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.

(Opposing Views)   Down on your luck and unhappy with your place on the economic ladder? Here's a gun   (opposingviews.com) divider line 202
    More: Interesting, Americans, high crimes, Greenpoint  
•       •       •

9122 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-01 11:21:51 AM  
Well, that's one way to clear out the riff-raff
 
2013-04-01 11:38:56 AM  
What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.
 
2013-04-01 12:00:03 PM  
There is no possible way this could backfire...
 
2013-04-01 12:00:20 PM  
a gun is like a can opener. only it can open the wallets of the people you point it at! smart, right?
 
2013-04-01 12:00:36 PM  

Godscrack: What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.


Who says they can't math?
 
2013-04-01 12:00:51 PM  
I wish I had a pic for just how bad an idea this is.....
 
2013-04-01 12:02:38 PM  
Another example of American exceptionalism - keep that suicide success rate high!
 
2013-04-01 12:03:52 PM  
Best. Idea. EVAR. America, fark YAH!
 
2013-04-01 12:05:13 PM  
April Fool's?
 
2013-04-01 12:05:36 PM  
Arming desperate people is always good.
 
2013-04-01 12:05:45 PM  
Repeat.
 
Still stupid.
 
2013-04-01 12:06:11 PM  
I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?
 
2013-04-01 12:06:37 PM  
If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls
 
2013-04-01 12:06:53 PM  
In Houston too?  They really better hope the Astros are middle of the pack.  Bad year, riots with guns.  World Series win (however unlikely) bigger riots with guns.
 
2013-04-01 12:07:12 PM  
I'm fine with this idea.  As long as they also give them the addresses of all the CEO's and stock brokers and etc. in the area as well.
 
2013-04-01 12:07:24 PM  

rv4-farker: I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?


They all already HAVE guns.
 
2013-04-01 12:07:52 PM  

here to help: Repeat.
 
Still stupid.


Damn it, I was hoping it was April Fools.
 
2013-04-01 12:09:16 PM  
This is sure going to end well.
Just like this thread.
 
2013-04-01 12:09:56 PM  
"Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.
 
2013-04-01 12:11:43 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?


My first thought too, but it's dated yesterday.  That being said, if they're giving out home defense shotguns to women with clean background checks who have gone through a training program it's not the worst idea ever.  Then again, unless they've checked out their boyfriends and family members as well, it might be.
 
2013-04-01 12:12:23 PM  

ChipNASA: rv4-farker: I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?

They all already HAVE guns.


It's those damned Irish that need not apply!

/ I keed, I keed

// less fortunate people can have free phones; but, can't ever have guns. Because, guns bad and if you like guns, you're bad.

/ they're not just going to a street corner and just giving out guns
 
2013-04-01 12:13:23 PM  
I wish this were April Fools, but this idea has been going around for a while. The biggest flaw is that if you give poor people something of value that they really don't use all of the time, then they are going to pawn or sell if for cash pretty quickly. If you have a $500 pistol sitting in your drawer and rent is due, that gun is going to get exchanged for cash. A better strategy is to improve police service in these areas, especially response times. Even your hardcore gun nut is going to call the police first *if* that's an option. Pulling out the hardware is always a last resort - no one wants a homicide on their conscience, legally justified or not.
 
2013-04-01 12:14:08 PM  
1)
Who is going to fund this? Gun nuts are mostly motivated by fear of urban minorities

2)
If it gets funding, racist gun nuts will abuse the program like they do the gun buy-backs
 
2013-04-01 12:15:31 PM  
On the positive side, pawn shops in the area will receive an influx of new guns.
 
2013-04-01 12:15:33 PM  
a57.foxnews.com

One person in this class failed to understand about trigger discipline.
 
2013-04-01 12:15:53 PM  
Silly poor people, no 2nd Amendment rights for you. Go be victims somewhere else.
 
2013-04-01 12:16:13 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.


No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.
 
2013-04-01 12:16:14 PM  
www.iveknownrivers.org
 
2013-04-01 12:16:48 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: here to help: Repeat.

Still stupid.

Damn it, I was hoping it was April Fools.


Reality troll.

Here's the original article thread...

Derp

It's even stupider than this article is saying. It's a failed AW politician who wants to hand out single shot shotguns to a neighborhood he has no affiliation with and don't even want the guns in the first place.

Unless this is another assclown. I didn't bother to check.
 
2013-04-01 12:18:31 PM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: [a57.foxnews.com image 660x371]

One person in this class failed to understand about trigger discipline.


As well as 'Put down the fork' discipline.
 
2013-04-01 12:20:11 PM  

jaytkay: 1)
Who is going to fund this? Gun nuts are mostly motivated by fear of urban minorities

2)
If it gets funding, racist gun nuts will abuse the program like they do the gun buy-backs


My favorite gun "buy back" stories always involve a guy setting up a booth across the street offering $25 more for specific guns. Followed closely by the guy that sold junk to buy new rifles for a summer camp.

/ calling someone racist doesn't automatically make them racist
 
2013-04-01 12:21:16 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.


First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.
 
2013-04-01 12:24:48 PM  
l3.yimg.com

Pioneer filmmaking at it finest.
 
2013-04-01 12:26:46 PM  

Yes please: Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?

My first thought too, but it's dated yesterday.  That being said, if they're giving out home defense shotguns to women with clean background checks who have gone through a training program it's not the worst idea ever.  Then again, unless they've checked out their boyfriends and family members as well, it might be.


static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-04-01 12:27:24 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.


I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?
 
2013-04-01 12:29:49 PM  
FTFA: ""Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Holy shiat. Can this guy be any more of an arrogant elitist asshole? And (if we are discussing minorities) a racist? Wow. Just... wow.
 
2013-04-01 12:30:17 PM  
Made me think of this for some raisin:

www.gamereplays.org

"AK-47s ... for everyone!"

* crowd cheers *
 
2013-04-01 12:30:45 PM  

graeth: I wish I had a pic for just how bad an idea this is.....


Homer opening a beer with his pistol...
 
2013-04-01 12:31:29 PM  
 
2013-04-01 12:32:07 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG-btcKloSs

A free weapons giveaway program.  It's gonna solve all these goddamn problems.
 
2013-04-01 12:34:48 PM  

Godscrack: What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.


