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)   Gun advocacy group insists that them raffling off the same gun that killed Travyon Martin was totally unintentional. Why were they doing it on the day that George Zimmerman's defense attorney was scheduled to speak, you ask? Just a coincidence   (opposingviews.com) divider line 277
    More: Unlikely, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, advocacy group, Gun advocacy, Florida Today, Republican Liberty Caucus, handguns  
•       •       •

2767 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2013 at 9:47 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-29 04:28:03 PM
Raff
 
2013-10-29 04:29:52 PM
Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.
 
2013-10-29 04:36:21 PM
What's this? That website is a POS. I get a second in and stupid windows pop up asking if I'd be interested in their other bullshiat.

fark Opposing Views.

Now that that is out of the way, 

mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.


What's going on here?
 
2013-10-29 05:16:30 PM
ZIMMERMAN! DRIN-.... uuhhhhhghh.

Ow. You feel that? Right there on my side. Just the mention of that guy's name and my liver is like, actually throbbing.

Ow.
 
2013-10-29 05:30:37 PM
That's going to look nice hanging on some proud redneck's wall next to his n***er hunting permit.
 
2013-10-29 06:34:04 PM
Justice was served
 
2013-10-29 08:22:10 PM
They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.
 
2013-10-29 08:28:25 PM

dr_blasto: fark Opposing Views.


Did Wampler pay for all these Opposing View links?
 
2013-10-29 08:28:46 PM
1) It isn't the same gun. When someone kills someone else with an Impala do we recoil at buying one off the lot?

2) There are millions like it. I have several handguns and I can state with near certainty that someone has been killed by someone wielding a firearm exactly like mine. But it's not mine, so it doesn't matter.

3) Boy, they're really stretching for ways to demonize guns, aren't they?

4) Next time make it a Sig Sauer or a Glock instead of a POS Kel-Tec. You'll raise more money that way.
 
2013-10-29 08:52:49 PM
Also of note: the fact Dick Cheney is still alive is proof that there are no gods and karma is bullshiat.
 
2013-10-29 08:55:51 PM
Wtf thread am I posting in? That's it. Done for today.
 
2013-10-29 08:57:47 PM
I'm at work today, so I can't drink. Guess I'm going into tomorrow already owing from today
 
2013-10-29 09:25:48 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: 1) It isn't the same gun. When someone kills someone else with an Impala do we recoil at buying one off the lot?

2) There are millions like it. I have several handguns and I can state with near certainty that someone has been killed by someone wielding a firearm exactly like mine. But it's not mine, so it doesn't matter.

3) Boy, they're really stretching for ways to demonize guns, aren't they?

4) Next time make it a Sig Sauer or a Glock instead of a POS Kel-Tec. You'll raise more money that way.



Yeah, it's all a big coincidence.
 
2013-10-29 09:37:19 PM

Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 1) It isn't the same gun. When someone kills someone else with an Impala do we recoil at buying one off the lot?

2) There are millions like it. I have several handguns and I can state with near certainty that someone has been killed by someone wielding a firearm exactly like mine. But it's not mine, so it doesn't matter.

3) Boy, they're really stretching for ways to demonize guns, aren't they?

4) Next time make it a Sig Sauer or a Glock instead of a POS Kel-Tec. You'll raise more money that way.


Yeah, it's all a big coincidence.


I didn't say it was unintentional. But since it's not actually the same gun, why get upset about it? DNFTT.
 
2013-10-29 09:44:11 PM
That's in poor taste.

Are we still going to bicker about this?
 
2013-10-29 09:44:59 PM

dr_blasto: Wtf thread am I posting in? That's it. Done for today.


Meh. Kind of works.
 
2013-10-29 09:51:36 PM
They just need to wait until racist shiatbag Holder releases Zimmerman's property so they can auction off the real thing.
 
2013-10-29 09:52:28 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 1) It isn't the same gun. When someone kills someone else with an Impala do we recoil at buying one off the lot?

2) There are millions like it. I have several handguns and I can state with near certainty that someone has been killed by someone wielding a firearm exactly like mine. But it's not mine, so it doesn't matter.

3) Boy, they're really stretching for ways to demonize guns, aren't they?

4) Next time make it a Sig Sauer or a Glock instead of a POS Kel-Tec. You'll raise more money that way.


Yeah, it's all a big coincidence.

I didn't say it was unintentional. But since it's not actually the same gun, why get upset about it? DNFTT.


Why do they gotta be dicks about it? It was absolutely intentional. It's fine to like guns. It's not fine to be assholes.
 
2013-10-29 09:52:55 PM
A) Yet another "Opposing Views" link
B) About guns
C) About CISM
D) On Fark.com


No thanks, I'll just offer a blanket response: anti gun people are idiots.
 
2013-10-29 09:52:58 PM
Opposing view?

More like opposing reality.

'Scuse me, I have to go find the raffle.

I want to own a piece of history.
 
2013-10-29 09:54:43 PM
I take it that there are people who can't get over the jury verdict yet.
 
2013-10-29 09:54:48 PM
You know what's 40 times as deadly as guns? McDonald's cheeseburgers; that's what.
 
2013-10-29 09:57:01 PM

Nabb1: That's in poor taste.


Amen.
 
2013-10-29 09:57:51 PM
Why is it these "gun advocacy" groups make the sane and sensible gun owners look like loons?
 
2013-10-29 09:58:32 PM
So what?
 
2013-10-29 09:58:37 PM
Oh FFS! Do they actually think everyone else is as dim as they are?
 
2013-10-29 09:58:42 PM

Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.


Why wouldn't they?  We know it's effective for self-defense.  Real-world tested.
 
2013-10-29 09:59:57 PM

AngryDragon: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Why wouldn't they?  We know it's effective for self-defense.  Real-world tested.


Pretty much this.
 
2013-10-29 10:00:26 PM
Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.
 
2013-10-29 10:02:49 PM
DRINK!
 
2013-10-29 10:05:07 PM
Is it me or do these "gun advocacy" groups make the rest of gun owners look bad?
 
2013-10-29 10:07:56 PM
Kel-Tec makes some interesting designs, but their quality is crap. That is why the Ruger LCP is such a sales success compared to the Kel-Tec P3AT it is based on, because Ruger can make a quality firearm.
 
2013-10-29 10:08:15 PM
Oh jeez this shiat again? KKK killed 3500 blacks in its lifetime as a racist organization, African americans kill each other that same amount in less than 6 months per year.
Sadly I agree with the KKK on this, keep focusing on george zimmerman - since there is a blind eye turned to the other thousands of problems.

/anyone else tired of this topic? kind of like the kardashians, you just can't get them to go away.
 
2013-10-29 10:08:16 PM

dr_blasto: Also of note: the fact Dick Cheney is still alive is proof that there are no benevolent gods and karma is bullshiat.




Fixed that for you.
 
2013-10-29 10:09:20 PM

Nabb1: That's in poor taste.

Are we still going to bicker about this?


I guess we have to. One side decided to use the weapon of choice in a raffle. Brought it up in poor taste, as you have mentioned, with all kinds of apologies.

It's sad that none of the ticket buyers will get to win a Zimmerman autographed Bible.
 
2013-10-29 10:11:26 PM
Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...
 
2013-10-29 10:12:38 PM

dr_blasto: Also of note: the fact Dick Cheney is still alive is proof that there are no gods and karma is bullshiat.


dr_blasto: Wtf thread am I posting in? That's it. Done for today.


IDK man, your comments made the most sense.
 
2013-10-29 10:12:42 PM
Wait. Are people still butthurt about the verdict months after the fact?
 
2013-10-29 10:13:21 PM
A Kel-Tec PF9? What a piece of garbage. I'm not even a gun snob and *I* wouldn't want one of those. I feel like I'm slumming it enough with my Tauruses. But thankfully...the M1 Garands are on their way to redeem me.

Seriously...gun nuts are the the worst kind of assholes, as much of my recent arms experience and this story make clear. A farking BIBLE and a 9mm? Republican Jesus, indeed.
 
2013-10-29 10:13:52 PM
Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.
 
2013-10-29 10:14:51 PM

axeeugene: M1 Garands


CMP? Got mine in the spring. I love the thing.
 
2013-10-29 10:15:40 PM

WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...


I'm sure she offered some valuable insight that Congress needed--especially about the "Stand Your Ground" law that played no actual part in her thug-son's early demise or the subsequent trial...
 
2013-10-29 10:15:43 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: That's going to look nice hanging on some proud redneck's wall next to his n***er hunting permit.


Man, any excuse to use the n-word...
 
2013-10-29 10:16:27 PM
Fark.com: come for the gun stories, stay for the blackface arguments. This website is starting to become a one trick pony, especially when many stories are originating from Opposing Views.
 
2013-10-29 10:21:09 PM

udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.



1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.
 
2013-10-29 10:21:37 PM
Who cares? Is that particular gun any more dangerous than any other gun?
 
2013-10-29 10:23:04 PM

Frank N Stein: Wait. Are people still butthurt about the verdict months after the fact?


Decades.  It will be decades that they are biatching about this.  They're as bad as the ultra-conservatives still frothing about Roe v. Wade.  It will never end.
 
2013-10-29 10:23:17 PM

udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.


I dunno. Maybe I run with a different crowd but I have a different experience. Sure, I'm over 20 (but under 30), but gun owning as a thing doesn't draw any judgments like you're describing from most people. I mean, I live in liberal Chicago and most reactions I'd get if I brought up that I own a gun is "Oh, that's cool. Did you see the Bears game?"
Now, if a topic came up involving our hobbies and I stated that I enjoy duck hunting (or a similar topic in which I might mention I own gun) and the guy was being gay about it, I'd probably not be friends with such a person. Because really, who would want to be friends with such a stick in the mud?
 
2013-10-29 10:23:31 PM

JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.


Sweetie, that word doesn't mean what you think.
 
2013-10-29 10:24:53 PM

James10952001: Who cares? Is that particular gun any more dangerous than any other gun?


Only if you're a DA pushing for a conviction, a gun-control group working the death-from-a-thousand-cuts strategy, or a legislator looking to pass gun bans. Otherwise, no, not really.
 
2013-10-29 10:24:58 PM

twiztedjustin: A) Yet another "Opposing Views" link
B) About guns
C) About CISM
D) On Fark.com


No thanks, I'll just offer a blanket response: anti gun people are idiots.


Your well written and intelligent contribution to this discussion should be admired.

And holy shiat, how many troll accounts are posting in this thread?  Is it all just one person?
 
2013-10-29 10:25:00 PM

James10952001: Who cares? Is that particular gun any more dangerous than any other gun?




