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.

(Ted Nugent (Not really))   In a carefully thought out, reasoned response to the second amendment, a college lecturer creates an application to geotag gun owners that will in no way be misused   (gungeomarker.org) divider line 159
    More: Dumbass, mobile apps, subscribers, colleges  
•       •       •

2284 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jul 2013 at 1:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-09 09:47:39 AM  
Any Farkers want to help me write a similar app, only designed to geotag pacifist non-gun owners, so we can give them positive reinforcement?
 
2013-07-09 10:02:19 AM  
You know, I really can't see any upside to this app.

For example, I keep my flintlock up on decorative brass hooks up on the wall in my bedroom.  It is completely unlocked in any fashion.

That's not a safety problem, because a gun like that requires a distinct set of actions to load it, but the sort of person who would use an app like that isn't going to *KNOW* that.  I often let people "snap" the lock of my flintlock, for example, especially if they've never handled a flintlock before.  Perfectly safe, as there is no priming nor any charge in the barrel.

Occasionally, on special occasions, I'll fire it in the air (with just wadding, no projectile).  I also occasionally do the same with my cannon.  Again, perfectly safe, but a person who isn't familiar with guns isn't going to necessarily know that, and the only people I envision using this app are people who aren't familiar with guns.

Also, because of that, the people who would use it are likely to miss the people who are actually significantly dangerous.

In addition, it sets the people posting up for defamation lawsuits.
 
2013-07-09 10:02:59 AM  

LesserEvil: Any Farkers want to help me write a similar app, only designed to geotag pacifist non-gun owners, so we can give them positive reinforcement?


Smashing idea! I am more than willing to be tagged as a gun owner.  Oh and to make it worse, I don't use locks on my firearms. I wonder how many non owners would be willing to do the same.
 
2013-07-09 10:11:24 AM  
*chec/k/s a certain anonymous imageboard

99 posts and 26 image replies omitted.

>reporting police stations
>flagging airsoft ranges
>flagging places that sell pressure cookers
>trolling the app comments

As expected....
 
2013-07-09 11:11:10 AM  
Founding fathers should have thought of that.

"well regulated"

Oh, maybe they did.
 
2013-07-09 11:32:05 AM  

Kyosuke: "well regulated"


Well regulated what?
 
2013-07-09 11:42:21 AM  
 
2013-07-09 11:50:59 AM  

dittybopper: Kyosuke: Founding fathers should have thought of that.

"well regulated"

Oh, maybe they did.

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.


Well, clearly that doesn't count, like all 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that I don't agree with.
 
2013-07-09 11:53:19 AM  

dittybopper: Kyosuke: Founding fathers should have thought of that.

"well regulated"

Oh, maybe they did.

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.


And, the rest of that sentence: "The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."

Looks to me like they affirm the purpose of the phrase "well regulated".
 
2013-07-09 11:55:30 AM  

Kyosuke: dittybopper: Kyosuke: Founding fathers should have thought of that.

"well regulated"

Oh, maybe they did.

The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

And, the rest of that sentence: "The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."

Looks to me like they affirm the purpose of the phrase "well regulated".


Non sequitur.   You failed to connect the dots there.
 
2013-07-09 11:58:23 AM  

Kyosuke: Looks to me like they affirm the purpose of the phrase "well regulated".


They're actually re-affirming the purpose of the phrase "shall not be infringed."  Funny how the gun control advocates who cite the 2nd Amendment ignore that part, and have never met a regulation or proposal that goes too far when it comes to being well-regulated....
 
2013-07-09 12:04:13 PM  

Fark It: Kyosuke: Looks to me like they affirm the purpose of the phrase "well regulated".

They're actually re-affirming the purpose of the phrase "shall not be infringed."  Funny how the gun control advocates who cite the 2nd Amendment ignore that part, and have never met a regulation or proposal that goes too far when it comes to being well-regulated....


Well, first of all, I'm not a gun control advocate. Second of all, nothing in this discussion infringes on the ability to own a firearm.
 
2013-07-09 12:16:29 PM  
We should geotag the loudest people on both sides of the debate and label it "Here be a hyperbolic retard"
 
2013-07-09 12:23:58 PM  
A pointless exercise by someone in the gun 'debate'? Truly shocking.
 