You too, Alice. GUN CONTROL! NO GUNZ FOR TEH POORS! Oh, yeah, but it's OK if my bodyguards are armed with Uzis.....

Newsflash, asshole: poor people that need self-protection even more than rich ones. Read the farking stats.

You sound well off, white, and self-satisfied.
 
2013-04-01 12:37:26 PM  
slurmed.com
 
2013-04-01 12:37:26 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.
 
2013-04-01 12:37:41 PM  

iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?


Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.
 
2013-04-01 12:39:17 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.


Damn. Another person with common sense and a brain.
 
2013-04-01 12:39:50 PM  
Poor people of America, COWER IN FEAR!

You have no right to protect yourselves. If trouble comes knocking at your door:

1) notify authorities
2) Hide under bed
3) make NO attempt to protect yourself or others, the coroner's officicials will be there shortly to take measurments for your state approved burial box.
 
2013-04-01 12:40:56 PM  
As someone who's been poor all his life and probably always will be, I think the problem with poor people is there are too damn many of us. Oversupply of labor makes us cheap, replaceable, interchangeable and damn near worthless as individuals to our society and so to ourselves. And it's troublingly ironic that better-off people persuade themselves that they're carrying us, as if their TVs come on and their goods are delivered by lucky accidents.

One answer is mass death among the bottom 47% or so. Withdrawal from the world of work provides value for those who process us -- bureaucrats of the welfare system, writers and politicians and those in "criminal justice," for example -- but a broad wave of us ceasing to exist as living breathing objects to be exploited and scorned would only provide value for grave-diggers and corpse-burners and then only for a short while.

Only when the spoiled brats of the bourgeoisie are reduced to digging their own coal, hauling their own trash, fighting their own wars and finding their own food will they realize that we were good for something after all. Ideally there will be enough of us left to command better pay and treatment (if we bother lifting a finger), but if they learn so late that their civilization collapses that's their own damn problem.

Perhaps a proletarian Masada would be a wonderful idea: perhaps the poor in America should set an example for the rest of the world of refusing to continue being trodden down. And as there's no surer way to off yourself than to stick a firearm in your mouth we should embrace this effort to arm us with both hands. Eliminating poverty would hurt the rich more than us.

/ I might be being "ironic" but I'm still too undercaffeinated to know for sure.
 
2013-04-01 12:42:36 PM  
iheartscotch:

/ they're not just going to a street corner and just giving out guns

They sure as hell ought to. "One per person, step right up!"
 
2013-04-01 12:43:21 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: FTFA: ""Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Holy shiat. Can this guy be any more of an arrogant elitist asshole? And (if we are discussing minorities) a racist? Wow. Just... wow.


Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".
 
2013-04-01 12:47:15 PM  
iheartscotch:

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

They sure as hell ought to.
 
2013-04-01 12:47:30 PM  

Godscrack: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: [a57.foxnews.com image 660x371]

One person in this class failed to understand about trigger discipline.

As well as 'Put down the fork' discipline.


Now that you mention it, there is a general sense of large-ish-ness about that photo.
 
2013-04-01 12:47:42 PM  
NO I DON'T WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR STUPID WEBSITE! can I just read an article without being assaulted with popups for a friggen mobile site? Cripes.
 
2013-04-01 12:51:30 PM  

Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.


Registration is already abused. Many dems in the house have said that they want to start taking guns. That's not paranoia; it's called listening.

The ol' scary minorities chicken? You should quit farking that poor chicken.

/ 1/10
 
2013-04-01 12:52:22 PM  
I have to agree with subby, all poor people are criminals. And in the same way that the right to bail only applies if you can afford it or freedom of the press only applies if you can afford a press then the right to bear arms should only apply if you can afford a gun. If you can't then you can just go ahead and get raped.
 
2013-04-01 12:53:47 PM  
Old news is old.
 
2013-04-01 12:54:05 PM  
Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?
 
2013-04-01 12:56:55 PM  

earthworm2.0: NO I DON'T WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR STUPID WEBSITE! can I just read an article without being assaulted with popups for a friggen mobile site? Cripes.


I am so glad I decided to put up a flag in the office firewall today.

Now available: iPhone App - Get it now!
[x]
You fail to understand the benefit of downloading the iPhone app.
[x]
I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave
[x]
You're going to get this app and you're going to like it.  Now give me your iTunes information and place the phone in your rectum while I figure out how to thrust via HTML
 
2013-04-01 12:57:04 PM  

The One True TheDavid: As someone who's been poor all his life and probably always will be, I think the problem with poor people is there are too damn many of us. Oversupply of labor makes us cheap, replaceable, interchangeable and damn near worthless as individuals to our society and so to ourselves. And it's troublingly ironic that better-off people persuade themselves that they're carrying us, as if their TVs come on and their goods are delivered by lucky accidents.

One answer is mass death among the bottom 47% or so. Withdrawal from the world of work provides value for those who process us -- bureaucrats of the welfare system, writers and politicians and those in "criminal justice," for example -- but a broad wave of us ceasing to exist as living breathing objects to be exploited and scorned would only provide value for grave-diggers and corpse-burners and then only for a short while.

Only when the spoiled brats of the bourgeoisie are reduced to digging their own coal, hauling their own trash, fighting their own wars and finding their own food will they realize that we were good for something after all. Ideally there will be enough of us left to command better pay and treatment (if we bother lifting a finger), but if they learn so late that their civilization collapses that's their own damn problem.

Perhaps a proletarian Masada would be a wonderful idea: perhaps the poor in America should set an example for the rest of the world of refusing to continue being trodden down. And as there's no surer way to off yourself than to stick a firearm in your mouth we should embrace this effort to arm us with both hands. Eliminating poverty would hurt the rich more than us.

/ I might be being "ironic" but I'm still too undercaffeinated to know for sure.


"To Hell wit yall, we're movin to Mexico." On the face of it, it really sounds as workable as most solutions and more rational than most of the Libertarian derp.  Stick it in the blender and see what it looks like once the edges have been worn off.
 
2013-04-01 12:57:32 PM  

Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.


[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.
 
2013-04-01 01:00:48 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.


Look, lib, the mentally ill need firearms to protect themselves from the black helicopters, the spiders from Mars, and the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman.
 
2013-04-01 01:01:38 PM  
iheartscotch: "they're not just going to a street corner and just giving out guns"


blessthe40oz.com
 
2013-04-01 01:03:36 PM  

Rapmaster2000: the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman


This is something that should concern us all.
 
