a wild apex predator does not have the stealth and speed seen in your average city criminal.

They announce their presence loudly, operate in wide open areas free of shrubbery, always during the middle of the day, and only in places where you're guaranteed to be refreshed and alert, never in some backwoods or a hike trail.

That is why speed and portability is not something you need in a firearm used to defend yourself from wild animals. You need a largest heaviest firearm with  low capacity.  It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:08 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


Tell us how you feel about Jim Crow laws and all those slavery era laws allowing runaway slaves to be executed.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:12 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.


That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:33 PM
Shall not be infringed... The Sherriff understands correctly... as does the businesses (Magpul for certain) that will be leaving Colorado.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:00 PM

Crewmannumber6: Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws


Because there's no right to smoke pot in the Constitution? Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but gun ownership is a far more fundamental right for Americans (as it should be).
 
2013-03-17 06:43:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.

Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.


You'd have a point if the law was constitutional.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.


No it could be the other two, and retarded is your word, not mine. You can be an idiot and not be retarded. You don't seem to have much experience with guns or wild animals, so apparently those trips to Vermont didn't do much for you.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:33 PM

Pockafrusta: Shall not be infringed... The Sherriff understands correctly... as does the businesses (Magpul for certain) that will be leaving Colorado.


Oh god, how will they ever cope?
 
2013-03-17 06:43:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


The difference seems to be just a matter of degree. If they make 11 round mags, just to piss off LEOs, would police look the other way? Probably wouldn't even notice it. However, a 30 round mag looks quite a bit different than a 10 round magazine, much like a person speeding 30 mph over the limit looks quite a bit different than someone going 5 mph over the limit.
 
2013-03-17 06:44:17 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.

Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.

You'd have a point if the law was constitutional.


It is constitutional. Unless you have prior caselaw proving that it isn't. Do you?
 
2013-03-17 06:45:10 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.

The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.


Um...did you read it? Universal background checks. So, if Joe Snuffy wants to privately sell his .22 long to Jim Snuffy--his cousin who he knows is not a felon, is not mentally instable, and who he knows does not have a RO or any other factor preventing him from owning or having access to firearms, they have to go to the Sheriff and get a background check done (at least as I understand it--could be wrong). I think that may be part of the "unenforceable" issue. Because the sheriff is right: it simply is not possible to ensure that every gun owner wishing to sell every gun marches on down to the sheriff's office with the buyer and does the paperwork, then waits for the check to come back.

Personally, in that situation, I'd ignore the law and sell the gun anyway. "Shall not be infringed" means, literally, "shall not be acted on so as to limit or undermine." Go look up what the word militia meant in 1787--it did not mean "military," as many try to claim it does (important because you need to understand the language of the Constitution as meant and as understood when it was written, not as we use the word today):

 Militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation... as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers...  In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures. (wikipedia)

Regulated, in 1787, meant equipped. Not governed.

So yes, this law does violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which supersedes Colorado's Constitution. So the sheriff and anyone who chooses not to obey it has not done anything illegal--Colorado's Legislature has written and passed an illegal law that should neither be obeyed nor enforced.

If you think it is possible to enforce and get 100% compliance, I've got a really nice property, right on the ocean I'd like to sell you... in North Dakota.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."


Of which these are not.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:14 PM

Evil High Priest: iheartscotch: jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:


These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:

Hey, the second two got their guns during the first assault weapons ban; really worked then, huh?

Remember our orange haired friend's dastardly 100 round magazines? They probably saved lives, as they are notoriously unreliable.

On a less snarky note; I feel that the right to choose for yourself is what makes American great. Everything from cheeseburgers to guns. You can choose what is best for you and your family. I feel that every American should own a gun; not because of some paranoid delusion, but, because we have that freedom.

/ I don't have a police record, not even jaywalking; should my rights be infringed apon because some nut job decided to shoot someone? Kind of sounds like punishing everyone for the crimes of a few to me.

As a gun nut, it's your duty to at least ameliorate the damage caused by gun nuts gone (more) crazy. What is your plan? What do you propose? If you guys can't clean up your own mess, others will do it for you.


Ameliorate the damages caused by criminals? Surely! Just as soon as I get a check from the DNC reimbursing me for all the increased expenses acquiring guns and ammo that they caused.
 
2013-03-17 06:46:10 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Of which these are not.


Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-17 06:46:38 PM

LarryDan43: LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.

Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


ohyou.jpg
 
2013-03-17 06:47:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.


You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.
 
2013-03-17 06:48:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.


Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.
 
2013-03-17 06:49:02 PM

Azlefty: Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

It outlaws magazines that can use the extenders, that means 95% of magazines are illegal, since the can all take extenders and thus they are "easily Converted"

I have +5 extenders for my Glock for use in competition, it takes me about 30 seconds to make a 15 rounder a 20 rounder, this also makes a large number of factory 9mm magazines illegal since they take 17 rounds


So they all become illegal magazines. Buy or construct your own magazines that are not easily extendible to greater than 15 rounds. There should be a market for them now, right?
 
2013-03-17 06:49:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Of which these are not.

Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.


THIS

You need to prove something to be unconstitutional before making wild claims.  Wire tapping? Domestic eavesdropping? Extraordinary rendition? All perfectly legal and constitutional because no court has ruled on them yet.
 
2013-03-17 06:49:41 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.


No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.


This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:20 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.

Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.


Nah, once you call me retarded because I have a different opinion, it's not worth it. You lost any credibility you had.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:54 PM
Enjoy your term Democrats, I see a lot fewer D's in the list come 2014.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:08 PM

machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.