Yes, it is more likely to malfunction in a self defense situation than a quality firearm, allowing the owner to get assaulted or killed.
 
2013-10-29 10:26:42 PM
Why is this offensive, exactly?  It's a fairly common model of gun (albeit kind of a cheaply-made one, were Glock and Springfield both out of stock when they went shopping or something?), and the kid didn't die because of the manufacturer's brand imprint, he died because some idiot pulled the trigger on a firearm in a situation of questionable appropriateness at best.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: That's going to look nice hanging on some proud redneck's wall next to his n***er hunting permit.


Again, it's a Kel-Tec.  While common enough, it's only barely above "embarrassing to be seen with at the firing range" territory, it's nowhere near wall-worthy.

// Not that anyone hangs a pistol on their wall anyhow, that'd be ridiculous, but in theory.
 
2013-10-29 10:27:00 PM

udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?


I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.
 
2013-10-29 10:27:36 PM

Frank N Stein: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.

I dunno. Maybe I run with a different crowd but I have a different experience. Sure, I'm over 20 (but under 30), but gun owning as a thing doesn't draw any judgments like you're describing from most people. I mean, I live in liberal Chicago and most reactions I'd get if I brought up that I own a gun is "Oh, that's cool. Did you see the Bears game?"
Now, if a topic came up involving our hobbies and I stated that I enjoy duck hunting (or a similar topic in which I might mention I own gun) and the guy was being gay about it, I'd probably not be friends with such a person. Because really, who would want to be friends with such a stick in the mud?


Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.
 
2013-10-29 10:27:56 PM
Oooh another slobbering gun control thread. Never gets old, you know
 
2013-10-29 10:29:32 PM

Frank N Stein: axeeugene: M1 Garands

CMP? Got mine in the spring. I love the thing.


Ayup. Can't wait. Looks like they'll be on their way in the next week or so...or one of them. at least. Well worth the wait for the price and the quality! Already got the slings, the ammo, the enblocs, and a repro ammo belt waiting for the guns' arrival!

But reading the CMP forums sometimes makes me feel like I need to take a bath afterward. The moderators keep the place pretty clean, but you can see the misplaced (displaced?) seething anger, racism, and sick single-minded obsession seeping through the cracks daily. I've thought about outing myself as one of those mythical liberal gun owners, but I know it'd just baffle them and open me up to all manner of abuse.
 
2013-10-29 10:33:05 PM

axeeugene: Frank N Stein: axeeugene: M1 Garands

CMP? Got mine in the spring. I love the thing.

Ayup. Can't wait. Looks like they'll be on their way in the next week or so...or one of them. at least. Well worth the wait for the price and the quality! Already got the slings, the ammo, the enblocs, and a repro ammo belt waiting for the guns' arrival!

But reading the CMP forums sometimes makes me feel like I need to take a bath afterward. The moderators keep the place pretty clean, but you can see the misplaced (displaced?) seething anger, racism, and sick single-minded obsession seeping through the cracks daily. I've thought about outing myself as one of those mythical liberal gun owners, but I know it'd just baffle them and open me up to all manner of abuse.




As a left leaning moderate gun owner, I feel your pain. There are some crazy right wing conspiracies on gun forums.
 
2013-10-29 10:34:58 PM

axeeugene: Frank N Stein: axeeugene: M1 Garands

CMP? Got mine in the spring. I love the thing.

Ayup. Can't wait. Looks like they'll be on their way in the next week or so...or one of them. at least. Well worth the wait for the price and the quality! Already got the slings, the ammo, the enblocs, and a repro ammo belt waiting for the guns' arrival!

But reading the CMP forums sometimes makes me feel like I need to take a bath afterward. The moderators keep the place pretty clean, but you can see the misplaced (displaced?) seething anger, racism, and sick single-minded obsession seeping through the cracks daily. I've thought about outing myself as one of those mythical liberal gun owners, but I know it'd just baffle them and open me up to all manner of abuse.


Yeah, it's like going to a gun show and seeing how many booths are selling copies of "The Turner Diaries."
 
2013-10-29 10:35:27 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-29 10:35:32 PM
Fark Headline: the same gun that killed Travyon Martin
Actual Article: Handgun Model That Killed Trayvon Martin
Subby: douchenozzle
 
2013-10-29 10:36:10 PM

The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.


It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.
 
2013-10-29 10:37:11 PM

JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.


Yeah, it's racist.

Let's ignore the fact that 3 people were killed and 23 wounded in Chicago the weekend of September 20th.  Pretty much a typical weekend in that city.  On the fourth of July weekend it was 72 people.  The average weekly combat casualties for US forces in Iraq was 10.

Let that sink in for a moment.

We take 2-7 times greater casualties in the city of Chicago than we took on average in a farking war zone.  Most of the victims are usually black, most of the shooters are usually black.  But THIS case gets all the attention, and why?  Because the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.

But we're the racists.  I think you better look in a mirror.
 
2013-10-29 10:37:58 PM

axeeugene: But reading the CMP forums sometimes makes me feel like I need to take a bath afterward. The moderators keep the place pretty clean, but you can see the misplaced (displaced?) seething anger, racism, and sick single-minded obsession seeping through the cracks daily. I've thought about outing myself as one of those mythical liberal gun owners, but I know it'd just baffle them and open me up to all manner of abuse.


This is a big issue that I have.  I was in service, and I am quite active as a gun owner, but there is an assumption from a lot of the gun people I encounter that because of those things, I will be more open to various levels of frothy misplaced political anger.

It really sends them for a loop when I explain why the Republican Party at the national level does not support the troops (McCains vote against he post 9/11 GI bill for example) or why I think the President was (and is) far more pro-gun than Romney (of the Massachusetts AWB).

The undertone on a lot of gun forums is really sketchy though, one of the main reasons I don't contribute to any of them.
 
2013-10-29 10:41:27 PM

Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.


This. Zimmerman is a piece of shiat, and so are his supporters, but this is some manufactured outrage.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:04 PM
I am a racist white person obsessed with guns, which is why I listen to nothing but gangsta rap that lyrically glorifies guns, specifically ones in 9MM caliber. Just like all my other white racist friends, who are also white and racist.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:16 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.


The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
 
2013-10-29 10:46:15 PM
The WindowLicker:
The undertone on a lot of gun forums is really sketchy though, one of the main reasons I don't contribute to any of them.

Yeah, I've definitely noticed that in my short time as an enthusiast. The CMP forum is about the only one I'd consider contributing to thanks to the pretty strong insistence that political discussions move elsewhere. Yet even there, I suspect if I outed myself as an Obama supporter I'd be crucified. Some people aren't worth arguing with...or even talking to.

I've grown to like guns. I've always been a (cautious) supporter of Second Amendment rights. But I'll never understand the gun culture's increasingly rabid nature, nor would I ever *ever* consider membership in that poisonous organization, the NRA.
 
2013-10-29 10:46:27 PM

udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.

Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.
 
2013-10-29 10:47:01 PM

udhq: The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional


SCOTUS actually refused to review the case for non-specific reasons.  It was never tested.
 
2013-10-29 10:48:07 PM

AngryDragon: Frank N Stein: Wait. Are people still butthurt about the verdict months after the fact?

Decades.  It will be decades that they are biatching about this.  They're as bad as the ultra-conservatives still frothing about Roe v. Wade.  It will never end.


So gun stores have been bombed by pro-trayvon people? Gunsmiths have been assassinated?
 
2013-10-29 10:48:26 PM

udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.


Gun control and "protecting Second Amendment rights" are not the same thing. Does not California still have Second Amendment rights? The Supreme Court said in their gun decisions that gun control, subject to judicial review, is permissible. Which one are you talking about, the Second Amendment or gun control?
 
2013-10-29 10:49:25 PM

AngryDragon: JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.

Yeah, it's racist.

Let's ignore the fact that 3 people were killed and 23 wounded in Chicago the weekend of September 20th.  Pretty much a typical weekend in that city.  On the fourth of July weekend it was 72 people.  The average weekly combat casualties for US forces in Iraq was 10.

Let that sink in for a moment.

We take 2-7 times greater casualties in the city of Chicago than we took on average in a farking war zone.  Most of the victims are usually black, most of the shooters are usually black.  But THIS case gets all the attention, and why?  Because the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.

But we're the racists.  I think you better look in a mirror.


Even scarier? Chicago isn't even in the top ten most dangerous cities in the US.

Milwaukee made the list.
 
2013-10-29 10:49:45 PM

AngryDragon: JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.

Yeah, it's racist.

Let's ignore the fact that 3 people were killed and 23 wounded in Chicago the weekend of September 20th.  Pretty much a typical weekend in that city.  On the fourth of July weekend it was 72 people.  The average weekly combat casualties for US forces in Iraq was 10.

Let that sink in for a moment.

We take 2-7 times greater casualties in the city of Chicago than we took on average in a farking war zone.  Most of the victims are usually black, most of the shooters are usually black.  But THIS case gets all the attention, and why?  Because the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.

But we're the racists.  I think you better look in a mirror.


Call racism, and you can't even get the right country. His mom is from Peru, not Mexico.
 
2013-10-29 10:50:36 PM
Had Travyon killed Martin, he'd have gotten off on the same law and you racist pro-Zimmerman d-bags would be calling for a noose.
 
2013-10-29 10:52:03 PM

udhq: It may be a blanket statement, but it's true.


Because you say it is?
 
2013-10-29 10:52:16 PM

Mrtraveler01: Why is it these "gun advocacy" groups make the sane and sensible gun owners look like loons?


Same way Pat Robertson makes "moderate" Christians look like loons.

Same way a Muslim conference that says stoning is okay makes "moderate" Muslims look like loons.

Same way Richard Dawkins saying that a Muslim conference in Norway is "moderate Islam" makes "moderate" atheists look like loons.

Same way Rebecca Watson saying that asking a girl out for coffee is harrassment, and another accusing a man who filled her wine glass of rape, makes "moderate" feminists look like loons.

Same way Ted Cruz makes "moderate" Republicans look like loons.
 
2013-10-29 10:52:56 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Had Travyon killed Martin, he'd have gotten off on the same law and you racist pro-Zimmerman d-bags would be calling for a noose.


Stand your ground covers suicide?
 
2013-10-29 10:55:31 PM

Jill'sNipple: AngryDragon: JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.

Yeah, it's racist.

Let's ignore the fact that 3 people were killed and 23 wounded in Chicago the weekend of September 20th.  Pretty much a typical weekend in that city.  On the fourth of July weekend it was 72 people.  The average weekly combat casualties for US forces in Iraq was 10.

Let that sink in for a moment.