2013-04-01 01:03:40 PM  
Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.


No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.
 
2013-04-01 01:04:01 PM  
Let's get some federal dollars behind this and we can dub them Obamaguns and then the right wingers would hate it.
 
2013-04-01 01:07:00 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Look, lib, the mentally ill need firearms to protect themselves from the black helicopters, the spiders from Mars, and the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman.


OK That is scary. The National Guard plans to issue firearms and ammunition to the mentally ill when the zombie apocalypse kicks off, so you can afford to wait.

/Enough name-calling: Did I call you a 'toon?
 
2013-04-01 01:08:39 PM  
When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.
 
2013-04-01 01:14:26 PM  
Hahahahahahahah
This has got to be one of the stupidest damn things I have ever heard of.

Ironically, nothing willl really come of it.  No spike in crime, no sudden cessation of all criminal activity.
If these people really are poor, they'll probably just go pawn the gun for cash.
 
2013-04-01 01:14:43 PM  
I don't begrudge the ownership of a defensive weapon to anyone unlucky enough to live in high-crime areas of our cities.  The group is training them on firearms safety including legal discussions (I'd assume regarding castle doctrine, collective defense, et cetera) and looking to generate some hard data about arming the good guys in a bad-guy place.

There's a lot of patronizing attitude in this thread about the residents of Greenpoint, TX, their mental state, and ability to listen to instruction.  I don't view the poor as supermen, but they are adults with rights.  As long as they get the whole "keep in a secure place safe from children and thieves" lesson down, I say give the experiment a try.
 
2013-04-01 01:16:43 PM  
Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement!  This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:06 PM  

Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.

No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.


I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.

Confiscation from lunatics and criminals? No problemo with that.
Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:39 PM  
This thread is highlighting the superiority complex leftist have over the poor. Damn, you guys are an ugly lot. My mind is blown.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:50 PM  
Poor people commit crimes with guns.
Rich people commit crimes with computers.
 
2013-04-01 01:20:37 PM  

Godscrack: What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.



So only affluent white people should own legal guns is what you're saying?
 
2013-04-01 01:25:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.


Know how i know you know nothing of the 2nd amendment? If what you claim the founders intended is true, why did they not go after those who had guns yet were not in a milita? After all, they wrote  the damn thing and would know if it meant people had to be in a milita to own a gun right?

here it is so you can read it and understand how wrong you are...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
2013-04-01 01:25:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.

No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.

I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.

Confiscation from lunatics and criminals? No problemo with that.
Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.


The guns in NYC were properly registered in the 60s. The NYPD used that list in the 90s to go to door to door to make sure that the weapons on NYC's AWB were rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were taken from the owner if they had not been.
 
2013-04-01 01:27:31 PM  
I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while. All the worst cops are assigned to these places and rarely if ever show up even to 911 calls. I called 911 on a steroid freak of a guy beating the crap out of a girl and they never came. I went out with a baseball bat to get him to stop. If he'd been one of the 'got nuthin to loose' punks with a gun who see prison as a vacation from desperate poverty, I'd be dead.

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know) so giving the few people there who still care a gun and training won't do any more damage. They are pretty much war zones already.
 
2013-04-01 01:29:35 PM  

monster_teef: When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.


Well why can't poor people move or hire an armed body guard (like Jim Carey)
 
2013-04-01 01:35:11 PM  

hitlersbrain: I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while. All the worst cops are assigned to these places and rarely if ever show up even to 911 calls. I called 911 on a steroid freak of a guy beating the crap out of a girl and they never came. I went out with a baseball bat to get him to stop. If he'd been one of the 'got nuthin to loose' punks with a gun who see prison as a vacation from desperate poverty, I'd be dead.

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know) so giving the few people there who still care a gun and training won't do any more damage. They are pretty much war zones already.


Dude, are you still asleep? This post is too rational for you, you're slipping. Now, follow this up with something insane so i dont lose faith in you as a class A troll
 
2013-04-01 01:39:44 PM  
Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.
 
2013-04-01 01:43:40 PM  

Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.


So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?
 
2013-04-01 01:46:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.
 
2013-04-01 01:46:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Do you need glasses? I have bolded it twice and you still cant see it? Willfully obtuse is what you are. You dont think the people should own guns, then dont own one but dont take my rights away because you choose not to recognize it and are afraid of an inanimate object.

So where does it say they rounded up all the guns in the hands on non militia members? Yea, i thought so.

/Thanks for playing
 
2013-04-01 01:49:18 PM  

iheartscotch: / they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


How do you know?
 
2013-04-01 01:50:34 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.


No, i recognize the authority of the US government over the milita and keeping it well regulated. (see milita acts he posted)  We are not talking about taking the militas guns but that of the individual which would violate the constitution.
 
2013-04-01 01:52:05 PM  

Joe Blowme: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.

No, i recognize the authority of the US government over the milita and keeping it well regulated. (see milita acts he posted)  We are not talking about taking the militas guns but that of the individual which would violate the constitution.


I didn't say you didn't recognize the gov's ability to regulate the militia. I was saying you're emphasizing the individual right to own the gun.

/didn't think it was unclear
 
2013-04-01 01:53:42 PM  

Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".


You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.
 
2013-04-01 01:55:57 PM  

Dimensio: No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.


So tell us about all those confiscations in the US.
 
2013-04-01 01:59:06 PM  

redmid17: the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant


Is that the strict constructionist interpretation conservatives are always telling us about?
 
2013-04-01 01:59:25 PM  
redmid17:
Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant,

/didn't think it was unclear


 Kinda was
 
2013-04-01 02:01:39 PM  

jaytkay: redmid17: the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant

Is that the strict constructionist interpretation conservatives are always telling us about?




Does it matter? You'll have to get SCOTUS to overturn those decisions either way.
 
2013-04-01 02:01:51 PM  

jaytkay: Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".

You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.


So you like HAMAS and dont have a clue who the Chavez on google was, got it.
 
2013-04-01 02:04:50 PM  
hitlersbrain:

I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while...

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know)...


Ever heard about the relation of Iran-Contra to the '80s crack epidemic?