2013-07-09 12:49:01 PM  
As a liberal who dislikes gun nuts, but is largely indifferent to guns...... Yeah professor, you're not helping.
 
2013-07-09 12:54:25 PM  
Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.
 
2013-07-09 12:56:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.


Because the NRA would go berserk.

Well, more berserk.
 
2013-07-09 01:09:16 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.


Gun control hero and billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg hears you, citizen.

Stop and Frisk.
 
2013-07-09 01:36:41 PM  

Fark It: Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.

Gun control hero and billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg hears you, citizen.

Stop and Frisk.


If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about

/bwahahaha
 
2013-07-09 01:41:34 PM  

Kyosuke: regulated"


I don't want to tell you something you already know, but that word did not mean what you apparently think it did. Regulated is a gunsmithing term. It means the guns can hit what they're aiming at.

Mike Chewbacca: That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.


If you support random seatbelt checks and illegal stops like DUI checkpoints, you do, in fact, support a police state.
 
2013-07-09 02:03:50 PM  
Calmamity:
If you support random seatbelt checks and illegal stops like DUI checkpoints, you do, in fact, support a police state.

I'd like you to define the term "police state".  Not because I agree with random stops(5th amendment due process and all make a pretty clear case against it), but that's not what the conventional definition of what a police state is.  A police state is not using police to enforce the law as written, but using police to enforce belief/speech/culture and a lack of universal equal law.
 
2013-07-09 02:11:37 PM  
I don't quite understand what the "misuse" would be, exactly.
 
2013-07-09 02:16:53 PM  

ikanreed: Calmamity:
If you support random seatbelt checks and illegal stops like DUI checkpoints, you do, in fact, support a police state.

I'd like you to define the term "police state".  Not because I agree with random stops(5th amendment due process and all make a pretty clear case against it), but that's not what the conventional definition of what a police state is.  A police state is not using police to enforce the law as written, but using police to enforce belief/speech/culture and a lack of universal equal law.


Then how do you distinguish known examples of police states like Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, where they largely did enforce the laws as written?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_in_Nazi_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_law
 
2013-07-09 02:22:11 PM  
Gun owners are calm, rational people who react to stories like this without getting emotional and upset.

/ I crack myself up
 
2013-07-09 02:24:30 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.


You never lived in a big city have you
/Got frisked while carrying a farking gallon of milk
 
2013-07-09 02:29:10 PM  
I like the tagging categories, which seem to be worded to avoid being strictly libelous, as they're not presented as facts. 

"Possible unlocked/loaded/unsafe storage"
"Possible insufficient training"
 
2013-07-09 02:34:18 PM  
Easy.  Just start geo tagging every house within miles of you.  Make the app pointless.
 
2013-07-09 02:37:40 PM  
I have firearm so maybe one of you can tag them for me.  The address is 1060 W Adison Chicago IL.
 
2013-07-09 02:38:16 PM  
s7.postimg.org
 
2013-07-09 02:39:28 PM  

dittybopper: You know, I really can't see any upside to this app.

For example, I keep my flintlock up on decorative brass hooks up on the wall in my bedroom.  It is completely unlocked in any fashion.

That's not a safety problem, because a gun like that requires a distinct set of actions to load it, but the sort of person who would use an app like that isn't going to *KNOW* that.  I often let people "snap" the lock of my flintlock, for example, especially if they've never handled a flintlock before.  Perfectly safe, as there is no priming nor any charge in the barrel.

Occasionally, on special occasions, I'll fire it in the air (with just wadding, no projectile).  I also occasionally do the same with my cannon.  Again, perfectly safe, but a person who isn't familiar with guns isn't going to necessarily know that, and the only people I envision using this app are people who aren't familiar with guns.

Also, because of that, the people who would use it are likely to miss the people who are actually significantly dangerous.

In addition, it sets the people posting up for defamation lawsuits.


I can see some upside.  Once this goes mainstream, these homes won't be robbed anymore.
 
2013-07-09 02:39:58 PM  
cast.uark.edu

www.poprewind.com

Finished your project for you Dr. Stupid.
 
