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.

(Washington Times)   "I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air"   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 155
    More: Dumbass, Jill Biden, shotgun in the air, shotguns  
•       •       •

3670 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2013 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-18 01:15:57 PM
He shoulda ignored Joe and pointed it at a Librul!

See?
 
2013-07-18 01:17:01 PM
We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.
 
2013-07-18 01:19:46 PM

gnosis301: Republicans:  paragons of personal responsibility.


Does'nt sound like a republican to me.

Republicans shoot to kill.
 
2013-07-18 01:20:59 PM
M-O-O-N.  That spells "greenlight".
 
2013-07-18 01:21:31 PM

Elegy: gnosis301: Republicans:  paragons of personal responsibility.

Does'nt sound like a republican to me.

Republicans shoot to kill.


media1.s-nbcnews.com
 
2013-07-18 01:22:14 PM

Mikey1969: Esc7: And if he shot the thieves, he wouldn't be in trouble.

FTFA:
A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."


That sergeant  might want to reread Delaware self-defense laws:

§ 466. Same - Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

§ 821. Criminal trespass in the third degree; a violation.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully upon real property.


It's not necessarily a good idea, but it's legal.
 
2013-07-18 01:22:49 PM

Elegy: gnosis301: Republicans:  paragons of personal responsibility.

Does'nt sound like a republican to me.

Republicans shoot to kill.


Like Cheney.
 
2013-07-18 01:25:01 PM

DarwiOdrade: dittybopper: Maybe next time he should shoot through a closed door, which is something else Biden suggests.

Oscar Pistorius would like a word.


And some legs.
 
2013-07-18 01:26:46 PM

redmid17: Mikey1969: Esc7: And if he shot the thieves, he wouldn't be in trouble.

FTFA:
A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

That sergeant  might want to reread Delaware self-defense laws:

§ 466. Same - Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

§ 821. Criminal trespass in the third degree; a violation.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully upon real property.

It's not necessarily a good idea, but it's legal.


Actually, I think the bolded one applies:  He thought they were trying to steal/steal from his car.
 
2013-07-18 01:27:45 PM

HeadLever: A Dark Evil Omen: Well, I wouldn't say being a centrist is "dumb" per se,

When it comes to guns and politics, you can bet that the majority of 'suggestions' that comes out of the typical democrat's mouth will be pretty damn dumb.


You should listen to the smart insights of a Republican.

media.theweek.com
 
2013-07-18 01:29:26 PM

dittybopper: redmid17: Mikey1969: Esc7: And if he shot the thieves, he wouldn't be in trouble.

FTFA:
A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

That sergeant  might want to reread Delaware self-defense laws:

§ 466. Same - Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

§ 821. Criminal trespass in the third degree; a violation.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully upon real property.

It's not necessarily a good idea, but it's legal.

Actually, I think the bolded one applies:  He thought they were trying to steal/steal from his car.


3 probably applies more but I was picturing his car as sitting in his driveway. It could well have been on the street.
 
2013-07-18 01:30:35 PM

Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.


I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.
 
2013-07-18 01:34:01 PM
"The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

LOL, as long as you kill the trespassers your story is treated as unquestionable truth.
 
2013-07-18 01:34:28 PM

HeadLever: LasersHurt: Dumb people are only responsible for their actions when they follow the advice of a Democrat.

There, much more to the point.


And that's why every study says that blue states are the dumbest in the country.

EVERY!
SINGLE!
ONE!
 
2013-07-18 01:34:38 PM

Elegy: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.


Where did I say that? It's funny how you dopes need to make shiat up to live in your fantasy world that you are smarter than everyone.

Where did I said what I bolded? I never did. Do you know what are "warning shot" is? because it's not what you just described.
 
2013-07-18 01:37:46 PM

Elegy: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.


It's stupid when it's full of idiots like you who think a "warning shot" is "Firing random and unaimed shots off "
 
2013-07-18 01:37:46 PM

Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.


For 20 years, if your a black woman who doesn't fulfill her wifely duties by letting her husband beat her.
 
2013-07-18 01:42:21 PM

Corvus: Elegy: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.

Where did I say that? It's funny how you dopes need to make shiat up to live in your fantasy world that you are smarter than everyone.

Where did I said what I bolded? I never did. Do you know what are "warning shot" is? because it's not what you just described.


Tell me then: how would you fire a warning shot that isn't random and unaimed?
 
2013-07-18 01:44:22 PM
Warning shots are reckless.
 
2013-07-18 01:46:32 PM

Elegy: Corvus: Elegy: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.

Where did I say that? It's funny how you dopes need to make shiat up to live in your fantasy world that you are smarter than everyone.

Where did I said what I bolded? I never did. Do you know what are "warning shot" is? because it's not what you just described.

Tell me then: how would you fire a warning shot that isn't random and unaimed?


My guess would be that they deliberately and purposely aim a shot to miss the person. I think it's still pretty negligent, dangerous, and/or reckless but a warning shot doesn't have to be random or unaimed.
 
2013-07-18 01:47:29 PM

The Lone Gunman: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

For 20 years, if your a black woman who doesn't fulfill her wifely duties by letting her husband beat her.