Money spent on drugs is still money spent. And drug money buys goods and services, whether necessities or luxuries. And the negative social and personal effects drive increased cop budgets, more better prisons, rehab facilities, gun sales, political contributions and campaigns, movies & videos, medical facilities & their employees, etc. Flooding a neighborhood with illegal drugs is a great way to milk it for all it's worth.

It's all about circulating money. There's a lot of money in poor neighborhoods, and a lot of money to be made "helping" the poor and keeping you "safe" from them. But by no means will we eliminate poverty by distributing wealth more equally: our entire way of life would collapse.
 
2013-04-01 02:08:39 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


A clean record, after growing up in the ghetto?

Anyways, I don't see this being a problem.
 
2013-04-01 02:09:52 PM  
A gun and map to the 1% neighborhood.
 
2013-04-01 02:10:16 PM  

pdee: Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.

So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?


I don't oppose anyone owning a gun. I oppose giving gun to people who are desperate and if not criminals themselves know lots of criminals who would buy guns for a decent price. Of course I DNRTFA and didn't know it included training. I'll edit my post.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.
 
2013-04-01 02:13:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


I always thought it meant to say 2 things:

1. The people have a right to bear arms.
2. The people have a right to form well organized militias.

Number 2 without number 1 simply makes no sense. A militia of unarmed people is not good for much.
 
2013-04-01 02:16:44 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.


Firearms were confiscated in New York and in Chicago following enactment of arbitrary bans because they were registered. The firearms were registered prior to enactment of the ban, when possession of them was legal, and owners were forced to give them up after enactment of the ban, when possession became illegal solely because the firearm itself became prohibited and not because of any criminal action of the owner.

Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.

As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.
 
2013-04-01 02:22:53 PM  

jaytkay: Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".

You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.


To my knowledge, both of those are fictional constructs.
 
2013-04-01 02:24:36 PM  
FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.
 
2013-04-01 02:24:54 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?


Nope, just regular fools...
 
2013-04-01 02:27:22 PM  

Egoy3k: pdee: Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.

So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?

I don't oppose anyone owning a gun. I oppose giving gun to people who are desperate and if not criminals themselves know lots of criminals who would buy guns for a decent price. Of course I DNRTFA and didn't know it included training. I'll edit my post.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.


I'll give you a hint: Criminals aren't very interested in the shotguns. They are better than nothing, but criminals are going to prefer a gun that is concealable and easily hidden. There's a reason why 70% of murders are committed with a pistol. Hell Chicago had one homicide by shotgun in 2011. You can pick up a single shot shotgun for just over $100 at a lot of places like Gander Mountain or Dicks.
 
2013-04-01 02:28:51 PM  

RickN99: FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.


Their concern is that a firearm will be used against a human, even in self-defense. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence opposes even defensive uses of firearms, stating that "Using armed violence in any context is flat out wrong and only serves the interests of the NRA."
 
2013-04-01 02:28:55 PM  
Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders.  So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket.  After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero.  And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.
 
2013-04-01 02:29:36 PM  
stuffy:

A gun and map to the 1% neighborhood.

Why DO poor people commit crimes against each other so often? Could it be because they don't have maps?

There's even more money in rich neighborhoods. And they tend to be more "liberal" and less likely to own guns.

"So they loaded up their guns and drove to Beverley."
 
2013-04-01 02:30:44 PM  

Rapmaster2000: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG-btcKloSs

A free weapons giveaway program.  It's gonna solve all these goddamn problems.


Free weapons giveaway?  To the poor?

\sounds like soshulizm...
 
2013-04-01 02:30:56 PM  

ginkor: Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders.  So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket.  After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero.  And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.


Have you a citation for this story, or should I classify it along with "NASA finds a missing day in space"?
 
2013-04-01 02:31:35 PM  

Dimensio: RickN99: FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.

Their concern is that a firearm will be used against a human, even in self-defense. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence opposes even defensive uses of firearms, stating that "Using armed violence in any context is flat out wrong and only serves the interests of the NRA."


That would sound like an April Fool's joke, except I know people who really are that stupid.

"If God did not want them shorn he would not have made them sheep."
 
2013-04-01 02:31:51 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement!  This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.


This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.
 
2013-04-01 02:34:37 PM  
Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)
 
2013-04-01 02:36:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: Jim_Callahan: Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement!  This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.

This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.


Posse comitatus has indeed been invoked when a situation requires a large amount of manpower. In 1971, it was invoked to help finish the construction of the  Le Petomane Thruway
 
2013-04-01 02:37:24 PM  

redmid17: hardinparamedic: Jim_Callahan: Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement!  This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.

This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.

Posse comitatus has indeed been invoked when a situation requires a large amount of manpower. In 19711974, it was invoked to help finish the construction of the  Le Petomane Thruway


FTFM
 
2013-04-01 02:38:46 PM  

Joe Blowme: demaL-demaL-yeH: 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.

Know how i know you know nothing of the 2nd amendment? If what you claim the founders intended is true, why did they not go after those who had guns yet were not in a milita? After all, they wrote  the damn thing and would know if it meant people had to be in a milita to own a gun right?

here it is so you can read it and understand how wrong you are...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Don't bother.  He trots out that same nonsense in every thread and backs it up with even more idiotic drivel.
 
2013-04-01 02:39:30 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).


So, did registration lead to confiscation or not?
 
2013-04-01 02:43:48 PM  

parkke0108: There is no possible way this could backfire...


Unless they're  cheap foreign guns.
 
2013-04-01 02:44:15 PM  
I bet the person that came up with this idea is the same person that came up with the idea to let Walmart customers delivery your stuff.  It has the same level of win in it.
 
2013-04-01 02:44:18 PM  
Fairly deserved the  HERO  tag.

Poor people are more likely to be attacked, robbed and killed than well--off people, and have less service from the police when it happens.

Blacks are about 6 times miore likely to be murdered than whites, and as far as the NRA is concerned:  you Farkers need to check your history!

The NRA was founded in 1871 to promote good shooting skills, and also to protect newly freed blacks from attacks by local terrorist gangs.

You want something done right, do it yourself.
 
2013-04-01 02:45:29 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?


The joke is that it's real.  Those are the best April Fool's jokes.
 
2013-04-01 02:47:30 PM  

parkke0108: There is no possible way this could backfire...


F..............    Done in three, why did anyone else bother to post?

/Calling I.T. for a new keyboard now....
 
2013-04-01 02:51:08 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.


How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later?  Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?
 