I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


You mentioned a couple of guns, which is in no way describing how to take down a Grizzly.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:44 PM

pedrop357: Enjoy your term Democrats, I see a lot fewer D's in the list come 2014.


Oh, really? Because a majority of Americans support universal background checks. I'm not seeing how this could lead to Democrats losing seats.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:46 PM

GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.


So what about someone being mentally ill? Are you claiming that all cases of mass murderers that use guns are done by mentally ill people? I doubt that to be the case.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


What's the big deal? Get 3 10 round mags.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.


Just because they haven't been shown to be unconstitutional doesn't mean they're reasonable, a good idea, or good public policy.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:32 PM

machodonkeywrestler: You mentioned a couple of guns, which is in no way describing how to take down a Grizzly.


You're telling me that a Winchester .303 is not an alternative method of taking down a grizzly (or mountain lion) that doesn't require a 30 round magazine?
 
2013-03-17 06:52:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


Which is exactly what people were arguing: there are only 400lb bears out there, and the ONLY way to off them is with a 30 round assault clip.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So by "packing up and went home" you actually meant "are still actively protesting"?


No, I mean packing up, toeing the party line, and sacrificing their integrity. When Obama was elected, liberals stopped protesting. They proved all of their previous protests were just hatred for one man, not any kind of concern about war, the people affected overseas, or our own troops. When the possibility of embarrassing the other side went away, so did they. They cared only about making a political point - same as with this Gun Rights grab.

(here is at least one empirical measurement, independent of my individual observations and opinions at least - not like you're capable of change.jpg or anything, but here it is)

Google Trends - War Protests, US - 2004-Present
 
2013-03-17 06:53:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.


Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:24 PM

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.

Just because they haven't been shown to be unconstitutional doesn't mean they're reasonable, a good idea, or good public policy.


And yet, many legislatures have made it into the law and polls have shown support for it so...yeah, I kind of think it does.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


a lever action hunting rifle - impractical to hike around with (weight, length), likely to have you taken as a poacher, impractical to defend from a charging wild animal (slower reload). The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power. Long range accuracy means shiat all when the animal is close and charging. Stopping power is great but considering accuracy in high stress situations is around 30% for police and getting off 3 shots is a dicey proposition (tueller drill), it's a pretty dumb piece of advice you're giving.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:59 PM

Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.

How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?


Why are you so shy about your combat training and the dangerous circles you move in?

You really should tell us all about those things. I never get exposed to manly feats and skills the way you do.
 
2013-03-17 06:54:00 PM

super_grass: Which is exactly what people were arguing: there are only 400lb bears out there, and the ONLY way to off them is with a 30 round assault clip.


No, they were saying it was a  better way. Which it quite obviously isn't.
 
2013-03-17 06:54:43 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.

Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.


You've never heard of tweaking brittle people for fun? It's a great time. I don't know why you think it must be miserable. Plus it helps when I'm making good points.
 
2013-03-17 06:55:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.

Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.

Nah, once you call me retarded because I have a different opinion, it's not worth it. You lost any credibility you had.


You have zero and I didn't call you a retard. Once again, that was your word. I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2013-03-17 06:56:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.

Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.

You've never heard of tweaking brittle people for fun? It's a great time. I don't know why you think it must be miserable. Plus it helps when I'm making good points.


You have yet to actually make a good point.
 
2013-03-17 06:56:39 PM

redmid17: impractical to hike around with (weight, length),


Really? You've never hiked with a rifle on your back? It's not bad. 

r

redmid17:
likely to have you taken as a poacher


If the area you are in has a high likelihood of an animal attack, why would the first assumption be poaching?

redmid17: The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power.


And how would this not help against a large-animal?
 
2013-03-17 06:57:14 PM

redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot


And you thought this was a good idea...why?
 
2013-03-17 06:57:24 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.

a lever action hunting rifle - impractical to hike around with (weight, length), likely to have you taken as a poacher, impractical to defend from a charging wild animal (slower reload). The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power. Long range accuracy means shiat all when the animal is close and charging. Stopping power is great but considering accuracy in high stress situations is around 30% for police and getting off 3 shots is a dicey proposition (tueller drill), it's a pretty dumb piece of advice you're giving.


This.

One is a hunting rifle, one is a self-defense pistol.

Gun grabbers keep saying that gun owners like to act out on rambo fantasies where they use guns in unrealistic fashion.  Well guess what, thinking that a hunting rifle should be used for self-defense in a pinch is exactly that.

Rifles are heavy and slow, but they compensate with long-range accuracy.  That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.
 
2013-03-17 06:57:30 PM
Although I disagree with these assholes' methods, I do have to agree that these bills sound hastily cobbled together to "protect the children" and are really nothing more than a bandaid on a festering gangrenous wound. That does not mean refusing to obey they law you are sworn to enforce is a good thing.
 
2013-03-17 06:57:54 PM

redmid17: You have yet to actually make a good point.


I have, you just have a different opinion of what a "good point" is. I.e. no point that I make will be good enough because you already believe that I'm an idiot.
 
2013-03-17 06:58:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


no there isnt
none at all

because that same discretion is used to pull the black guy over when he is 5 miles over the limit and let that sweet little white lady go at 10 miles over the limit.
LEOs have proven continuously that when they are allowed to use their discretion, that they are biased and corrupt about it.

hey buddy, for $20 I wont enforce this law ...
 
Displayed 50 of 462 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report