We take 2-7 times greater casualties in the city of Chicago than we took on average in a farking war zone.  Most of the victims are usually black, most of the shooters are usually black.  But THIS case gets all the attention, and why?  Because the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.

But we're the racists.  I think you better look in a mirror.

Call racism, and you can't even get the right country. His mom is from Peru, not Mexico.


Thank you for exactly proving my point.
 
2013-10-29 10:56:08 PM

Sgt Otter: axeeugene: Frank N Stein: axeeugene: M1 Garands

CMP? Got mine in the spring. I love the thing.

Ayup. Can't wait. Looks like they'll be on their way in the next week or so...or one of them. at least. Well worth the wait for the price and the quality! Already got the slings, the ammo, the enblocs, and a repro ammo belt waiting for the guns' arrival!

But reading the CMP forums sometimes makes me feel like I need to take a bath afterward. The moderators keep the place pretty clean, but you can see the misplaced (displaced?) seething anger, racism, and sick single-minded obsession seeping through the cracks daily. I've thought about outing myself as one of those mythical liberal gun owners, but I know it'd just baffle them and open me up to all manner of abuse.

Yeah, it's like going to a gun show and seeing how many booths are selling copies of "The Turner Diaries."


Crossroads of the West has done a good job cleaning out the kooktastic racist fools from the Southern California gun shows they manage.  There's still a bit of Anti-Obama stuff, but it's more in the vein of "OMG A DEMOCRAT LIEBRUL IS GRABBING YOUR GUNS", and less about the black men dating your lily white daughters.

I think the doomsday preppers took over the lunatic niche, so instead of booths with the Turner Diaries I see the ones where the guys is selling the 5 gallon water-tight buckets of bachelor chow and solar panels.
 
2013-10-29 10:56:50 PM
The Philadelphia Derringer is known as "The Gun That Killed Lincoln"

The Winchester 1873 rifle has been nicknamed "The Gun That Won the West."

I wonder how this particular Kel-Tec model will be fondly remembered years from now.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:20 PM

Jill'sNipple: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

This. Zimmerman is a piece of shiat, and so are his supporters, but this is some manufactured outrage.


Yes.  Manufactured by the gun lobby to stir up shiat. The same people have declared December 14, 2013, "Guns Save Lives Day".  December 14 is the 1-year anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting.  They're just trolling people now.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:25 PM
Must be some more of those Responsible Gun Owners(tm).
 
2013-10-29 10:58:19 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.

Gun control and "protecting Second Amendment rights" are not the same thing. Does not California still have Second Amendment rights? The Supreme Court said in their gun decisions that gun control, subject to judicial review, is permissible. Which one are you talking about, the Second Amendment or gun control?


The courts have regularly ruled that the enumerated rights that the second amendment declares "shall not be infringed" indeed can be, and commonly are infringed.

Essentially the right to bear arms extends only so far as it is compatible with the general welfare clause.

I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle, but anything beyond that I believe may be at risk as the NRA and it's ilk continue to alienate the younger generations.
 
2013-10-29 10:59:06 PM

I Browse: The Philadelphia Derringer is known as "The Gun That Killed Lincoln"

The Winchester 1873 rifle has been nicknamed "The Gun That Won the West."

I wonder how this particular Kel-Tec model will be fondly remembered years from now.


The Gun That Turned Hispanics White
 
2013-10-29 11:03:21 PM
Jim_Callahan: // Not that anyone hangs a pistol on their wall anyhow, that'd be ridiculous, but in theory.

I sometimes kill guns in the wild, strip them of their slides, and hang them over the fireplace. The clusters of luminescent sights look striking in the living room.
 
2013-10-29 11:04:19 PM

Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.


There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.
 
2013-10-29 11:04:36 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Had Travyon killed Martin, he'd have gotten off on the same law and you racist pro-Zimmerman d-bags would be calling for a noose.


Had Trayvon killed Zimmerman we never would have heard of the incident.

And what 'same law' are you talking about? Tread lightly as I suspect you are woefully ill prepared for a real discussion on the topic.
 
2013-10-29 11:05:12 PM

udhq: but anything beyond that I believe may be at risk as the NRA and it's ilk continue to alienate the younger generations.


http://www.livescience.com/26289-young-americans-gun-ownership.html
"More high-school and college students plan to own guns in adulthood than actually grew up with guns in their houses, a new national survey reveals."

"This is a generation of people who all grew up post-Columbine and who have been aware of egregious   over the course of their entire lives,"


There seems to be some evidence that you're not All Knowing on what young people's views are.
 
2013-10-29 11:06:31 PM

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.


Also, games like call of duty only reinforce the idea that guns are purely or primarily implements of violence.
 
2013-10-29 11:07:19 PM

udhq: But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.


You're A) Lying and B) Moving goal posts.

Just stop bro.
 
2013-10-29 11:07:54 PM

udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.

Gun control and "protecting Second Amendment rights" are not the same thing. Does not California still have Second Amendment rights? The Supreme Court said in their gun decisions that gun control, subject to judicial review, is permissible. Which one are you talking about, the Second Amendment or gun control?

The courts have regularly ruled that the enumerated rights that the second amendment declares "shall not be infringed" indeed can be, and commonly are infringed.

Essentially the right to bear arms extends only so far as it is compatible with the general welfare clause.

I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle, but anything beyond that I believe may be at risk as the NRA and it's ilk continue to alienate the younger generations.


Please provide proof that younger people are being alienated vis-a-vis gun rights.

You're a clown who likes to pretend that you've staked out some sipposedly moderate position in relation to all the poeple you like to pretend are extremists, yet you seem to repeatedly regurgitate the talking points and overall mindset of the same anti-gun people who used to claim that the 2nd amendment wasn't an individual right at all.
 
2013-10-29 11:07:59 PM

udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.


I'm 27, and love guns, and I'm starting to develop the same views.

I mean, damn. I'm all for situational awareness, but if your first action upon entering a room is to decide who in the room catches the first bullets, where they catch them, and where all the exits are so you can "help others get to safety"...and you don't work for a government agency in a country where you'd have no business being there otherwise...it's time to back the hell off. Yet, you turn on the Outdoor channel Wednesday nights or open up any gun magazine, and there are articles and TV shows dedicated to propagating that line of thinking, when they're not busy jerking off to the latest mil-spec AR-15 with enough useless shiat attached to it to completely pay for a brand new Camaro ZL1 and insurance for a year.

And zombies! Jesus titty farking Christ, zombies are played out as is. I saw a TV show once where these two dudes claimed to give out real information to use in a zombie apocalypse. I about put my remote through the TV screen 40 seconds into that shiat. People, if you have that much of a need to shoot people, seek psychiatric care and go buy a farking XBox.

/yeah, I've got a couple issues with the gun industry
 
2013-10-29 11:08:50 PM

udhq: udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.

Also, games like call of duty only reinforce the idea that guns are purely or primarily implements of violence.


And that's how we know you're another troll.
 
2013-10-29 11:09:37 PM

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.


You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?
 
2013-10-29 11:09:38 PM

udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.


Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.
 
2013-10-29 11:09:43 PM

pedrop357: And that's how we know you're another troll.


I give him a 7/10. He had me going.
 
2013-10-29 11:12:40 PM
Who cares what gun was used? It was a clean self-defense shooting per a legally empaneled jury. We don't shame models of guns used by cops.

TV's Vinnie: Oh FFS! Do they actually think everyone else is as dim as they are?


Well the target group that would outraged by it think Zimmerman is guilty, so yea, they figured they can fool them.

The WindowLicker: It really sends them for a loop when I explain why the Republican Party at the national level does not support the troops (McCains vote against he post 9/11 GI bill for example)


McCain: "The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%. Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."
 
2013-10-29 11:12:43 PM

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.


I do, and it's because they grew up around family that hunts and shoots clays for fun.  Not so much owning pistols, but long guns, yeah.
 
2013-10-29 11:14:07 PM

WhyKnot: You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?


You know, I dated a stereotypical white liberal in my early 20s for about 4 years. She was college educated, feminist, pro-choice, Jewish, and her dad was a farking professor and former writer for the NY Times. She was a huge Kerry supporter and worked endlessly campaigning for him. The whole 9 liberal yards. She was weary about me owning guns at first (as she was pretty anti-gun), but after she moved in with me she slowly became more and more pro-gun. Eventually me and her would go to the range and have a great time and she agreed that gun control was bullshiat.
 
2013-10-29 11:15:25 PM

pedrop357: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.

Gun control and "protecting Second Amendment rights" are not the same thing. Does not California still have Second Amendment rights? The Supreme Court said in their gun decisions that gun control, subject to judicial review, is permissible. Which one are you talking about, the Second Amendment or gun control?

The courts have regularly ruled that the enumerated rights that the second amendment declares "shall not be infringed" indeed can be, and commonly are infringed.

Essentially the right to bear arms extends only so far as it is compatible with the general welfare clause.

I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle, but anything beyond that I believe may be at risk as the NRA and it's ilk continue to alienate the younger generations.

Please provide proof that younger people are being alienated vis-a-vis gun rights.

You're a clown who likes to pretend that you've staked out some sipposedly moderate position in relation to all the poeple you like to pretend are extremists, yet you seem to repeatedly regurgitate the talking points and overall mindset of the same anti-gun people who used to claim that the 2nd amendment wasn't an individual right at all.


I've said nothing about my personal philosophy of gun rights in this thread, but people like you prove my point for me; you respond to mere conversation with histrionic aggression that makes me think that if there's any group that demonstrably can't handle the freedom to possess potentially deadly weapons, it's people with clear self-control problems like you.
 
2013-10-29 11:16:28 PM

udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.


Ah....so you are trolling....good to know.
 
2013-10-29 11:17:47 PM

kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.


LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.
 
2013-10-29 11:17:52 PM

udhq: I've said nothing about my personal philosophy of gun rights in this thread, but people like you prove my point for me; you respond to mere conversation with histrionic aggression that makes me think that if there's any group that demonstrably can't handle the freedom to possess potentially deadly weapons, it's people with clear self-control problems like you.


You have yet to respond to this:

Frank N Stein: udhq: but anything beyond that I believe may be at risk as the NRA and it's ilk continue to alienate the younger generations.

http://www.livescience.com/26289-young-americans-gun-ownership.html
"More high-school and college students plan to own guns in adulthood than actually grew up with guns in their houses, a new national survey reveals."

"This is a generation of people who all grew up post-Columbine and who have been aware of egregious   over the course of their entire lives,"


Would you care to humor me and tell me what you make of that piece of evidence and how it fits into your theory that young people do not like guns?
 