2013-07-09 02:42:16 PM  

Saiga410: I have firearm so maybe one of you can tag them for me.  The address is 1060 W Adison Chicago IL 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.

 
2013-07-09 02:42:42 PM  

Saiga410: I have firearm so maybe one of you can tag them for me.  The address is 1060 W Addison Chicago IL.

FTFY
 
2013-07-09 02:44:17 PM  
Funny how second amendmenters hate it when people use the first against them.
 
2013-07-09 02:45:08 PM  
Why???  Why would you need this app?

I heard my gun grabber coworker say that they wanted to the government to get the names and addresses of all the gun owners and make them either sell their guns or move out of homes near schools just like they do with sex offenders.  She then went on about how she hates the idea that her children are walking to school near homes that may have guns in them.  I'm sure she'd love this app.  She could then see how many gun owners live near her children's school and start harassing them to sell their guns or move.
 
2013-07-09 02:45:10 PM  
So has someone tagged the White House yet?
 
2013-07-09 02:45:27 PM  

dittybopper: You know, I really can't see any upside to this app.

For example, I keep my flintlock up on decorative brass hooks up on the wall in my bedroom.  It is completely unlocked in any fashion.

That's not a safety problem, because a gun like that requires a distinct set of actions to load it, but the sort of person who would use an app like that isn't going to *KNOW* that.  I often let people "snap" the lock of my flintlock, for example, especially if they've never handled a flintlock before.  Perfectly safe, as there is no priming nor any charge in the barrel.

Occasionally, on special occasions, I'll fire it in the air (with just wadding, no projectile).  I also occasionally do the same with my cannon.  Again, perfectly safe, but a person who isn't familiar with guns isn't going to necessarily know that, and the only people I envision using this app are people who aren't familiar with guns.

Also, because of that, the people who would use it are likely to miss the people who are actually significantly dangerous.

In addition, it sets the people posting up for defamation lawsuits.


I'd ask if you are a certain lawyer in San Francisco who would fire a cannon (blank charge) on his office balcony to celebrate winning a case ... But I think he passed away. You nonviolent lunatics are so rare.
 
2013-07-09 03:01:35 PM  

Zimmy: So has someone tagged the White House yet?


How about Dick Cheney's house?
Or every police station in the country?
Ooh, do Ted Nugent!
 
2013-07-09 03:01:46 PM  

Calmamity: Kyosuke: regulated"

I don't want to tell you something you already know, but that word did not mean what you apparently think it did. Regulated is a gunsmithing term. It means the guns can hit what they're aiming at.


Citation needed.  Particularly given that the word 'regulated' is applied to the militia, not their arms, and is therefore most likely to mean 'well-ordered and disciplined' or 'covered by many laws and rules'.
 
2013-07-09 03:02:49 PM  

mrlewish: Funny how second amendmenters hate it when people use the first against them.


To violate their implicit right to privacy, as guaranteed by the Constitution?  Yes, we do, and so should you.
 
2013-07-09 03:04:19 PM  

Fark It: Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.

Gun control hero and billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg hears you, citizen.

Stop and Frisk.


No, I meant actual random stops, and of drivers. And NO, I don't support this at all. I don't support drunk driving stops or seatbelt checks. My point is that second amendmenters are totally fine with those other two stops, but they'd throw a massive hissy fit if the cops had gun check points (that weren't targeted to browns).
 
2013-07-09 03:04:36 PM  

StopLurkListen: I'd ask if you are a certain lawyer in San Francisco who would fire a cannon (blank charge) on his office balcony to celebrate winning a case ... But I think he passed away. You nonviolent lunatics are so rare.


No, I'm not.

And I do occasionally fire my cannon with projectiles (tin can half-full of cement, weighing roughly 1 lb), it's just that I do it where I know it's reasonably safe.
 
2013-07-09 03:04:55 PM  
I think the quotation marks say it all, this guy is the kind if double that ASSumes that gun owners intentionally target children: "Also, check out this excellent article on the epidemic of "accidental" shootings of children:"

Fark this guy.
 