2013-04-01 02:52:17 PM  

olddinosaur: Fairly deserved the  HERO  tag.

Poor people are more likely to be attacked, robbed and killed than well--off people, and have less service from the police when it happens.

Blacks are about 6 times miore likely to be murdered than whites, and as far as the NRA is concerned:  you Farkers need to check your history!

The NRA was founded in 1871 to promote good shooting skills, and also to protect newly freed blacks from attacks by local terrorist gangs.

You want something done right, do it yourself.


It's also paid legal fees provided many amicus briefs to the courts when minority gun owners wanted to file a lawsuit.

See Ezell v Illinois, McDonald v Chicago, and taking a guess here .. Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority
 
2013-04-01 02:52:43 PM  

Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?


Biden Specials... shotguns
 
2013-04-01 02:53:55 PM  

Dimensio: As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.


redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:
A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.


No.
No.
No.
No.

You have it bass-ackwards.
I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.
This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility.  Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.
Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.
Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:
"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
 
2013-04-01 02:57:21 PM  

ginkor: Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders.  So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket.  After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero.  And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.


Whole lotta holes in that anecdote.  Sounds nice, though.
 
2013-04-01 02:59:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Well, that's one way to clear out the riff-raff

illegals

Now if they were handing out long-range rifles in a manner similar to Switzerland, you could build the fence with the bodies and wreckage from failed attempts to cross the border.

Then follow that up with consequences that are similar (but more severe than) to harboring a fugitive if one employs them or contracts with someone that has them.   If they don't know they're harboring illegals, still make it an offense.

/Shame that SB1070 is being attacked since enforcing the law works.
//Amnesty, guest workers, and "looking the other way" all do not work
 
2013-04-01 03:05:46 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


So, they'll be using background checks?
 
2013-04-01 03:07:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:
A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.

No.
No.
No.
No.

You have it bass-ackwards.
I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.
This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility.  Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.
Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.
Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:
"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...


If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.
 
2013-04-01 03:09:51 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.


Damned macular degeneration; I read that as "clean rectums" and thought "Another gay gun owner."
 
2013-04-01 03:10:14 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)


You SHOULD be in the kitchen.
 
2013-04-01 03:12:45 PM  

TyrannyOfThe3Squares: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

So, they'll be using background checks?


In Tucson, at least.

"The effort is locally supported by Black Weapons Armory, a gun shop that specializes in assault-style weapons. The shop will provide background checks and shotguns, said owner Tommy Rompel."
 
2013-04-01 03:13:04 PM  
That's odd. I thought gun control groups were perfectly ok with trained, responsible, adults owning simple defensive shotguns.
 
2013-04-01 03:16:36 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)



Well, you got one right by accident
 
2013-04-01 03:17:46 PM  

graeth: I wish I had a pic for just how bad an idea this is.....


lobusdaestepe.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-01 03:19:07 PM  

duenor: That's odd. I thought gun control groups were perfectly ok with trained, responsible, adults owning simple defensive shotguns.

 
2013-04-01 03:19:43 PM  

redmid17: You have it bass-ackwards.
I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.
This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.
Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.
Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:
"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.


The militia is one purpose named in the 2nd Amendment.  Nothing says it is the only purpose that justifies a right to bear arms.  The SCOTUS has identified others such as target shooting, hunting, and self-defense.
 
2013-04-01 03:25:43 PM  
Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.
 
2013-04-01 03:27:22 PM  

CameraMonkey: Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.


I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.
 
2013-04-01 03:28:15 PM  
Oh, and its also convenient that the guns they display in the photo are exactly what the program is NOT giving away. Morans!
 
2013-04-01 03:43:53 PM  
I think it's safe to say, in regard to Mr. Coplen, what a dumb*ss.
 
2013-04-01 03:55:36 PM  
redmid17:

I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

I first heard about the project last fall... before the SHTF with Sandy Hook, etc. So I believe that cost was pre-SHTF and factors in manufacturer-direct/bulk wholesale (near-cost for a good cause)  discounts.
 
2013-04-01 03:57:57 PM  
"Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?
 
2013-04-01 03:58:21 PM  

CameraMonkey: Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.


Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun.  Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security?  I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.
 
2013-04-01 03:59:22 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?


Not to hand out guns, I assure you.
 
2013-04-01 04:06:11 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?

Not to hand out guns, I assure you.


We already handed guns out to the police, that's the point.

His analogy is just wrong, and quite honestly a great example of the flawed reasoning skills present in anti gun advocates.
 
2013-04-01 04:08:47 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: CameraMonkey: Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun.  Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security?  I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.


They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/About-Us.html
 
2013-04-01 04:15:25 PM  
redmid17:
I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

I would assume they're getting a discount price.  Buying a dozen guns at a time will get you a nifty little discount I"m sure.
 
2013-04-01 04:26:14 PM  

sethstorm: : Well, that's one way to clear out the riff-raff illegals


Dude, you live in Ohio. The only illegals you'll be shooting are Canooks...

(Aim well)
 
2013-04-01 04:27:39 PM  

redmid17: I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.


If you are on a budget, but want to have a modest collection of quality firearms, here's what you do:

1) apply for a C&R FFL 03 license. costs about $25 and you'll need to send a letter of notification (not request for permission) to your local Chief LEO. this process will put you through a background check, etc. when you get it...
2) go to gunbroker.com or other C&R firearm forums
3) buy it and have it shipped to your door (most states and most guns).

Here are a few pieces from my C&R collection

Remington Semi Auto shotgun, 12 gauge, 2 3/4 shells. holds 5. Cost was $180. Date of manufacture: 1948
CZ-52 Pistol. Cost was $150. 7 round magazine, 7.62x25mm. Date of manufacture: 1952
Model 57 SKS, Yugoslavian. 10 round internal magazine. Carbine (compact). 7.62x39mm (same as AK round). $225 Date of manufacture: 1957
These prices took some shopping around and may be higher now, but you will still be able to get all three for under $800.

If you are really hard up for cash, depending on your state, you may be able to buy C&R firearms from an 03 wanting to upgrade his collection without having to get an 03 FFL. You can get a pump action 12 gauge made in 1941, extremely high quality, for about $120.

Single shot shotguns are dirt cheap. They aren't the most ideal defensive weapon but they will do a heck of a lot better than a kitchen knife or pepper spray when you're making your stand in your bedroom. Reloading is very quick once you get used to it.
 