2013-10-29 11:19:40 PM
LoneWolf343:
LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-29 11:19:51 PM

WhyKnot: udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.

You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?


Meh, it's a choice to be made, your guns or your family.

I think it's not unreasonable for a woman to be able to choose whether she wants to live/have children with guns around. No matter how safe and smart you are about it, having a gun in your house does present some risk.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:12 PM

udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle

...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:47 PM

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.


1775
they haven't attempted it since.
/That was your ONCE
//wanna try for two?
 
2013-10-29 11:23:51 PM

LoneWolf343: Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.


That "We came unarmed (this time)" shiat always makes me laugh. The government will do whatever they want and you're not going to do a damn thing, Cletus.
 
2013-10-29 11:24:01 PM

kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.


Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.
 
2013-10-29 11:24:55 PM

udhq: 've said nothing about my personal philosophy of gun rights in this thread, but people like you prove my point for me; you respond to mere conversation with histrionic aggression that makes me think that if there's any group that demonstrably can't handle the freedom to possess potentially deadly weapons, it's people with clear self-control problems like you.


Sounds like projection to me.  Histrionic aggression?  Is that what you call disagreement.  I agree that people like you who view disagreements or counter opinions as "aggression" should not be possessing firearms or any other dangerous objectk.

All anyone has to do is read your posts in every other thread to see how you're really just a troll.
 
2013-10-29 11:27:06 PM
Alright, udhq gets a bump to 9/10. Seriously, I've already concluded he's a troll yet I'm still raging at his idiocy. Quality work.
 
2013-10-29 11:27:09 PM

Mugato: LoneWolf343: Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

That "We came unarmed (this time)" shiat always makes me laugh. The government will do whatever they want and you're not going to do a damn thing, Cletus.


What are you gonna do Mugato, hide in your condo?
 
2013-10-29 11:27:09 PM

udhq: WhyKnot: udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.

You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?

Meh, it's a choice to be made, your guns or your family.

I think it's not unreasonable for a woman to be able to choose whether she wants to live/have children with guns around. No matter how safe and smart you are about it, having a gun in your house does present some risk.


Yes, it is not unreasonable for a woman to chose...it also isn't unreasonable for a man to say no...and gender roles are not predetermined so it can be vice versa.

Yes, a gun does present some risks...alternatively, it also provides added security...security at home, security while hiking and camping.

With crime rates increasing and police response time decreasing...more and more people will be looking for means to protect themselves. But don't worry citizen big brother will be there to protect you and make sure you are safe.
 
2013-10-29 11:28:02 PM

Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.


The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.
 
2013-10-29 11:29:45 PM

LoneWolf343: LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.


Battle of Athens, TN (1946). Sheriff tried to steal an election. A group of armed citizens took over the town and secured the ballot box after the local sheriff tried to take them to the local jail for a private counting.

Robert Williams recounts a tale in "Negroes with Guns" where he helped establish armed groups of blacks in his local town who would guard houses threatened by the KKK.
 
2013-10-29 11:29:55 PM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.


While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.
 
2013-10-29 11:30:32 PM

udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.


2/10
 
2013-10-29 11:31:53 PM

udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.


Um...what?

The 2nd agreement is designed to protect democracy so that in the government becomes oppressive the people have the means to cast off the shackles of oppression and start over.
 
2013-10-29 11:33:44 PM

udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.


Do you really believe that? Or is it, something that you would like to be true? There is a difference.
 
2013-10-29 11:34:30 PM

WhyKnot: udhq: WhyKnot: udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.

You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?

Meh, it's a choice to be made, your guns or your family.

I think it's not unreasonable for a woman to be able to choose whether she wants to live/have children with guns around. No matter how safe and smart you are about it, having a gun in your house does present some risk.

Yes, it is not unreasonable for a woman to chose...it also isn't unreasonable for a man to say no...and gender roles are not predetermined so it can be vice versa.

Yes, a gun does present some risks...alternatively, it also provides added security...security at home, security while hiking and camping.

With crime rates increasing and police response time decreasing...more and more people will be looking for means to protect themselves. But don't worry citizen big brother will be there to protect you and make sure you are safe.


Crime rates increasing? Really? Violent crime has been falling precipitously for decades.

That said even if the statistics say that having a gun in your home doesn't make you safer, I know it makes a lot of people FEEL safer. There's value in that, and I wouldn't begrudge that of anybody. Just be smart and keep it locked up.
 
2013-10-29 11:40:24 PM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.


I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners to start taking gun ownership seriously and treat it as the great responsibility it is.
 
2013-10-29 11:41:03 PM

udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.


It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.
 
2013-10-29 11:41:24 PM
I like guns.
 
2013-10-29 11:43:54 PM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners to start taking gun ownership seri ...


You mean, how we would like you to start treating the 1st amendment seriously? It is a two way street.
 
2013-10-29 11:46:04 PM

WhyKnot: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

Um...what?

The 2nd agreement is designed to protect democracy so that in the government becomes oppressive the people have the means to cast off the shackles of oppression and start over.


That is absolutely not true. That's why the constitution set up regular elections, they never intended for citizens to be able to replace elections with rule by gunpoint.

The second amendment was added specifically because they needed southern states to ratify the bor, and those states wanted their right to keep their slave militias protected.
 
2013-10-29 11:48:13 PM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners to start taking gun ownership seri ...

You mean, how we would like you to start treating the 1st amendment seriously? It is a two way street.


How so? Is my speech here bothering you?
 
2013-10-29 11:48:24 PM

udhq: The second amendment was added specifically because they needed southern states to ratify the bor, and those states wanted their right to keep their slave militias protected.


Citation needed.
 
2013-10-29 11:49:01 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.


My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
i135.photobucket.com
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...
 
2013-10-29 11:50:05 PM
Believe what you want Democrats. But if think an aggressive attack on gun owners, backed by sweet, sweet billions from your hero and contemporary Michael Bloomberg, will prevent firearms ownership in this country, you are a stupid, farking fool.
 
2013-10-29 11:51:36 PM

WhyKnot: The 2nd agreement is designed to protect democracy so that in the government becomes oppressive the people have the means to cast off the shackles of oppression and start over.


That's so cute.
 
2013-10-29 11:51:59 PM

udhq: WhyKnot: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

Um...what?

The 2nd agreement is designed to protect democracy so that in the government becomes oppressive the people have the means to cast off the shackles of oppression and start over.

That is absolutely not true. That's why the constitution set up regular elections, they never intended for citizens to be able to replace elections with rule by gunpoint.

The second amendment was added specifically because they needed southern states to ratify the bor, and those states wanted their right to keep their slave militias protected.


I'm not sure what your reading comprehension is on the 2nd Amendment, but you, without a doubt, have no comprehension of it, nor do you have any comprehension of the others.
 
2013-10-29 11:52:21 PM

udhq: WhyKnot: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: I think we'll probably always have a right to own some kind of hunting or sport rifle...

If it weren't for all those tasty game animals, the Revolution would have been lost. That's clearly why the 2nd Amendment was crafted.

The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

Um...what?

The 2nd agreement is designed to protect democracy so that in the government becomes oppressive the people have the means to cast off the shackles of oppression and start over.

That is absolutely not true. That's why the constitution set up regular elections, they never intended for citizens to be able to replace elections with rule by gunpoint.

The second amendment was added specifically because they needed southern states to ratify the bor, and those states wanted their right to keep their slave militias protected.


I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

It really isn't that hard of a concept.
 
2013-10-29 11:53:05 PM

udhq: That is absolutely not true. That's why the constitution set up regular elections, they never intended for citizens to be able to replace elections with rule by gunpoint.


Nor did they intend for the government to rule that way.
 
2013-10-29 11:54:37 PM

WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.


The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.
 
2013-10-29 11:54:45 PM

udhq: The second amendment was added specifically because they needed southern states to ratify the bor, and those states wanted their right to keep their slave militias protected.


Uh, hello?

I already called your bluff and flipped my cards showing a royal flush. You can stop sliding money into the pot now.
 
2013-10-29 11:54:54 PM

Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.


What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.
 
2013-10-29 11:55:50 PM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners to start taking g ...


No, your speech isn't bothering me. That's the fun thing about this that you can't comprehend. It doesn't bother me that you have the right to free speech. Do I bother you?
 
2013-10-29 11:55:54 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...



My nearly 13 year old daughter graduated from her Crickett .22 to a Savage Axis .223. She enjoys shooting a lot.
i74.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-29 11:56:01 PM

Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.


Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".
 
2013-10-29 11:56:16 PM

axeeugene: I've grown to like guns. I've always been a (cautious) supporter of Second Amendment rights. But I'll never understand the gun culture's increasingly rabid nature, nor would I ever *ever* consider membership in that poisonous organization, the NRA.


You should check out the possibly NSFW website of JPFO:  http://jpfo.org/
 
2013-10-29 11:57:17 PM
There are a lot more leftie gun owners here than I would've figured.

Cool!

As far as topicality is concerned: It's a Kel-Tec. I wouldn't buy a raffle ticket for ANY sort of Kel-Tec. They're worse than Taurus, and I've had a few of those (and all have needed factory warranty work). PF-9 or not, ugh. The advocacy group should be ashamed of being in poor taste even WITHOUT the Zimmerman connection.
 
2013-10-29 11:57:52 PM

mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.


Yep.
 
2013-10-29 11:58:00 PM

WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".


And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?
 
2013-10-29 11:59:02 PM

Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.


The people have enough representation in the military to take care of the US military. It's the para-military police forces that are the real issue for the people.
 
2013-10-30 12:00:45 AM

udhq: What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.


Cool fact- "Negro Disarmament Movement" doesn't return any google results. The way you talk, it seems like you earnestly believe what you're saying. Knowing the rough history of the NRA, I'd have to say only a certifiable ignoramus would say the NRA was founded to disarm the negro.
 
2013-10-30 12:03:02 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Had Travyon killed Martin, he'd have gotten off on the same law and you racist pro-Zimmerman d-bags would be calling for a noose.


If the only thing changed that night was that Martin had been white (Z was no more "white" than Barak Obama is "white") and Zimmermann had been black, I'm pretty sure that a lot of Zimmermann supporters would still be Zimmermann supporters...For me, at least, race was COMPLETELY a non-issue.
 
2013-10-30 12:03:56 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Believe what you want Democrats. But if think an aggressive attack on gun owners,


Right. It's the Democrats working toward sensible weapons restrictions and more thorough background checks who are perpetrating an aggressive attack on those poor, defenseless, poorly-funded, politically under-represented, peace-loving gun owners. I'm sure that representation of the situation will get you far.