Please stop referring to that case. It is a truly terrible example and does not help at all.
 
2013-07-18 01:48:24 PM

Corvus: Elegy: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

I bet you biatch sarcastically about "responsible gun owners" quite frequently, and yet you want to decriminalize one of the most irresponsible things you can do with a gun.

What a great idea. Hey everybody! Firing random and unaimed shots off is now perfectly legal and OK to do!

Tell me how stupid our country is again.

It's stupid when it's full of idiots like you who think a "warning shot" is "Firing random and unaimed shots off "


A warning shot is nothing but a negligent discharge. And it is by its nature unaimed--sure it is presumably aimed away from whomever you are trying to warn, but your attention is on the threat, not what lies beyond it. Even fired straight into the ground, a warning shot can easily ricochet and hit an unintended target. As a gun owner, you are responsible for the final disposition of every bullet you fire--that's why 'warning' shots are a very stupid, and legitimately illegal practice.

If you have time for a warning shot, you have pulled your gun prematurely (when the threat is not yet a legitimate danger) and should also be looking at brandishing charges. Words are for warnings, not bullets.
 
2013-07-18 01:52:14 PM
Biden plagiarized that advice from someone else.
 
Bf+
2013-07-18 01:53:15 PM
It worked, didn't it?
 
2013-07-18 01:53:17 PM

odinsposse: The Lone Gunman: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

For 20 years, if your a black woman who doesn't fulfill her wifely duties by letting her husband beat her.

Please stop referring to that case. It is a truly terrible example and does not help at all.


Yes it does. It shows quite clearly how utterly batshiat insane your gun culture and laws have become.
 
2013-07-18 01:54:03 PM

Codenamechaz: I'm pretty sure the VP made this recommendation when it came to home invasion, not because you might have maybe thought you saw two people who weren't there breaking into your car.


No, TFA had the entire quote.  All he said was, "if there's ever a problem, ..."  He did not qualify what type of "problem" justifies firing off two shells into the air in violation of law.
 
2013-07-18 01:54:14 PM
Yup.

Dedmon: Dedmon: meat0918: And Joe was an idiot to say it.

What goes up, must come down, and his advice could have killed someone.

I assure you, without a doubt in my mind, that falling shotgun-shot pellets are not going to even break your skin.

If he was using a slug, yea, he could kill someone, but I assume it was just bird, or even buck shot. I know this from first hand knowledge.

/was hunting across a huge field from another group, and every so often they'd shoot at a bird and some of their pellets would fall on us, and I"m sure it was the same otherwise.

I would like to clarify. I know that falling shot wont break your skin, I don't know first hand what kind of ammo he used.


You could get an eye injury , or it could lodge under the skin and cause a nasty infection.
 
2013-07-18 01:54:17 PM

redmid17: Mikey1969: Esc7: And if he shot the thieves, he wouldn't be in trouble.

FTFA:
A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

That sergeant  might want to reread Delaware self-defense laws:

§ 466. Same - Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or
(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

§ 821. Criminal trespass in the third degree; a violation.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully upon real property.

It's not necessarily a good idea, but it's legal.


Delaware law makes a distinction between Force and Deadly Force.  From the same section, subsection C defines the increased requirements for Deadly Force, which can only be applied if the criminal is trying to steal your entire residence or you feel you are under imminent risk of death or serious injury:

(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

 The City of Wilmington may have their own statutes that further limit justification for force, but after digging around the city codes for a bit I couldn't find it.

I did find it amusing however that in the City of Wilmington -

1. Slingshots are forbidden

2. Nunchucks (nunchaku) are forbidden

3. Skateboarding is regulated under the section of the code dealing with weapons violations.
 
2013-07-18 01:56:05 PM
He was referring to preventing a home invasion, in self defense, on your own property.

But don't let facts get in the way of your poor decisions.

/still not good advice
 
2013-07-18 01:56:05 PM

dittybopper: This story is about 2 people who don't know the law.  One is a misinformed idiot from Jerkwater USA who has no clue that firing a shotgun into the air in a town could be dangerous, and the other is not the vice president.


Keep repeating it, someday it'll be true if you believe it hard enough.

Terminal velocity, think in terms of hailstones.

Then shut it.
 
2013-07-18 01:58:43 PM

TuteTibiImperes: (c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.


Both of those could have been true at the time.  I don't think it would have been right, shooting two car thieves, but I believe he could have satisfied 2b by saying it was likely reasonable attacking 2 guys with his fist would cause him to be seriously injured.
 
2013-07-18 01:59:09 PM
Lulz. I like it. Wonder if he planned it out or if it was an after the fact inspired troll defense.
 
2013-07-18 02:00:33 PM
.

new_york_monty: A warning shot is nothing but a negligent discharge.


Nope, these can definatly be two mutually exclusive actions.  just because there is a correlation of these actions in your mind, does not prove any causation.
 
2013-07-18 02:00:44 PM

Gordon Bennett: odinsposse: The Lone Gunman: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

For 20 years, if your a black woman who doesn't fulfill her wifely duties by letting her husband beat her.