2013-04-01 04:38:30 PM  

duenor: redmid17: I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

If you are on a budget, but want to have a modest collection of quality firearms, here's what you do:

1) apply for a C&R FFL 03 license. costs about $25 and you'll need to send a letter of notification (not request for permission) to your local Chief LEO. this process will put you through a background check, etc. when you get it...
2) go to gunbroker.com or other C&R firearm forums
3) buy it and have it shipped to your door (most states and most guns).

Here are a few pieces from my C&R collection

Remington Semi Auto shotgun, 12 gauge, 2 3/4 shells. holds 5. Cost was $180. Date of manufacture: 1948
CZ-52 Pistol. Cost was $150. 7 round magazine, 7.62x25mm. Date of manufacture: 1952
Model 57 SKS, Yugoslavian. 10 round internal magazine. Carbine (compact). 7.62x39mm (same as AK round). $225 Date of manufacture: 1957
These prices took some shopping around and may be higher now, but you will still be able to get all three for under $800.

If you are really hard up for cash, depending on your state, you may be able to buy C&R firearms from an 03 wanting to upgrade his collection without having to get an 03 FFL. You can get a pump action 12 gauge made in 1941, extremely high quality, for about $120.

Single shot shotguns are dirt cheap. They aren't the most ideal defensive weapon but they will do a heck of a lot better than a kitchen knife or pepper spray when you're making your stand in your bedroom. Reloading is very quick once you get used to it.


I'm not really on a budget but I will have to look into that. A cursory check of some C & R sites looks like that type of license won't really do me much good since I live in Chicago. They apparently won't or cannot ship their, even if one has a FOID, C& R, and other required paperwork.

Can't say I'm shocked.
 
2013-04-01 04:39:35 PM  

redmid17: You have it bass-ackwards.
I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.
This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.
Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.
Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:
"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.


That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
 
2013-04-01 04:40:34 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: sethstorm: : Well, that's one way to clear out the riff-raff illegals

Dude, you live in Ohio. The only illegals you'll be shooting are Canooks...

(Aim well)


The illegals in Ohio are there partially because the people in the South/Southwest/Midwest don't do their job keeping them out.
 
2013-04-01 04:41:29 PM  
Demal demal yahoo:
You have it bass-ackwards.
I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.
This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.
Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.
Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:
"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.


Dammit.
 
2013-04-01 04:41:59 PM  
Remington Semi Auto 12G ($180)M59 SKS ($225)Polish P64 Handgun($230, in 9x18mm). All are fine defensive firearms that are also quite enjoyable at the range.

And this is the most cherished of my C&R rifles. The Belgian FN 49. Definitely not for someone who just wants a cheap beater rifle; these are handmade works of art.

i177.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-01 04:51:02 PM  
Yippee! Here's yet another Fark gun thread where the Farklibs spout off the same tired old crap:

Law abiding citizens simply cannot be trusted with guns.

The poor people need to simply rely on the local police for their protection; the same local police that Farklibs are quick to condemn if said police even look at someone the wrong way.

Nitpick the 2nd Amendment with every invented technicality to try to prove it's irrelevance.

Farkilbs are infinitely smarter than anyone with an opinion different than theirs, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is about guns.

About the only thing missing is how the streets of America's cities will become the "wild, wild, west" (which still hasn't happened) if you allow law abiding citizens to arm themselves. All the while pretending that the lawlessness in Chicago (with it's gun ban) is not happening.

You all need to just stop.
 
2013-04-01 04:53:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone


It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.
 
2013-04-01 04:55:27 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.


So removing an enumerated right without due process is ok?
 
2013-04-01 04:56:00 PM  

phoenix895: In Houston too?  They really better hope the Astros are middle of the pack.  Bad year, riots with guns.  World Series win (however unlikely) bigger riots with guns.


I'd like to point out that we won two NBA championships in the Nineties and lost a World Series in '05 without any rioting, looting or burning of private property.  I am pretty proud of my city for that, dooshbag.
 
2013-04-01 04:58:49 PM  

Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.


You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.
 
2013-04-01 05:04:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.


Bonk'im on the head with the fine club you're holding in your hands.
I agree, a pump or auto would be nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than frantically begging the cops to come sooner.
 
2013-04-01 05:16:44 PM  

duenor: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

Bonk'im on the head with the fine club you're holding in your hands.
I agree, a pump or auto would be nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than frantically begging the cops to come sooner.


I certainly don't think waiting for the police is a realistic option, I'd advise having a semi auto weapon with ample capacity.
 
2013-04-01 05:24:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: duenor: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

Bonk'im on the head with the fine club you're holding in your hands.
I agree, a pump or auto would be nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than frantically begging the cops to come sooner.

I certainly don't think waiting for the police is a realistic option, I'd advise having a semi auto weapon with ample capacity.


Yes, you are 100% correct. That being said, ANYTHING is better than nothing at all. Even if it is a single shot!
 
2013-04-01 05:34:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.



Sure. But this program isn't designed to arm someone for war. It's meant to prove that having an armed population is a deterrent for criminals breaking in in the first place. They are trying to give guns to certain areas then study the crime trends later.


But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.
 
2013-04-01 05:43:49 PM  

duenor: Remington Semi Auto 12G ($180)M59 SKS ($225)Polish P64 Handgun($230, in 9x18mm). All are fine defensive firearms that are also quite enjoyable at the range.

And this is the most cherished of my C&R rifles. The Belgian FN 49. Definitely not for someone who just wants a cheap beater rifle; these are handmade works of art.

[i177.photobucket.com image 850x582]


That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.
 
2013-04-01 05:46:02 PM  

Magnanimous_J: But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.


That certainly would be the rational decision, but do you really think it's a good idea to gamble on the judgement of someone who's decided to make a living through breaking and entry?
 
2013-04-01 05:47:56 PM  

Dimensio: That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.


It's not an assault weapon, you can tell because assault weapons are black and scary looking.  This one has wood, and that's all that matters.
 
2013-04-01 06:10:32 PM  

rv4-farker: I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?


Of course.  What do you think gun control is for?
 
2013-04-01 06:11:16 PM  

pedrop357: redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.


Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.
But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.
There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.
There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, -  and armed.  If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.
 
2013-04-01 06:16:20 PM  

duenor: FN 49


Beautiful. Is that Mauser, 30-06, or .308?
 