It's the relentless howling from the weapons lobbies that nets us the useless, meaningless, wrong-headed kinds of restrictions we end up with - because they're all that can pass when one side is rabid. If the vociferous supporters of gun rights in this country would quit gobbling the NRA's knob and be willing to acknowledge that the gun culture in this country does indeed bring problems that need commonsense solutions, then choose to present a few ideas to help solve them instead of hollering, "MOLON LABE, biatchES! FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS, YOU COMMIE FASCIST BASTARDS!" then we might get somewhere sensible.

But no. It always has to devolve into this.

I think it's high time for left-leaning gun owners like myself and a few others to take a more active part in this debate...forget what I said earlier in this thread, because cooler heads have to prevail in this debate at some point. It's time to take back the goddamn asylum.
 
2013-10-30 12:04:11 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners to start taking g ...

No, your speech isn't bothering me. That's the fun thing about this that you can't comprehend. It doesn't bother me that you have the right to free speech. Do I bother you?


Nope, not in the least, nor do responsible exercises of your gun rights bother me.

It's when people start to make threats, use violent rhetoric, or insist that their guns entitle them to disproportionate political power that I start thinking about using my vote too support people and policies that will separate violent thugs who threaten the general welfare from their weapons.
 
2013-10-30 12:04:50 AM

Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".

And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?


Clearly military technology had advanced x1000.

That being said and all do respect to our military, how did our start of the art technology work against tribes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How about Mumbaric in Egpyt? Or Kadafi?
 
2013-10-30 12:05:30 AM

Bucky Katt: mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.

Yep.


Let me guess. Because you didn't read the article, you think that this gun is actually the very same gun that was used to shoot Trayvon, and not simply the same model. Furthermore, if you even respond to this you'll say that you did in fact know it was just the model, then you'll come up with some retarded excuse on why people should be outraged
 
2013-10-30 12:06:28 AM

mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.


You sound like someone who would suckerpunch a fellow then be upset when the person in fear for his life shot you. Go see a doctor about that sand n your vagina.
 
2013-10-30 12:07:30 AM

udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.


That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.
 
2013-10-30 12:09:40 AM
udhq:  I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

The NRA was "birthed" shortly after the "War of Northern Aggression" by a bunch of military guys from the UNION who had been dismayed by the lack of firearms training they saw in the majority of UNION conscripts during the War.

Gun control started out as a means to keep minorities from owning guns.  Even Michael Moore touches on this in "Bowling for Columbine".  A case could be made that gun control is STILL used to try to disarm minorities.
 
2013-10-30 12:10:07 AM

JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.


ah name calling and playing the race card, someone is going for their super liberal card!
 
2013-10-30 12:10:12 AM

TwistedIvory: There are a lot more leftie gun owners here than I would've figured.

Cool!

As far as topicality is concerned: It's a Kel-Tec. I wouldn't buy a raffle ticket for ANY sort of Kel-Tec. They're worse than Taurus, and I've had a few of those (and all have needed factory warranty work). PF-9 or not, ugh. The advocacy group should be ashamed of being in poor taste even WITHOUT the Zimmerman connection.


There's two major U.S. brands I genuinely don't feel comfortable shooting, due to their notorious quality control issues:

Hi-Point and Kel-Tec.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:00 AM

udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.


Sooooo we're letting 20 year olds set the narrative? They're still on their parents insurance!!!
 
2013-10-30 12:12:30 AM
Tacky.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:36 AM

axeeugene: Ow! That was my feelings!: Believe what you want Democrats. But if think an aggressive attack on gun owners,

Right. It's the Democrats working toward sensible weapons restrictions and more thorough background checks who are perpetrating an aggressive attack on those poor, defenseless, poorly-funded, politically under-represented, peace-loving gun owners. I'm sure that representation of the situation will get you far.

It's the relentless howling from the weapons lobbies that nets us the useless, meaningless, wrong-headed kinds of restrictions we end up with - because they're all that can pass when one side is rabid. If the vociferous supporters of gun rights in this country would quit gobbling the NRA's knob and be willing to acknowledge that the gun culture in this country does indeed bring problems that need commonsense solutions, then choose to present a few ideas to help solve them instead of hollering, "MOLON LABE, biatchES! FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS, YOU COMMIE FASCIST BASTARDS!" then we might get somewhere sensible.

But no. It always has to devolve into this.

I think it's high time for left-leaning gun owners like myself and a few others to take a more active part in this debate...forget what I said earlier in this thread, because cooler heads have to prevail in this debate at some point. It's time to take back the goddamn asylum.


Heh, you sound credible. Glad you checked your politispeak against Herr Bloomberg's master list, don't wanna get in bad with the boss! Can't get the bonus otherwise.

//Seriously, whether you are credible or not, you come across as a sycophant, you use their terminology and everything. No one has ever credibly stated "left wing gun owner" to refer to themselves, ever. EVER.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:37 AM

axeeugene: then we might get somewhere sensible.


And where is that? What is sensible?

Keep in mind we tried "sensible restrictions" with the 1968 GCA and it left us with the president halting the re-importation of WW2 era rifles. The current pressure against gun control is precisely because of the overreach by gun control advocates.

At the point when you realize the banker is trying to steal your home, taking out another mortgage from him isn't going to fix it.
 
2013-10-30 12:13:07 AM
farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-30 12:14:20 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners ...


That's not the stance that you have taken and you know it. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it is. But you need to remember, us thugs that keep that 2nd Amendment close to our hearts, are also the thugs that keep working and believing in the 1st also. You can try to rationalize that statement all you want too. But it always comes back to you.
 
2013-10-30 12:15:55 AM

kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.


Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was you, you have absolutely zero standing to question anybody else's understanding of either amendment.
 
2013-10-30 12:21:05 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners ...

That's not the stance that you have taken and you know it. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it is. But you need to remember, us thugs that keep that 2nd Amendment close to our hearts, are also the thugs that keep working and believing in the 1st also. You can try to rationalize that statement all you want too. But it always comes back to you.


Believe what you want, but historically, this had just not been the case.

Look at JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. The history of America is one of 1st amendment heroes being continually silenced by 2nd amendment heroes.
 
2013-10-30 12:21:58 AM

kerrigand: LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

1775
they haven't attempted it since.
/That was your ONCE
//wanna try for two?


You mean Lexington and Concord? Didn't we lose hilariously?

Also, we wouldn't have won the war without 1.) fielding our own professional army, and 2.) convincing the French to join our side. The minuteman myth is just that, a myth.

So, no, you didn't get it this time. Try again.
 
2013-10-30 12:22:07 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was ...


I'm sorry, would you mind quoting me that or are you now trying to defend your position again?
 
2013-10-30 12:23:58 AM

WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".

And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?

Clearly military technology had advanced x1000.

That being said and all do respect to our military, how did our start of the art technology work against tribes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How about Mumbaric in Egpyt? Or Kadafi?


You're going to compare a limited invasion force occupying a country thousands of miles away to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts? Besides which, we're doing pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had casualties of course and we shouldn't have been there in the first place but we've been occupying both countries about ten minutes after we went in.

I'm saying that it's never going to happen. No one is going to rise up against the government and if they do they'll get stomped on. It's some Red Dawn wet dream that gun people like to fantasize about.
 
2013-10-30 12:24:09 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...


I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions
 
2013-10-30 12:24:29 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just ...


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-30 12:25:16 AM

BadReligion: My nearly 13 year old daughter graduated from her Crickett .22 to a Savage Axis .223. She enjoys shooting a lot.


CSB:  I started mine on AR-style rifles when they were 5.  My oldest (9 years old) has become a recoil junkie.  When I started her on handguns, we moved from .22LR to 9mm, and to my surprise we went quickly to .45.  After shooting the 9mm, she told me "I need more recoil.  Don't you have anything bigger?"  I then gave her my EDC .45, figuring that it'd be plenty.  After she fired it, she told me "MORE, Daddy!  MORE!!!"  This made me laugh.  Last week, she had to write a paper for school about something that really made her happy.  Her self-selected topic:  When I told her that I'd taken her 6th Birthday off from work, and we could do whatever she wanted, just me and her, and she chose to go to the range with me.  I had nothing to do with the paper, and only heard about it after it had been turned in, graded, and returned to her.  I don't know if I should expect a "THANK YOU!" from her future boyfriends, or feel really, really bad for them.  :lol:
 
2013-10-30 12:26:57 AM

Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".

And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?

Clearly military technology had advanced x1000.

That being said and all do respect to our military, how did our start of the art technology work against tribes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How about Mumbaric in Egpyt? Or Kadafi?

You're going to compare a limited invasion force occupying a country thousands of miles away to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts? Besides which, we're doing pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had casualties of course and we shouldn't have been there in the first place but we've been occupying both countries about ten minutes after we went in.

I'm saying that it's never going to happen. No one is going to rise up against the government and if they do they'll get stomped on. It's some Red Dawn wet dream that gun people like to fantasize about.


s3.cliffpro.com

Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.
 
2013-10-30 12:28:07 AM

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions


lol. A guy with the username "LoneWolf" is trying to judge people. Let me guess: you're overweight, agnostic or atheist, liberal, single, long hair, pasty, work as an IT or similar job, and you wear fedoras on the reg.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:24 AM

LoneWolf343: I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.


Regarding my penis size:  It's obviously big enough to get the job done, as demonstrated by the fact that I have "at least" two biological children.  You can say it's small without seeing it, but I don't make a lot of money, and I've been in a monogamous relationship with the same woman for a little bit over two decades.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:37 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was ...

I'm sorry, would you mind quoting me that or are you now trying to defend your position again?


My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

If that was someone else making that argument, I apologize, I'm obviously juggling about 6 different conversations here.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:41 AM

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

1775
they haven't attempted it since.
/That was your ONCE
//wanna try for two?

You mean Lexington and Concord? Didn't we lose hilariously?

Also, we wouldn't have won the war without 1.) fielding our own professional army, and 2.) convincing the French to join our side. The minuteman myth is just that, a myth.

So, no, you didn't get it this time. Try again.

I'm not here to try and appease you hot shot. I don't need to. You know the truth. I realize that you really just want a internet fight. I know you and your type. Keep telling yourself that, this isn't the truth, keep telling yourself that you're some chick magnet. Keep telling yourself that what happened, didn't happen. Go ahead, keep telling yourself that. Everyone else, knows the truth. It's not us that you have to convince. It's yourself that you have to convince.
 
2013-10-30 12:30:32 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.


Because I think there will never be an armed insurrection in this country in at least our lifetimes? Ok, post back in 60 years and we'll see which one of us was right.
 