Please stop referring to that case. It is a truly terrible example and does not help at all.

Yes it does. It shows quite clearly how utterly batshiat insane your gun culture and laws have become.


The mandatory minimums are something that can be brought up for debate. However leaving a house, violating a restraining order, and negligently discharging a firearm AT your ex and two minors is a great way to be convicted. Hell right before she fires the gun she says "I have something for you" after he says "I'm out of here." It was on the 911 call.
 
2013-07-18 02:01:41 PM

dragonfire77: Elegy: FLASE FLAG. This guy is obviously a conservative plant,
out to discredit the administration's views on gun control.

Study it out.

No need to study anything.  This is from the Washignton Times.  No need to go any further.


The Washington Times actually got it from a local news channel where this happened, and they provided a link to that story, but you obviously didn't know that because you couldn't bear to look at the mean, awful Washington Times.
 
2013-07-18 02:02:03 PM

HeadLever: A Dark Evil Omen: Well, I wouldn't say being a centrist is "dumb" per se,

When it comes to guns and politics, you can bet that the majority of 'suggestions' that comes out of the typical democrat's mouth will be pretty damn dumb.


...in a thread where the Republican suggests pellets coming down at terminal velocity are deadly.

Yep, Poe's law strikes again.
 
2013-07-18 02:02:08 PM

TheBigJerk: dittybopper: This story is about 2 people who don't know the law.  One is a misinformed idiot from Jerkwater USA who has no clue that firing a shotgun into the air in a town could be dangerous, and the other is not the vice president.

Keep repeating it, someday it'll be true if you believe it hard enough.

Terminal velocity, think in terms of hailstones.


so you are saying that hailstones are not dangerous.
well, that explains why everyone says you should hang out outside during a hailstorm.
 
2013-07-18 02:02:10 PM

justtray: But don't let facts get in the way of your poor decisions.

/still not good advice


Lol.  Some ironic gold right there, Jerry.
 
2013-07-18 02:03:31 PM

TheBigJerk: ...in a thread where the Republican suggests pellets coming down at terminal velocity are deadly.


This point has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans can also say dumb things.
 
2013-07-18 02:03:56 PM

HeadLever: .new_york_monty: A warning shot is nothing but a negligent discharge.

Nope, these can definatly be two mutually exclusive actions.  just because there is a correlation of these actions in your mind, does not prove any causation.


In certain places, perhaps, a warning shot is an appropriate action. I mean for a civilian in the USA, under the laws of our country, a warning shot is a negligent discharge. You know, for the reasons you snipped from the post you quoted.
 
2013-07-18 02:04:21 PM

Gordon Bennett: odinsposse: The Lone Gunman: Corvus: We live in a pretty stupid country where if you shoot someone down you get off but if you shoot warning shots to scare them off you go to jail.

For 20 years, if your a black woman who doesn't fulfill her wifely duties by letting her husband beat her.

Please stop referring to that case. It is a truly terrible example and does not help at all.

Yes it does. It shows quite clearly how utterly batshiat insane your gun culture and laws have become.


More accurately, it demonstrates the willful ignorance of many individuals who complain about the firearm regulations of the United States of America.
 
2013-07-18 02:06:03 PM

TheBigJerk: ...in a thread where the Republican suggests pellets coming down at terminal velocity are deadly


And which Republican said that?  Not seeing it anywhere.  Or are you making stuff up again?
 
2013-07-18 02:07:04 PM

new_york_monty: under the laws of our country, a warning shot is a negligent discharge.


State said law, please.
 
2013-07-18 02:07:21 PM
 
2013-07-18 02:07:25 PM
Party of Personal Responsibility strikes again!

/I'm guessing, since this guy just does whatever Biden says, he also voted for President Obama's second term and is deeply in favor of gay marriage!
 
2013-07-18 02:08:20 PM
The quote in the article is advice to his wife, I don't know where they live but where I live, in a  rural area, you could go out on your porch and fire a shotgun off and nobody would know the difference.
 
2013-07-18 02:08:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Biden plagiarized that advice from someone else.


Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
 
2013-07-18 02:14:37 PM
Also, the washington times apparently added the word [up] to his quote.. kinda sleazy of them but it is the washington times so.. you know...
 
2013-07-18 02:14:57 PM

HeadLever: new_york_monty: under the laws of our country, a warning shot is a negligent discharge.

State said law, please.


I'm going to take a half step back here and state that, under the laws in most parts of our country, a warning shot is a highly stupid idea that will likely be considered a negligent discharge (even if the particular phrase is not used) but can also be considered improper use of deadly force. I won't say there's never an appropriate time for a warning shot, but it's opening a legal can of worms that the shooter probably doesn't want to open.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warnin g- shots/
 
2013-07-18 02:22:08 PM

HeadLever: A Dark Evil Omen: Well, I wouldn't say being a centrist is "dumb" per se,

When it comes to guns and politics, you can bet that the majority of 'suggestions' that comes out of the typical democrat's mouth will be pretty damn dumb.


I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of calls to arm fetuses or how Agenda 21 will disarm America.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 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