2013-04-01 06:18:30 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.
But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.
There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.
There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, -  and armed.  If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.


So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?
 
2013-04-01 06:20:03 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.
But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.
There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.
There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, -  and armed.  If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?


Soylent green, of course
 
2013-04-01 06:23:40 PM  

Doom MD: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.
But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.
There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.
There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, -  and armed.  If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?

Soylent green, of course


He might be agreeable to that. Should probably take away his guns before telling him that.
 
2013-04-01 06:27:12 PM  

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:
If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):
That's the problem with his 'reasoning".  He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.
But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.
There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.
There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, -  and armed.  If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?


No "free" outs from the responsibility.
If he's fit for duty, he's in the Militia. If he's not fit for duty, he's still in the Militia in whatever capacity he can fulfill duties.

/Those ages are set by Congress, you know.
//There is precedent: Retirees can be recalled to duty at any time (10 USC 683).
 
2013-04-01 06:33:33 PM  
BarkingUnicorn:   Whole lotta holes in that anecdote.  Sounds nice, though.

Okay, I'll bite.  What 'holes' do you imagine to be there?
 
2013-04-01 06:42:01 PM  

ginkor: BarkingUnicorn:   Whole lotta holes in that anecdote.  Sounds nice, though.

Okay, I'll bite.  What 'holes' do you imagine to be there?


The absence of citations somewhat reduces the credibility of the anecdote.
 
2013-04-01 06:45:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: BarkingUnicorn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?

Not to hand out guns, I assure you.

We already handed guns out to the police, that's the point.

His analogy is just wrong, and quite honestly a great example of the flawed reasoning skills present in anti gun advocates.


Who made what analogy?
 
2013-04-01 06:55:52 PM  

redmid17: BarkingUnicorn: CameraMonkey: Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun.  Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security?  I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/About-Us.html


"If the Journal News map fiasco taught us anything, it is that thieves may target specific homes in order to steal weapons of worth."

Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers?  Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage?  I still don't like what the JN did.  Just wondering if it had any effects.
 
2013-04-01 07:01:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.


That's a mighty heroic burglar you're postulating there.
 
2013-04-01 07:03:45 PM  
so it's  like Zardoz without the tacky clothing?
 
2013-04-01 07:05:24 PM  

Dimensio: That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.


You forgot to say that it probably has one of those shoulder things that go up. 10 round fixed magazine, firing 8mm mauser. astonishingly low recoil for such a big gun.
The time of graceful, curvaceous firearms is gone, though. These days snap together parts, carbon fiber, and mass production are all the rage.
 
2013-04-01 07:07:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: redmid17: BarkingUnicorn: CameraMonkey: Im familiar with the program.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun.  Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security?  I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/About-Us.html

"If the Journal News map fiasco taught us anything, it is that thieves may target specific homes in order to steal weapons of worth."

Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers?  Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage?  I still don't like what the JN did.  Just wondering if it had any effects.


I saw a couple of articles where gun safes of registered owners were specifically targeted but I don't know if there has been a huge pattern.
 
2013-04-01 07:08:42 PM  

ginkor: BarkingUnicorn:   Whole lotta holes in that anecdote.  Sounds nice, though.

Okay, I'll bite.  What 'holes' do you imagine to be there?


Any number of things could have kept those women from returning to that judge's court room.  Another number of things could account for the uptick in returns after he left.  Maybe those women were abused again but were more afraid of the judge than of their abusers.  That's just for starters.

Plus the unfortunate lack of verifiable details.
 
2013-04-01 07:19:28 PM  

redmid17: Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers? Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage? I still don't like what the JN did. Just wondering if it had any effects.

I saw a couple of articles where gun safes of registered owners were specifically targeted but I don't know if there has been a huge pattern.


I vaguely recall a case involving a gun safe that wouldn't open.  I honestly don't believe that a burglar would attempt only a gun safe.  People with gun safes surely have other valuables lying about.

I was hoping for neighbors shaming gun licensees, or someone whose house didn't sell because there was a licensee next door. :-)  But overall, it seems nothing happened.

Still don't lie it.  Don't like mugshots or sex offenders being online for the whole world's entertainment, either.  Not everything is everyone's business or pleasure.
 
2013-04-01 07:29:29 PM  
BarkingUnicorn:I was hoping for neighbors shaming gun licensees, or someone whose house didn't sell because there was a licensee next door. :-)  But overall, it seems nothing happened.

Still don't lie it.  Don't like mugshots or sex offenders being online for the whole world's entertainment, either.  Not everything is everyone's business or pleasure.


This is a picture of an associate's safe that was cut open, most likely with a sawzall.
I'm actually ok with serial number registration to deter theft - but I definitely understand the worries about who gets to use that list, and how.
 
2013-04-01 07:32:49 PM  
 
2013-04-01 07:35:12 PM  
You know, I thought "Arm the Homeless" was a leftist thing...
 
2013-04-01 07:37:02 PM  
Ever since taking my CCW, I've become acutely aware that there are some major assholes who like to portray themselves as responsible gun owners. Knowing the laws in the state now, this has made me believe that some people need to stop helping the cause, so to speak.

Especially frustrating is the fact that Tennessee state law prescribes that if you are doing ANYTHING illegal, in any way, that you forfeit your civil and criminal protections under the law in the State. So every idiot who proudly touts it's their constitutional right to wear their guns into areas where it is posted not to do so stops being responsible as a citizen and starts being a criminal.
 
2013-04-01 07:44:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: Ever since taking my CCW, I've become acutely aware that there are some major assholes who like to portray themselves as responsible gun owners. Knowing the laws in the state now, this has made me believe that some people need to stop helping the cause, so to speak.

Especially frustrating is the fact that Tennessee state law prescribes that if you are doing ANYTHING illegal, in any way, that you forfeit your civil and criminal protections under the law in the State. So every idiot who proudly touts it's their constitutional right to wear their guns into areas where it is posted not to do so stops being responsible as a citizen and starts being a criminal.


What does this post have to do with TFA? I'm not even sure what your post means. Running a stop sign is illegal. Are you suggesting that in TN you lose your constitutional rights then?
As for wearing guns into prohibited areas, government property and private property is not public property.
 