2013-10-30 12:33:58 AM

Frank N Stein: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

lol. A guy with the username "LoneWolf" is trying to judge people. Let me guess: you're overweight,


Yes

agnostic or atheist

Christian

liberal

Depends on who you ask

single

Boyfriend

long hair

Yep, and my boyfriend loves it

pasty, work as an IT or similar job

I work outdoors, so I have a nice tan in those places that see sunlight

and you wear fedoras on the reg

I have a plaid golfer's cap. Most I ever wore it was this summer when I had to drive with the windows rolled down due to broken A/C.

Is that really all you got, tough guy?
 
2013-10-30 12:34:07 AM

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions


Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.
 
2013-10-30 12:36:08 AM

udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.


Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.
 
2013-10-30 12:37:37 AM

Sgt Otter: Hi-Point and Kel-Tec.


I actually wouldn't mind a super-cheap Hi-Point as a beater truck gun. Their products feel awful in the hand, but they do at least function. There are a few "Hi-Point torture tests" on YouTube that are testaments to this fact.

That being said, I owned one for a little bit just to see if I could encourage a malf out of it. No such luck. As much as I hated shooting it, it went bang every time.

I really wanted to be 100% okay with Taurus. Hell, I have a 605SS that's one of my EDC guns. It, however, has given me problems on a couple separate occasions but I really only trust that first round. I'm trying to find a decent S&W Model 60 or the like to replace the Taurus, but I've had little luck on that front.
 
2013-10-30 12:38:33 AM
kerrigand: I'm not here to try and appease you hot shot. I don't need to. You know the truth. I realize that you really just want a internet fight. I know you and your type. Keep telling yourself that, this isn't the truth, keep telling yourself that you're some chick magnet. Keep telling yourself that what happened, didn't happen. Go ahead, keep telling yourself that. Everyone else, knows the truth. It's not us that you have to convince. It's yourself that you have to convince.

www.kcconfidential.com
 
2013-10-30 12:40:56 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.


Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.
 
2013-10-30 12:41:02 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: LoneWolf343: I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

Regarding my penis size:  It's obviously big enough to get the job done, as demonstrated by the fact that I have "at least" two biological children.  You can say it's small without seeing it, but I don't make a lot of money, and I've been in a monogamous relationship with the same woman for a little bit over two decades.


I think he was challenging you to flash him. Don't do it. It's a trick.
 
2013-10-30 12:41:09 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone el ...


That's fine if you were have a discussion with someone else. But are you FARKING SERIOUS? That the 2nd doesn't grant and individual with rights? Really? Really? Then, I guess none of the others grants individuals with rights. Please, by all means, enlighten us on this.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:06 AM

Mrtraveler01: Why is it these "gun advocacy" groups make the sane and sensible gun owners look like loons?


It's just like with the Muslims.

Why won't responsible gun owners condem these assholes? I am not a gun owner but happen to like them.

This case was a tragedy pretty much no matter how you think things went down.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:23 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.


The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:30 AM

The_Sponge: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.


I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of stupid, angry people with guns.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:52 AM

LoneWolf343: Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


Supreme Court Justices don't say what you say they say. Complex arguments aren't "true enough" if simplified sometimes.

What you just did was the equivalent of saying the USSC says plants grow in toilets.
 
2013-10-30 12:44:15 AM

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.
 
2013-10-30 12:45:13 AM

BravadoGT: WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...

I'm sure she offered some valuable insight that Congress needed--especially about the "Stand Your Ground" law that played no actual part in her thug-son's early demise or the subsequent trial...


Glad these two comments provided valuable insight into this article.

Oh wait, unrelated bullshiat actually.
 
2013-10-30 12:47:10 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone el ...

That's fine if you were have a discussion with someone else. But are you FARKING SERIOUS? That the 2nd doesn't grant and individual with rights? Really? Really? Then, I guess none of the others grants individuals with rights. Please, by all means, enlighten us on this.


If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."
 
2013-10-30 12:47:40 AM

kerrigand: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.

//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.


I believe I just said that.

/am I'm still waiting on that example.
 
2013-10-30 12:50:01 AM

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.


and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.
 
2013-10-30 12:52:25 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or wa ...


Then what you're saying is that you really don't have freedom of speech.
 
2013-10-30 12:55:41 AM

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.

//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.

I believe I just said that.

/am I'm still waiting on that example.


I provided you with an example and it apparently didn't fit with what your thoughts are. If you want me to continue to validate your existence, then all you have to do is ask. I won't, but you can ask.
 
2013-10-30 12:55:54 AM

udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.


In that respect, you are correct. The individual right right is inherent; the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects it.
 
2013-10-30 12:56:30 AM

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.

Because I think there will never be an armed insurrection in this country in at least our lifetimes? Ok, post back in 60 years and we'll see which one of us was right.


I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.
 
2013-10-30 12:56:38 AM

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.


No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.
 
2013-10-30 12:57:50 AM

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


Similarly, as Senator Rand Paul has noted, Supreme Court Justices have stated that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Constitutional, but their declaration does not actually mean that the Act is Constitutional.

Gun control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect and individual right to keep and bear arms are intellectually equivalent to Tea Party members.
 
2013-10-30 01:00:24 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.


I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.
 
2013-10-30 01:02:45 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or wa ...

Then what you're saying is that you really don't have freedom of speech.


I do in that there is little to no mechanism for ANYBODY really to stop me from exercising that freedom.

That's not as much the case with the second amendment; with both, the courts have decided that they extend only as far as they are compatible with the general welfare clause.
 
2013-10-30 01:03:00 AM
If they really wanted to make money, they'd sell Travon taxidermied head-mounts that sing songs when you walk by.
 
2013-10-30 01:04:39 AM

AngryDragon: ecause the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.


That's not really an accurate summation.  The jury acquitted him of second-degree murder, essentially saying that he wasn't  intending to kill anyone before the fight started, and then rejected the addition of a manslaughter charge essentially because the DA going for Murder 2 in the first place proved she was trying to railroad the guy.

That's not quite the same thing as the self-defense argument being accepted.  An accepted self-defense argument usually means the accusation doesn't get past the grand jury and into trial in the first place, though it can still be used as part of the general defense arguing that there's insufficient evidence of malice for murder by posing it as a viable alternative scenario.

I mean, the general argument that the focus on this particular case is stupid I'd accept, but your insistence that the case was unambiguously one of self-defense with no complications I do not.

LoneWolf343: /am I'm still waiting on that example.


Example of what?  Armed insurrection and small arms resulting in major political change?

K.  Ireland.

Another one: Afghanistan in the '80s.  The bolshevik revolution in Russia as well, which went pretty well for about half a century before Stalin farked it up.

More recently, the war that eventually got South Sudan its freedom was primarily prosecuted by small arms for most of its history.

In the US, the battle for labor rights basically ended when everyone got so tired of getting shot (and firebombed) that they gave in on significant points and elected someone actually on the side of the laborers because the violence made them aware of the issues.

// If you come back with something on the order of the examples not counting because someone didn't pick up a gun and magically overthrow the entire government in a week, know in advance that it just makes you look stupid.  Armed resistance is the last resort of domestic politics, used only in extreme cases, for a reason... it's bloody, inefficient, and unreliable, and you're more likely to be a Whiskey Rebellion than a Bolshevik revolution.
 
2013-10-30 01:05:18 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.

No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.


That's what I love about our constitution and you don't. It's that the people have the power and not you as an individual. That's the great thing that made our nation. You may not like it, nor even understand or even think about what it means in todays world. Yet, you exercise as if it is a given, oh, wait. It is a given. That's something you need to think about.
 
2013-10-30 01:06:22 AM

LoneWolf343: The_Sponge: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of stupid, angry people with guns.


And yet your panties were in a wad just because a father takes his kids shooting.
 
2013-10-30 01:07:43 AM

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.


Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
images.forbes.com

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.
 
2013-10-30 01:10:10 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.

No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.

That's what I love about our constitution and you don't. It's that the people have the power and not you as an individual. That's the great thing that made our nation. You may not like it, nor even understand or even think about what it means in todays world. Yet, you exercise as if it is a given, oh, wait. It is a given. That's something you need to think about.


I'm sorry, which one of us is arguing 2nd amendment supremacy over the general welfare clause?

It sounds to me like you have real, fundamental issues with the way our constitution is set up.
 
2013-10-30 01:10:49 AM

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.


You haven't heard of Michael Bloomberg? Come on.

What make/model of firearm do you own?
 
2013-10-30 01:10:53 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 m ...


That's really not the point is it? In some countries, you can still be sentenced to death for saying anything you want. That's not the case here is it. So what's that mechanism you talk about? Yes we can challenge all we want, that's the great thing about it. Abolish it? Think about that for a little while.
 
2013-10-30 01:12:19 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.

Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
[images.forbes.com image 400x280]

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.


What does that have to do with my simple assertion that there will never be an armed insurrection of the US government?
 
2013-10-30 01:15:02 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 m ...

That's really not the point is it? In some countries, you can still be sentenced to death for saying anything you want. That's not the case here is it. So what's that mechanism you talk about? Yes we can challenge all we want, that's the great thing about it. Abolish it? Think about that for a little while.


Once again, I've never said we should abolish the 2nd amendment.

The irony is we don't need to; even the most ardent gun rights supporters already accept literally thousands of infringements on the right to bear arms. The line on what weapons we accept and don't accept is constantly moving, all we really need are a few minor corrections.
 
2013-10-30 01:16:50 AM

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."


Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.
 
2013-10-30 01:18:48 AM

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.

Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
[images.forbes.com image 400x280]

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.

What does that have to do with my simple assertion that there will never be an armed insurrection of the US government?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Wherever you want them....

Heh, and wow dude, you haven't been right or informed about anything else, why should I have faith in your non-insurrection opinion. In fact, I'm more likely to think it's inevitable now. THANKS, MUGATO!
 
2013-10-30 01:19:48 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a ...


Then under your thoughts, let's just get rid of them all. There's no need for them. They have no bearing on today and that shouldn't even be thought about. Right? Hell, let's just throw out all of the amendments and let ...........
 
2013-10-30 01:21:36 AM

Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.


Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.
 
2013-10-30 01:23:13 AM

doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.


You may want to stop doing that.
 
2013-10-30 01:23:35 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.


I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.
 
2013-10-30 01:27:01 AM

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.


Right.  The BoR restricts the Federal Government from restricting a great many rights held by other governments and/or the People.  It also explicitly states that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
 
2013-10-30 01:27:50 AM

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.


If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?
 
2013-10-30 01:30:02 AM

Yogimus: doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

You may want to stop doing that.


You might want to start.
 
2013-10-30 01:30:11 AM

doglover: Plus, it was a glock I think.


