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 06:58:37 PM

super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.


I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.
 
2013-03-17 07:00:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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?


1) Yes I have hiked with a rifle on my back. However I was going hunting at a fairly remote area. People who are going hiking try not to carry more than they have to.
2) Because hikers don't carry rifles. They carry bear mace or a handgun.
3) It would, but you keep conveniently ignoring the additional points I'm bringing up. Even trained police officers only hit their target 30% of the time with a semi-auto handgun. Animals will close the distance between you and the much more quickly than a human, which can cover 21 ft in 1.5 seconds (for the 9th time). Getting off 3 accurate shots with a lever action rifle in 2-3 seconds is pretty much an impossibility, especially if it's slung over your back.
 
2013-03-17 07:00:41 PM
Don't live there so why have I heard of this county prior  .  .  .  seems they did something like this that grabbed attention previously.

This is brilliantly stupid.
The problem is even bigger than this is stupid
 
2013-03-17 07:00:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?


Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.
 
2013-03-17 07:01:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Well then, Mr. Firearm expert.  Would you care to explain why a pistol with quick shots, a small profile, and low weight is somehow less useful than a large, clumsy rifle for fending off speedy predators at close range?
 
2013-03-17 07:01:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


No there was a 33% chance you were an idiot. It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns, your summers in Vermont aside.
 
2013-03-17 07:02:59 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?

Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.


No, you just want to think I don't, because it makes it easier for you to disagree with me when I'm correct.
 
2013-03-17 07:03:01 PM

super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying


People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?
 
2013-03-17 07:03:34 PM
I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


There's a lot of things that legislatures have enacted and polls have shown support for over the years. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good ideas, good public policy, or reasonable. There's quite a few examples of really bad things that have been popular and enshrined in law.

Of course, not everything that's enacted into law and popular is a bad thing. I'm simply saying that just because something's the law and popular doesn't necessarily imply it's a good thing.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?

Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.

No, you just want to think I don't, because it makes it easier for you to disagree with me when I'm correct.


Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:57 PM

redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,


Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.


Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:32 PM

redmid17: Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right


Look, if you're not going to read or believe my responses to you, that's fine. I'm not going to repeat them for you.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,

Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.


Well you haven't learned much then. You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


No, you're just a farking moron.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:24 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: 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).


um actually the right to smoke pot IS in the constitution

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

see right there
just because it does not SAY "it is legal to smoke pot", does not make illegal to smoke pot

better yet,

10th The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

the right to smoke pot is retained by the people
unless the states ban it ...


HOW do we know this? well the feds had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol.
THEY should have had to amend it to ban pot, but they weaseled their way around the constitution by abusing the commerce clause.

this same weaseling makes it illegal for farmers to grow wheat for home use.
insane but true
 
2013-03-17 07:06:28 PM

WhoopAssWayne: 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


We aren't stopping our protests against wars. Of the two wars, one against Afghanistan and one against Iraq, the Iraq War is the more egregious of the two because it really was against a peaceful country with no ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Afghanistan, one could argue, was where Bin Laden was hiding out, at least for a while, so a war against Afghanistan in the attempt to capture or kill Bin Laden could be massaged into a reasonable rationale.  But almost all of us anti-war people opposed the Iraq war stringently and the Afghanistan war less so.

But make no mistake: we oppose all wars, even now with the drone strikes, the sustaining of the fighting in Afghanistan and any other incursions into any other countries. We were happy that the US was not militarily involved in the wars in Libya or the Arab Spring in Egypt, Yemen and other ME countries. We're not thrilled that we may have supplied arms or advisors (hints of Vietnam there) to those hot spots, but we're happy that we did not put US soldiers in harms way in those theaters of operation.

So no, it's not about the man (Bush). It's all about the policy. We're not happy that we still have a military presence in Afghanistan. But we do see it winding down and we were glad when we pulled out of Iraq. If you read various left wing sites, you will note a large number of posts opposing the use of drones and any sort of military action anywhere around the world. Very few liberals cheer what Obama is doing, militarily.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right

Look, if you're not going to read or believe my responses to you, that's fine. I'm not going to repeat them for you.


I've read them. They make little sense and have no bearing on my points. You're not bringing up anything relevant.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:40 PM

super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.


Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


Maybe you've already said it in this thread or other threads, but why do you own a gun? What type of gun?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:08 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying

People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


Do you not follow the news?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:20 PM

redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.


Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.


It's moments like this that I love.  Two trolls turning on each other.
 
2013-03-17 07:07:38 PM

iheartscotch: Colorado is ignoring federal law with its pot laws. It gives precident. Also, he said he couldn't enforce it if he wanted to.


How is Colorado "ignoring federal law with its pot laws"? (or more correctly its lack of laws making possession of small amounts illegal )

I don't think you quite understand how laws work. It is NOT illegal under Colorado law to possess small amounts of pot. So what? It's still illegal under federal law. If the feds want to come bust me for a half ounce of pot, let them. The city police, the county sheriff and the state police aren't going to give a shiat though.

Have at it feds! Come bust me. I'm an end user, not a grower or a distributor. What's that? I'm not worth your time? You expected local law enforcement to arrest me? Ha Ha!

For as long as I can remember, pot laws have been used as a means to bust people cops didn't like. I remember being pulled over in farking Texas one time for a broken headlight. I didn't even know the headlight was out and by the time I realized I hadn't closed the ashtray where I had a pipe in plain view I was talking to a cop through my driver's side window while another cop was shining his flashlight all over my car on the passenger side. I don't think the cops were blind. I'm sure they saw the pipe and I did have pot in the car. They didn't say a word about the paraphernalia, They didn't even write me a ticket for the headlight. They did run my license, saw I had no record and IGNORED state law.

Now, if I had been black with a criminal history, things might have been different.

It's a tool for them to selectively enforce laws to harass certain people.
 
2013-03-17 07:08:07 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.

Maybe you've already said it in this thread or other threads, but why do you own a gun? What type of gun?


I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.
 
2013-03-17 07:08:09 PM

jaytkay: People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


While I admit that there's no real proposals to physically come and take guns from people, several laws that have been proposed or enacted by some states would have that effect eventually.

For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

Not even privately-owned machine guns, which are extremely tightly regulated, have such provisions.
 
2013-03-17 07:09:20 PM

ThisIsntMe: What's the big deal? Get 3 10 round mags.


Even better, since it apparently isn't a "big deal" either way, just keep your 30 round magazine and ignore a foolish law.

I think many people need to be reminded that, in the absence of tyranny, rights are granted by the people to their government rather than vice-versa; this includes the right to use defensive force, which originates with the people and is delegated by them to the police, military, etc. Since the right to self- defence originates with the people -- and is really one of the most basic human rights there is, being vital to the continuity of an individual's existence -- civilian gun ownership is the hallmark of a free people; and this is especially the case since the government cannot or will not protect individuals in every situation.
 
2013-03-17 07:09:52 PM

heypete: For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.


So the dead guy should keep his gun? Why does he need it? He's dead. He's not having anything confiscated.
 
2013-03-17 07:10:04 PM
www.determinismsucks.net
 
2013-03-17 07:10:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?


No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943
 
2013-03-17 07:10:59 PM
So before I go, I want to say that what I've learned from this thread is that bears in Colorado have a superpower that requires a 30 round magazine to take down while bears in Vermont are just regular old bears.
 
2013-03-17 07:11:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


Kindly define "gun nut" in a way that is more meaningful than "someone who is more interested in guns and/or the rights of gun owners than I am".
 
2013-03-17 07:11:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.


I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.
 
2013-03-17 07:11:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

So the dead guy should keep his gun? Why does he need it? He's dead. He's not having anything confiscated.


His heirs are though.

What other property are you in favor of reverting to the state upon a person's a death?
 
2013-03-17 07:12:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Actually, I believe that statistic is incorrect because those reporting it do not understand the term. Universal background checks means every sale, all the time, even private sales and inheritances. For instance--when my father died, I was given his old .22 revolver. Under Universal background checks, even though I already possess a concealed carry license, I would have to march down to the police station, pay them, and submit to yet another background check because he lived in a state that did not reciprocate with the state that my concealed carry license was issued in. If I wished to sell my .40 pistol to my roommate, who has passed as many background checks as I--if not more--we would have to march down to the police station, pay the fee, and wait for the check to come back before I could sell her the pistol.