2013-07-09 03:06:20 PM  
It would be hard to misuse because it's fundamentally useless.  Something like a third of the country are gun owners.  There's probably 1000 gun owners who never bother anyone for every one who does.  You might as well tag cars that have been known to exceed the speed limit.
 
2013-07-09 03:08:26 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: No, I meant actual random stops, and of drivers. And NO, I don't support this at all. I don't support drunk driving stops or seatbelt checks. My point is that second amendmenters are totally fine with those other two stops, but they'd throw a massive hissy fit if the cops had gun check points (that weren't targeted to browns).


I don't claim to know much about being stopped at checkpoints as I've only gone through two in my life, but don't you have to report to a cop that you have a gun on you if they stop you for any reason?
 
2013-07-09 03:11:50 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: My point is that second amendmenters are totally fine with those other two stops, but they'd throw a massive hissy fit if the cops had gun check points (that weren't targeted to browns).


You're wrong.  I'm a perfect case in point:  I hate the idea of random checkpoints.  In fact, I do everything I can to warn others about them when I see them.  I actually get on the radio (I'm a ham operator) and let people know about it.

One of the *BIG* ones that pisses me off is the one that the police set up on the Northway and other points during the Americade in Lake George, NY every year, to "inspect" the motorcycles.  Cars and trucks don't have to stop, but if you're riding or otherwise schlepping a motorcycle, you have to stop.

I've never had to stop:  I haven't owned a motorcycle for nearly 20 years now, and when I did, I took the back roads to the Americade, because fark that shiat.  It's farkin' unamerican.  You see someone operating unsafely, or with some obvious equipment issue, by all means, pull their ass over.  But this "Papers, please" shiat is the kind of thing that should be relegated to the dustbin of Nazi and Soviet history.
 
2013-07-09 03:14:23 PM  

mrlewish: Funny how second amendmenters hate it when people use the first against them.


No, they really just don't like it when ignorant morons start dictating things to them.
 
2013-07-09 03:14:57 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Fark It: Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.

Gun control hero and billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg hears you, citizen.

Stop and Frisk.

No, I meant actual random stops, and of drivers. And NO, I don't support this at all. I don't support drunk driving stops or seatbelt checks. My point is that second amendmenters are totally fine with those other two stops, but they'd throw a massive hissy fit if the cops had gun check points (that weren't targeted to browns).


Bullshiat. I don't know any other gun owners (I know a bunch) that are ok with such blatant violations of the 4th.
 
2013-07-09 03:16:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Fark It: Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, this is bullshiat, and I say that as a libtard who thinks our gun laws are too lax.

That being said, why do we have random drunk driving and seatbelt checks but not random illegally-possessed gun checks? Not that I support a police state, but I think illegal guns kill more people than no-seatbelt-wearing-drunk-drivers.

Gun control hero and billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg hears you, citizen.

Stop and Frisk.

No, I meant actual random stops, and of drivers. And NO, I don't support this at all. I don't support drunk driving stops or seatbelt checks. My point is that second amendmenters are totally fine with those other two stops, but they'd throw a massive hissy fit if the cops had gun check points (that weren't targeted to browns).


Where do you live that you can have seatbelt checks? A lot of places have it classified as a "Secondary Offense", meaning that even if they see you drive by without one, they can't stop you unless you do something else illegal.
 
2013-07-09 03:17:49 PM  
How does this app fact-check the claims? Putting a boilerplate "possible" before everything does not provide a credible liability shield. It's barely a fig-leaf, these days. If a good attorney can demonstrate that the "possible" is used so heavily as to be meaningless, it's presence could be discounted by a court. One could see, under certain circumstances, that this app could be used in a defamatory fashion. Hypothetically: Someone who is a "respected" member of a community that has a very hostile attitude toward firearms ownership, and part of that "respectable" status has entailed speaking out in public against private firearm ownership. Just tag that person with this app, and legally substantive damage can be done to his reputation, particularly if that person's livelihood in some way hinges upon maintaining that "respectable" status in the anti-firearm locality.

Now, this should not be taken as encouragement to get the app and then start tagging various anti-gun individuals, willy-nilly, as being perpetrators of unsafe firearm practices. That would be naughty.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report