Respectfully:  Zimmermann was NOT armed with a Glock.  It was a Kel-Tec 9mm, loaded with, IIRC, 115 grain 9mm JHPs.
 
2013-10-30 01:31:30 AM
doglover:

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

Zimmerman used a Kel-Tec 9mm.

They are very common pistols, cheap but they go bang when you pull the trigger, and have a great warranty.

This one is very light, and not any fun at all to fire. 'Bruising' and 'punishing' come to mind. Ouch.
 
2013-10-30 01:33:13 AM

kerrigand: If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?


It certainly is NOT absolute, just as the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that is either fraudulent or likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace.

That's it.  I'm out, time for bed.  'Night!  :)
 
2013-10-30 01:33:50 AM

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?


If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses nuclear arms? Or shouldn't they?

And you don't even have to be THAT absurd about it. Howabout short barreled shotguns or apache pistols?
 
2013-10-30 01:36:19 AM

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.


Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure it's not you that is wrong? Is anyone else "wrong". Careful on how you answer that.
 
2013-10-30 01:39:10 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?

If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses n ...


I'll let you think about what you just stated and you let me know if you accept the infringements afforded you.
 
2013-10-30 01:41:36 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...


Well, I certainly hope she doesn't have a large penis.
 
2013-10-30 01:43:39 AM

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure it's not you that is wrong? Is anyone else "wrong". Careful on how you answer that.


I'm not saying you're wrong if you argue that it's an absolute right, I'm saying that you're ignoring the plain, objective reality that there are literally thousands of kinds of arms the government does not allow you to keep and bear, each one a clear infringement of the text of the second amendment, but deemed constitutional when viewed through the whole document, not just that one brief paragraph.

I think all reasonable people agree that individuals should not have nukes, but by simply the text of the 2nd, government shouldn't have a right to prevent it.
 
2013-10-30 01:45:36 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?

If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses n ...

I'll let you think about what you just stated and you let me know if you accept the infringements afforded you.


??? What? Do I accept the government's ban on some weapons?

Of course I do. Do you?
 
2013-10-30 01:48:08 AM

twiztedjustin: No thanks, I'll just offer a blanket response: anti gun people are idiots.


I'm pretty sure there are a lot of pro-gun people who don't think that owning a gun means you get to chase down someone who wasn't doing anything wrong and shoot them dead when you catch them.
 
2013-10-30 01:54:06 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure ...


I'm not argueing with you about reasonable people. I'm arguing with you about people. The two don't intertwine. Your talking about something that doesn't exist. People and reasoning just don't happen, you and I are both proof of this. That's why these are there. To ensure that  1 people have the right to speak, doesn't matter what they say, but, that they have the right to. 2. They have the right to bear arms. Again, doesn't matter what arms, but they have the right to.

Honestly, what part of these two, do you not understand?
 
2013-10-30 02:01:26 AM

doglover: Yogimus: doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

You may want to stop doing that.

You might want to start.


Again, stop "thinking". Start learning.
 
2013-10-30 02:05:23 AM

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure ...

I'm not argueing with you about reasonable people. I'm arguing with you about people. The two don't intertwine. Your talking about something that doesn't exist. People and reasoning just don't happen, you and I are both proof of this. That's why these are there. To ensure that  1 people have the right to speak, doesn't matter what they say, but, that they have the right to. 2. They have the right to bear arms. Again, doesn't matter what arms, but they have the right to.

Honestly, what part of these two, do you not understand?


The type of arms doesn't matter?

So, even if you wouldn't support it, would you agree that a legislative ban on assault weapons is constitutional on the same ground that a federal ban on short stock shotguns is constitutional?
 
2013-10-30 02:09:05 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


I'll agree to it, the moment that we no longer have the right say "hello" to our neighbor.
 
2013-10-30 02:11:45 AM
Well the gun works, seems like a good idea to me. Trayvon deserved what he got, give it up libs.
 
2013-10-30 02:13:36 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


Tell you what, you show me an "assault weapon",  and I'll show you a "short stock" shotgun. By those wording, you'll never see either of the two.
 
2013-10-30 02:25:45 AM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


I'll tell you what, if you can show me what the true differences are, I'll support it. I'm not talking about the looks or the makeup of the weapons, I'm talking about the "true" differences. You can't and you know it. It doesn't matter what the makeup is. You really, really need to quit  being such a candy ass and face up to life. It's not the gun that's killing you, it's the person. You really need to face that reality. Shiat happens, people do get killed. Sad as it is, they do. It's going to be a part of our life long after guns are gone. You can't control human emotions, as much as you want to, you just can't. It really is that simple.
 
2013-10-30 02:40:16 AM

Frank N Stein: Bucky Katt: mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.

Yep.

Let me guess. Because you didn't read the article, you think that this gun is actually the very same gun that was used to shoot Trayvon, and not simply the same model. Furthermore, if you even respond to this you'll say that you did in fact know it was just the model, then you'll come up with some retarded excuse on why people should be outraged


Let me guess: you piss in your own corn flakes.
 
2013-10-30 03:13:05 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: doglover: Plus, it was a glock I think.

Respectfully:  Zimmermann was NOT armed with a Glock.  It was a Kel-Tec 9mm, loaded with, IIRC, 115 grain 9mm JHPs.


Hence the qualifier "I think"
 
2013-10-30 03:20:07 AM
Mugato: ... to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts?

Do you know how many guns there are in America? There are more than a few hundred gun nuts just in my tiny hometown, much less the rest of the country. The NRA alone has over 5 million members. Pretty sure that's considerably bigger than any of the armed forces.

Besides, if it gets down to the nitty-gritty (which I doubt it ever will), I can't imagine there will be too many service members too keen on gunning down fellow Americans. At least, I'm hoping there's enough honor left in our military to refuse being part of anything so disgraceful.


The fact that the Trayvon Martin's case was (clumsily) used to promote various social agendas is unfortunate, because nearly everyone is worse for it. Certainly the larger issues of gun control, race relations, and social justice have taken a huge step backwards, and now it's impossible to look at any of these issues without people emotionally and irrationally spouting nonsense.
 
2013-10-30 03:23:26 AM

kerrigand: Your talking about something that doesn't exist.


Your are so right.
 
2013-10-30 03:42:01 AM

WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...


She also protested about stop and frisk, which while appalling, had even less to with Trayvon.

She's doing the Jackson/Sharpton celebrity complaining tour.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:34 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Gun control started out as a means to keep minorities from owning guns. Even Michael Moore touches on this in "Bowling for Columbine". A case could be made that gun control is STILL used to try to disarm minorities.


Indeed.  Consider the 'Terry Stops' that the NYPD were doing until it was declared illegal - the vast majority of those searched under the 'Stop & Frisk' program were minorities.  What were they looking for?  Weapons and drugs.

Then consider all the states with 'may issue' weapons permits - okayed by the sheriff.  Control the sheriff, control the permits.  A racist sheriff can handily ensure that the 'wrong sorts' don't get the permits.

You don't need to be explicit with the racism in the laws for it to be effectively there.
 
2013-10-30 07:28:05 AM
The group raffling the Kel-Tec is based 10 miles from Kel-Tec's headquarters. It was probably donated.

/I want a Sub2000
//and a Hi-Point out of morbid curiosity
 
2013-10-30 07:43:32 AM
Gun nuts are a special kind of shiat. Same wink and nudge playbook employed by pussy racists.
 
2013-10-30 08:54:48 AM
 
2013-10-30 09:03:15 AM

Jim_Callahan: That's not quite the same thing as the self-defense argument being accepted.  An accepted self-defense argument usually means the accusation doesn't get past the grand jury and into trial in the first place, though it can still be used as part of the general defense arguing that there's insufficient evidence of malice for murder by posing it as a viable alternative scenario.


The governor specifically ordered the special prosecutor, appointed because the normal process couldn't find enough evidence to bring charges, to bypass the grand jury.  They knew that there would not have been a recommendation to prosecute.  I would agree with your assertion if the process had been followed.  It wasn't though.  If it had been there would have been no trial.
 
2013-10-30 09:14:35 AM

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."


Government's have powers, and the constitution limits their power to prevent them from infringing upon our rights.

The COTUS does not grant rights, it protects them.

I'm really surprised you don't understand this given the amount of time you've dedicated to the topic.
 
2013-10-30 09:16:58 AM

udhq: That's not as much the case with the second amendment; with both, the courts have decided that they extend only as far as they are compatible with the general welfare clause.


Citation needed.
 
2013-10-30 09:21:29 AM

Road Rash: Interesting read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should -l ove-the-Second-Amendment


I think it's ludicrous to suggest liberals don't love the Second Amendment. I consider myself liberal and I've always been a supporter of gun rights. Always. What I have a problem with is the *actual* "gun nuts" the above article seems dismissive of. There are plenty of such people who obviously relish the notion that some day, if they're lucky, they'll get a chance to shoot someone who makes the mistake of looking at them sideways. And they hope and pray that guy's a liberal, so they can help rid the world of that stupid, lazy, anti-American scum. I see plenty of them in the weapons forums my comments above note. It's *those* people I have serious problems with and who justify my positions on the need for more sensible and carefully constructed restrictions on types of weapons and their owners. This does not make me anti-gun or anti-Second Amendment; it makes me rational. None of our Constitutional rights are absolute. The Second Amendment is not special in this regard.

I grew up in a household filled with guns and headed by a pretty dramatically conservative father. But you know what? In our house guns were very carefully controlled under lock and key and before any of us ever held a weapon we were given the rules in strict fashion. Also, my father - wisely, I think - was never dogmatic with us about *any* hardcore conservative ideas. Instead, we grew up to respect authority, institutions, and guns, and we learned when it was right or necessary to stand against both injustice *and* stupidity in matters of all three.

Guns definitely have their place in our culture, and they should - and will - continue to have it. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean the *real* "gun nuts" get to control the debate. Honestly, the way they've acted in recent years suggests they have no place in the debate if you ask me. It's time for the adults to do the talking.

This of course is true of extremists on the other side, as well, but in my experience, those folks aren't taken very seriously by the public at large, so they're not as much of a threat to rationality as the nutters.
 
2013-10-30 10:19:15 AM

Frank N Stein: and the guy was being gay about it,


Seriously, dude?
 
2013-10-30 10:24:47 AM

axeeugene: This of course is true of extremists on the other side, as well, but in my experience, those folks aren't taken very seriously by the public at large, so they're not as much of a threat to rationality as the nutters.



Oh really?  Tell that to gun owners in California and New York.
 