What 91% of Americans support is mandatory background checks on gun show sales. I support that as well--it's been a loophole for years that I feel should be closed. Any idiot, even a mentally ill person or felon can walk into gun shows in all but about 6 states and purchase a rifle or shotgun (and in some states, a handgun). 82% support making the illegal sale of guns a federal crime (the statistics are 85% and 73%, respectively, for gun control opponents, so guess what? We so-called "gun nuts" agree that criminals, mentally ill, and others who fall under those guidelines should not have access to firearms!).  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/some-gun-measures-broadl y -backed-but-the-politics-show-an-even-split/

The 90% support universal background checks statistic you quote is misleading, and I won't give the source I suspect, but I will state that it is one of the main anti-gun publications leading the charge. Just today they published a story about how a concealed carry holder acted exactly as a responsible gun owner and concealed carry holder should...then posted gallery slide show of 'gun vigilantes' starting with George Zimmerman immediately below that as if they couldn't stand the idea that gun owners could be responsible non-mass murderers.
 
2013-03-17 07:12:27 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?

No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943


FTFA:

"he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction"

Clearly he needed more than a 10 round magazine.
 
2013-03-17 07:13:02 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.


Is it your position that there are no bears at all in Vermont?
 
2013-03-17 07:13:31 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.


It outlaws all mags with removable butt plates.  Basically all handgun magazines.

But go ahead with your uneducated gun hate.
 
2013-03-17 07:13:57 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.


Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.
 
2013-03-17 07:14:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.


Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.
 
2013-03-17 07:15:53 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.

Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.


Holy crap.  A troll dogpile.
 
2013-03-17 07:16:37 PM
Sheriff needs to be removed from office right now. Sheriffs do not make law, they enforce the law as the state says.  If he cannot do his job remove him. I am tired of sheriffs thinking they make the law.
 
2013-03-17 07:16:53 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying

People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the currently tabled federal firearms legislation (and some the similar legislation pending in states such as New York and California) outlaw a large number of currently legal weapons without a provision for grandfathering? This does amount to one's guns being "grabbed", as the only alternatives are to surrender the weapon in question or be magically transformed overnight into a horrible criminal deserving several years in PMITA prison.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?

No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

FTFA:

"he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction"

Clearly he needed more than a 10 round magazine.


Yeah and it could have kept charging. Your own SAFE law in NY would have prevented a magazine with that much capacity. Also the gun he was carrying only holds 8 rounds plus the one in the chamber, maybe one more. There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it. He'd have emptied it with a larger one too I'm sure.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:10 PM

jaytkay: 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".

Don't go complaining about what is "allegedly" in a bill. Laws are public. It's not a secret. Look it up.

/ This is why we can't have nice things


I could make a full time job of reading bills which are being debated in the legislature. it's not worth my time. This law hasn't even been signed into law yet although I suspect it will be. How do I even know the law might limit magazine size? After all, I've only heard about it in the press. Maybe it's all bullshiat and they're actually mandating that all magazines hold a minimum of 15 rounds.

The devil is always in the details and TV coverage loves to sum it up in phrases, not even complete sentences. I'm probably more aware of what's going on just by watching Colorado's version of CSPAN than 90% of the other residents of this state.

What should I do? Should I have sent desperate e-mails and snail mail letters (via next day delivery)? Should I have called their offices and maybe tried to show up in person? Should I do that for every piece of legislation that comes up for debate?

Well, maybe I should.

But why don't you look up the law and show me that I'm wrong? Oh, you can't be bothered to do that either, can you? Why not? You don't live in Colorado?

Okay. I'll accept that as an answer. Will you do it when it comes to your state? They'll bring up Aurora and Columbine and point out that Colorado already passed such a law, so why shouldn't we?
 
2013-03-17 07:18:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.

Is it your position that there are no bears at all in Vermont?


That's what I tried to tell them too - that there are sharks in the water, so having been near the water with fishing equipment makes me a shark defense expert.

But then they tell me some bullshiat about how fishing/hunting is different from defending yourself from a wild animal and I just start calling them names and putting words in their mouths from there.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:23 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.


He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.
 
2013-03-17 07:19:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.


That's not a weakness. That's awesome.
 
2013-03-17 07:20:13 PM

redmid17: There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it.


No, there's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into "its general direction" according to the article.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report