2013-04-01 07:56:20 PM  

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


Still, and this irritates Concealed Carry advocates, there are a handful of people (cue Jezza)in the world that can draw fast enough to stop someone that already is aimed at them. Not only that, but you're relying on the decision making abilities of people who constantly make bad decisions (criminals) to suddenly make a good decision and not try to rob someone that might be armed. Given #2 and the reality of #1, as a crook I'd look at it as "Hey! Free gun!"
 
2013-04-01 08:27:58 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-01 08:49:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

That's a mighty heroic burglar you're postulating there.


I was suggesting that criminals, being people who have chosen to break into people's houses for a living, aren't to be trusted to make a rational choice.  But if you're more inclined to label the criminal who's instinct is to fight rather than flee 'heroic', that's your prerogative.
 
2013-04-01 09:55:34 PM  
3StratMan 2013-04-01 04:51:02 PM

FLARP!! GURGLE!! HIPPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!


Man what a lot of effort for yet more sh*itty trolling.
 
2013-04-01 10:21:53 PM  

Kittypie070: 3StratMan 2013-04-01 04:51:02 PM

FLARP!! GURGLE!! HIPPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!


Man what a lot of effort for yet more sh*itty trolling.


No matter how hard you try to avoid it, the truth still hurts, eh?
 
2013-04-01 10:41:10 PM  

duenor: What does this post have to do with TFA? I'm not even sure what your post means. Running a stop sign is illegal. Are you suggesting that in TN you lose your constitutional rights then?
As for wearing guns into prohibited areas, government property and private property is not public property.


Concealed carry is not a constitutional right - it's a privledge granted to those people who meet the legal requirements set forth by their respective states. Gun ownership is, within certain reasonable legal restrictions as upheld by the SCOTUS. Concealed carry is, also, in no way comparable to driving a motor vehicle, which is NOT a right, but a privilege granted by the State of Tennessee. Also, a moving violation is NOT a crime.

Carrying your gun in ANY area, public or private, which has a clearly identified "No weapons on this premise" sign IS a crime, however, in the State. You have just committed a class E Felony.

The reason I've brought this up is I see multiple people on FARK in these threads, all the time, biatch about gun free zones, and how they carry regardless. In the past four days, I've had to listen to several people talk about how much better it is to break the law which they claim to follow because they don't agree with it.

The more I hear it, the more annoying it gets.

inglixthemad: Still, and this irritates Concealed Carry advocates, there are a handful of people (cue Jezza)in the world that can draw fast enough to stop someone that already is aimed at them. Not only that, but you're relying on the decision making abilities of people who constantly make bad decisions (criminals) to suddenly make a good decision and not try to rob someone that might be armed. Given #2 and the reality of #1, as a crook I'd look at it as "Hey! Free gun!"


One of the examples my instructor used was a guy who worked at the gun store I took it in. He had shot two people in self defense after one person had put a gun to his girlfriend's head and the other shot into the ground in front of them. He drew from a concealed holster in the small of his back, killed one and wounded the other. Had he had that gun visible, they would have just put a bullet in his head and took his gun.

If you're going to carry, he pointed out, you should do so in a way that no one knows you're armed.
 
2013-04-01 11:25:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: One of the examples my instructor used was a guy who worked at the gun store I took it in. He had shot two people in self defense after one person had put a gun to his girlfriend's head and the other shot into the ...


Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree. CC is  concealed carry. And it is indeed a privilege (as opposed to, some would say, open carry). Even open carry would be subject to prohibited areas.
As for people who choose to carry anyway.... many who do so aren't doing it with a CC. For those, I guess it's a personal choice - the whole "judged by 12 or carried by 6" thing. Like everything else, you take certain risks.

I wish my state allowed me CC. I probably wouldn't carry that often even if I had it, but it sure would make me feel better on certain days when I'd want to.
 
2013-04-02 12:54:28 AM  

Magnanimous_J: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.


Sure. But this program isn't designed to arm someone for war. It's meant to prove that having an armed population is a deterrent for criminals breaking in in the first place. They are trying to give guns to certain areas then study the crime trends later.


But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.


...or shoot back.  That instincts called "fight or flight" for a reason.
 
2013-04-02 01:38:37 AM  

monster_teef: When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.


SO much win in this post.
 
2013-04-02 06:05:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dimensio: That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.

It's not an assault weapon, you can tell because assault weapons are black and scary looking.  This one has wood, and that's all that matters.


Seal is not an assault weapon.
 
2013-04-02 10:01:09 AM  

Dimensio: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: FTFA: ""Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Holy shiat. Can this guy be any more of an arrogant elitist asshole? And (if we are discussing minorities) a racist? Wow. Just... wow.

Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".


Wow. So if I were to mug his family at a shopping center or whatever, I would be totally safe, right?

I keed.

Seriously, it would be an interesting experiment to see just how far one could push that belief. Just finished reading "Stolen Prey" by John Sandford, so I've got some pretty ugly images in my head.
 
2013-04-02 10:23:52 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.

How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later?  Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?


What if someone become suicidal later?

So.... by that argument, we should strive for a "Minority Report" world of pre-guilt sentencing? Sounds like it, if you are going to worry about what someone might do. By all means, let us pre-arrest.

Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?
 
2013-04-02 10:25:28 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: BarkingUnicorn: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.

How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later?  Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

What if someone become suicidal later?

So.... by that argument, we should strive for a "Minority Report" world of pre-guilt sentencing? Sounds like it, if you are going to worry about what someone might do. By all means, let us pre-arrest.

Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?


shiat. Hit the wrong button. Answer: no, sometimes shiat happens that you can't control. Oh, but we should demand perfection and precognition from all Citizens.
 
2013-04-02 11:50:52 AM  
Sadly, I know folks who think this would be a dandy idea.
 
2013-04-02 12:43:47 PM  
BarkingUnicorn:  Here's a thought.  Pick an anecdote from your life 30 years ago.  Now document it.  Good luck with that.  I bet you can't even find a telephone book from your hometown that was printed 30 years ago.
 
2013-04-02 02:42:46 PM  

3StratMan: Kittypie070: 3StratMan 2013-04-01 04:51:02 PM

FLARP!! GURGLE!! HIPPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!


Man what a lot of effort for yet more sh*itty trolling.


No matter how hard you try to avoid it, the truth still hurts, eh?


Why yes, I've never tried to avoid the fact that you suck.
 
Displayed 202 of 202 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report