2013-10-30 10:44:56 AM
axeeugene:

I think it's high time for left-leaning gun owners like myself and a few others to take a more active part in this debate...forget what I said earlier in this thread, because cooler heads have to prevail in this debate at some point. It's time to take back the goddamn asylum.

I agree. Just took the Concealed-Carry "training" course last weekend, and struggling with whether to apply for the permit. Want to have it,  but only if I don't feel like I need it. Thankfully, the instructor says the certificate doesn't expire.
 
2013-10-30 10:56:24 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I didn't say it was unintentional. But since it's not actually the same gun, why get upset about it? DNFTT.


I find the coupling of that gun and a bible, in relation to the Martin shooting, to be curious and disturbing statement. Since I am not a clinically insane racist teabagger, I am not sure what the precisely statement they are making is, but its definitely a distinct statement they are trying to make and none of the apparent options are anything more than deeply unsettling at best.
 
2013-10-30 11:12:48 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Gun nuts are a special kind of shiat. Same wink and nudge playbook employed by pussy racists.


Amen.

I do wish these patriots would get fired up about the destruction of the fourth amendment that started with Reagan and continues today. Sooner or later, I'd want them to shut up about that, too. :-)
 
2013-10-30 11:51:58 AM
 Because they're absolutely giddy at the idea of a 17 year old kid being shot to death... So long as he's black that is.
 
2013-10-30 11:56:09 AM

HypnozombieX: Because they're absolutely giddy at the idea of a 17 year old kid being shot to death... So long as he's black that is.


Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though the streams are swollen
Keep them dogies trollin'
Rawhide!
 
2013-10-30 12:23:02 PM
When gun and ammunition production is again meeting demand, someone calculated that a raffle or fundraiser that could raise just $10,000 could buy 50, $150/each, .22LR pistols, each with a $10 box of ammo.  Including tax.

This means giving 50 eligible poor households a gun and ammo.  With the gun stamped "not for resale or transfer, property of (whatever group)".  And since the average starting pay for a police officer is $40,000 a year in the US, for the same price, 200 households could protect themselves from violent criminals in the first year alone.

Talk about "taking a bite out of crime".

Of course, some households would not want a gun out of philosophical reasons, and others would not feel capable of keeping or using a gun properly.  But criminals wouldn't know which ones.
 
2013-10-30 02:12:18 PM

udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.


Agreed, and the same is true for those pushing for more gun control. If you want to ban something, at least take 5 minutes to learn what the features you want to ban are and what they do. If you want to ban "that icky black thing" or whatever, you probably won't be taken seriously by anyone who does have any interest in guns.
 
2013-10-30 02:18:19 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Had Travyon killed Martin, he'd have gotten off on the same law and you racist pro-Zimmerman d-bags would be calling for a noose.


In all likelihood it would have barely made the news. There were several non-blacks killed by blacks around the same time that never got the media frenzy. I still don't understand why the trayvon case did get so much attention.
 
2013-10-30 02:21:28 PM
Yes, because giving people guns makes them so much safer.

ginkor: When gun and ammunition production is again meeting demand, someone calculated that a raffle or fundraiser that could raise just $10,000 could buy 50, $150/each, .22LR pistols, each with a $10 box of ammo.  Including tax.

This means giving 50 eligible poor households a gun and ammo.  With the gun stamped "not for resale or transfer, property of (whatever group)".  And since the average starting pay for a police officer is $40,000 a year in the US, for the same price, 200 households could protect themselves from violent criminals in the first year alone.

Talk about "taking a bite out of crime".

Of course, some households would not want a gun out of philosophical reasons, and others would not feel capable of keeping or using a gun properly.  But criminals wouldn't know which ones.

 
2013-10-30 02:21:38 PM

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.


Must depend on who you hang with. I know several, and I'm in a very liberal area and am fairly liberal myself. I also am fond of guns and think shooting is fun. Never had any desire to kill anyone and never really associated guns with killing.
 
2013-10-30 02:29:10 PM

udhq: WhyKnot: udhq: Doom MD: udhq: Adolf Oliver Nipples: udhq: You want to preserve your second amendment rights?

I don't have to try to preserve them, you'll never get a majority of Representatives, 23rds of the Senate, and 38 states to agree to a repeal. Never.

The ssecond amendment doesn't have to be repealed to pass major restrictions on gun rights. Remember the temporary awb? That was never found to be unconstitutional.

Go into a high school class room sometime and talk to some of the kids. I have, even in some quite rural areas, and my conclusion is that like it or not, the meaning and scope of "gun rights" will almost certainly evolve in the next 50 years.
Call of duty has caused more young people to get into guns than anything. To say guns are losing popularity is laughable.

There will always be a small contingent of heavily armed, single, angry conservative white men.

But I know probably a dozen men from the rural town where I grew up who gave up their guns in order to convince their gfs to get married or have kids.

That's how women drive a lot of this social change, and I don't think I know a single woman under the age of 25 who owns a gun.

You know a bunch of weak men...why change for a women?

Why not teach them to shoot and not be scared of guns?

Meh, it's a choice to be made, your guns or your family.

I think it's not unreasonable for a woman to be able to choose whether she wants to live/have children with guns around. No matter how safe and smart you are about it, having a gun in your house does present some risk.


So does having a bathtub in your house, or a pool, or a hot tub, or kitchen appliances, or power tools, or cleaning supplies, or alcohol, or stairs, or...

Naturally anyone can choose whether to have any of these things in their house. Why single out guns?
 
2013-10-30 02:33:58 PM

Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.


Is it? Remember that members I the military are "the people" too, and I would bet that there is a disproportionately large number of pro-gun-rights folks in the military. Also notice the difficult we've ha eradicating ragtag groups of insurgents in the Middle East. An armed population is a credible threat.
 
2013-10-30 02:44:06 PM

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners ...

That's not the stance that you have taken and you know it. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it is. But you need to remember, us thugs that keep that 2nd Amendment close to our hearts, are also the thugs that keep working and believing in the 1st also. You can try to rationalize that statement all you want too. But it always comes back to you.

Believe what you want, but historically, this had just not been the case.

Look at JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. The history of America is one of 1st amendment heroes being continually silenced by 2nd amendment heroes.


Are you farking nuts? You think the pro 2nd amendment groups consider those assassins heroes? Those bad guys are jackasses that help make things a pain for the responsible gun enthusiasts.
 
2013-10-30 03:21:57 PM

James10952001: The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Is it? Remember that members I the military are "the people" too, and I would bet that there is a disproportionately large number of pro-gun-rights folks in the military. Also notice the difficult we've ha eradicating ragtag groups of insurgents in the Middle East. An armed population is a credible threat.


As I've pointed out before, our invasion of the Mideast is so completely different from our own people (a very small minority, in no matter what scenario) going against our own military and the American people as a whole is so ridiculously different that it's hilarious that's it's even an argument.
 
2013-10-30 04:00:36 PM

axeeugene: I think it's ludicrous to suggest liberals don't love the Second Amendment.


The terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't useful, because most people are "some of each", depending on the issue.  Articles like that one put everyone into the conservative or liberal box based entirely on one issue.  According to them, if you like guns, you are conservative, and if you don't, you are liberal.  Then they argue why liberals should like guns.  It isn't very logical, but hey, from Daily Kos, what do you expect?
 
2013-10-30 05:12:32 PM

BravadoGT: WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...

I'm sure she offered some valuable insight that Congress needed--especially about the "Stand Your Ground" law that played no actual part in her thug-son's early demise or the subsequent trial...


Agreed, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon.
 
2013-10-30 07:37:05 PM
I really like guns.
 
2013-10-30 07:43:22 PM

James10952001: I still don't understand why the trayvon case did get so much attention.


His name was Zimmerman. Sharpton thought he had a Jew "by the horns". Once he derped it up there was no turning it down.
 
2013-10-30 08:42:05 PM

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
 
2013-10-30 09:09:29 PM

HypnozombieX: Because they're absolutely giddy at the idea of a 17 year old kid wannabe thug being shot to death...


FTFY
 
2013-10-30 09:12:11 PM

LoneWolf343: LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.


um, isn't that sort of how our country came to be in the first place?
beyond that there are dozens if not hundreds of other historical examples from any number of countries and time periods, but what is probably far more salient is the fact that the simple presence of a population capable of effecting a regime change from within has quite proveably acted as a deterrent to both foreign and domestic government actions that likely would have resulted in a populations use of arms. which is kind of the point.
 
2013-10-30 09:15:06 PM

James10952001: Must depend on who you hang with. I know several, and I'm in a very liberal area and am fairly liberal myself.


IIRC, women are the fastest-growing segment of the gun-buying public.  My wife was running her own reloading press by the time she was 7 years old.  Both of my daughters fired their first guns before they were three years old.
 
2013-10-30 09:23:03 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Agreed, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon.


Right.  After all, a sedentary 29 year old desk jockey can easily run down a 17 year old athlete...Martin is dead today simply because HE decided to confront Zimmerman, and took it so far that a jury felt that Zimmerman was reasonable in fearing for his life.
 
2013-10-30 09:32:28 PM

James10952001: Remember that members I the military are "the people" too, and I would bet that there is a disproportionately large number of pro-gun-rights folks in the military.


EXTRA this.  Back in the '90s, when the "29 Palms" survey came to light, I asked a guy I knew, a Military Academy graduate, the question in question, which was something along the lines of "If ordered to, would you fire on US Citizens for refusing to surrender their firearms?"  His response was "Not only no, but HELL NO, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order."  He meant it then, he still means it, and he's somebody I'd go a LONG way to avoid pissing off, and he's not a rarity.
 
2013-10-31 01:13:19 AM

TwistedIvory: Sgt Otter: Hi-Point and Kel-Tec.

I actually wouldn't mind a super-cheap Hi-Point as a beater truck gun. Their products feel awful in the hand, but they do at least function. There are a few "Hi-Point torture tests" on YouTube that are testaments to this fact.

That being said, I owned one for a little bit just to see if I could encourage a malf out of it. No such luck. As much as I hated shooting it, it went bang every time.

I really wanted to be 100% okay with Taurus. Hell, I have a 605SS that's one of my EDC guns. It, however, has given me problems on a couple separate occasions but I really only trust that first round. I'm trying to find a decent S&W Model 60 or the like to replace the Taurus, but I've had little luck on that front.


I used to own a Hi-Point .45 and 9mm.  After one day at the range and one day at Front Sight, they both had so many malfunctions that you might get 2 shots off consecutively, but not 3.  They gave me the incentive to save for a Glock.  5 years, no malfunctions.  For general plinking, they would be ok, but don't trust your life to them.
 
Displayed 277 of 277 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report