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.

(WTAE)   Gun shop owner killed in shooting at store on New Year's Eve. If only he'd had a gu-... wait, what? A gun store and taxidermy shop out of a house? What is this, I don't even. I'm hung over and need a drink now. Happy new year   (wtae.com) divider line 158
    More: Weird, New Year's Eve, Indiana counties, owner killed, firearms  
•       •       •

4061 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2014 at 8:00 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-01 06:12:32 PM  

Rat: I just can't figure out what you're referring to, since you say 'you' quite a bit.


Thanks for pointing that out. Here's a clarification:

The part I hate about these threads has to be when the idjits start telling me I know nothing about guns (cut my teeth, figuratively speaking, on the M110A2 when I went Army), self-defense (taught both small arms and unarmed combatives for years), or pistols (I graduated from a closely-supervised Ruger Mk.I to an even more closely-supervised M1911 at the age of 9).

I get to read various theories about how I'm afraid of firearms.

Then I'm told that I'm insane to advocate using manual safeties and Condition 3 carry due to "response time", even after I point out that 1) holster choice makes a bigger difference, and 2) I was taught both shooting and unarmed combatives by a master firearms instructor trained by Fairbairn and Sykes (yes, those guys) to keep the chamber empty and the eyes and ears open.

When I point out that walking around unarmed is really strong evidence that I am not, in fact, afraid, the typical response is either silence or loud and strident denial, accompanied by personal insults.

Admittedly, it's not as strident or loud as the response when I point out that walking around armed outside a war zone, absent a specific and personal threat, a job requirement, and outside hunting season is very strong evidence of fear. In short, arming yourself against an undefined and nonspecific threat is highly indicative of a fearful mindset. The squalls of indignation remind me of the squeals when the farmers down the road castrated their annual bacon boar.

Then, I point out that the intent of Amendment II is encapsulated in its first six words, and that that intent was enacted and implemented by Congress immediately after its ratification. Bearing arms, for crying out loud, is the only right in the Constitution that names its concomitant responsibility. I'm met with disbelief when I say that we should reimplement the Militia the way the Founders did, and require mandatory firearm training, qualification and proficiency for all residents 16 and over, subject their arms and ammunition to regular inspections and report their numbers and condition to the State and Federal governments, like the Founders did, and subject all members of the Milita of the United States to military discipline, especially where it concerns the use of their arms, just like the Founders did.

There is no constitutional impediment preventing this, since the Militia Powers of Congress are enumerated in the Constitution in Article I Section 8. The mental and physical screening, increased physical fitness levels, forging real connections within communities, and the ability to reduce the size of our active military and the train-up time required for active members, are gravy, from my point of view. I want us to have an armed, safe, well-regulated and regularly trained and evaluated militia that encompasses most of the population, yet the idjits persist in calling me a "gun-grabber".

They deny that well regulated means, well,  regulated, even when I link to  the actual farking Regulations prescribed by Congress, and point out that  regulatedhas meant controlled by rules since the Middle English of Geoffrey Chaucer.

The Heller decision was very clear that local, state and federal laws may, in fact, constitutionally regulate firearms. (p 54) And it seems to me that the public interest is best served when criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to firearms, and that the background checks that apply to firearms sales by licensed dealers ought to be done for all firearms transfers so we aren't privately giving or selling weapons to people who are prohibited by law from having them. (Especially since laws denying access to firearms from criminals and the mentally ill are specifically named as constitutional in the decision on that very page.)

A person would have to be fug-buck delusional, as in a raving paranoiac, to believe that mandatory background checks, mandatory training and proficiency-building, and safety inspections of arms and ammunition, is in any way a path to mass confiscation, since it guarantees that any attempt would be met with effective, trained armed resistance by organized units.
 
2014-01-01 06:26:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Rat: I just can't figure out what you're referring to, since you say 'you' quite a bit.

Thanks for pointing that out. Here's a clarification:

The part I hate about these threads has to be when the idjits start telling me I know nothing about guns (cut my teeth, figuratively speaking, on the M110A2 when I went Army), self-defense (taught both small arms and unarmed combatives for years), or pistols (I graduated from a closely-supervised Ruger Mk.I to an even more closely-supervised M1911 at the age of 9).

I get to read various theories about how I'm afraid of firearms.

Then I'm told that I'm insane to advocate using manual safeties and Condition 3 carry due to "response time", even after I point out that 1) holster choice makes a bigger difference, and 2) I was taught both shooting and unarmed combatives by a master firearms instructor trained by Fairbairn and Sykes (yes, those guys) to keep the chamber empty and the eyes and ears open.

When I point out that walking around unarmed is really strong evidence that I am not, in fact, afraid, the typical response is either silence or loud and strident denial, accompanied by personal insults.

Admittedly, it's not as strident or loud as the response when I point out that walking around armed outside a war zone, absent a specific and personal threat, a job requirement, and outside hunting season is very strong evidence of fear. In short, arming yourself against an undefined and nonspecific threat is highly indicative of a fearful mindset. The squalls of indignation remind me of the squeals when the farmers down the road castrated their annual bacon boar.

Then, I point out that the intent of Amendment II is encapsulated in its first six words, and that that intent was enacted and implemented by Congress immediately after its ratification. Bearing arms, for crying out loud, is the only right in the Constitution that names its concomitant responsibility. I'm met with disbelief when I say that we should reimplement the Mi ...



CITATIONS NOT NEEDED THANKS! You see, the Constitution is a lot like the Bible. Real American's are smart enough to read between the lines and divine its true meaning as it was left to us by our Founding Fathers and Duck Dynasty stars. Liberals always try and include that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment in an effort to trick and confuse the American public just like they try and pick apart the Bible to try and make us look like big fools.
 
2014-01-01 07:02:05 PM  

FnkyTwn: CITATIONS NOT NEEDED THANKS! You see, the Constitution is a lot like the Bible. Real American's are smart enough to read between the lines and divine its true meaning as it was left to us by our Founding Fathers and Duck Dynasty stars. Liberals always try and include that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment in an effort to trick and confuse the American public just like they try and pick apart the Bible to try and make us look like big fools.


Bravo.
 
2014-01-01 07:12:56 PM  

pyrotek85: FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?


Also FTA: Officials confirm Edmundson was a detective in the Lancaster County area in the 1990s but was fired for stealing from evidence.
 
2014-01-01 07:25:07 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: pyrotek85: FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?

Also FTA: Officials confirm Edmundson was a detective in the Lancaster County area in the 1990s but was fired for stealing from evidence.


Ah they updated, thanks. I've heard evidence room thefts can be pretty common on some forces, it's good he got fired for it.
 
2014-01-01 09:25:10 PM  

pyrotek85: squirrelflavoredyogurt: pyrotek85: FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?

Also FTA: Officials confirm Edmundson was a detective in the Lancaster County area in the 1990s but was fired for stealing from evidence.

Ah they updated, thanks. I've heard evidence room thefts can be pretty common on some forces, it's good he got fired for it.


And, if they had prosecuted him and he'd gotten a felony, then he never would have been able to get his FFL
 
2014-01-01 09:35:02 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: pyrotek85: squirrelflavoredyogurt: pyrotek85: FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?

Also FTA: Officials confirm Edmundson was a detective in the Lancaster County area in the 1990s but was fired for stealing from evidence.

Ah they updated, thanks. I've heard evidence room thefts can be pretty common on some forces, it's good he got fired for it.

And, if they had prosecuted him and he'd gotten a felony, then he never would have been able to get his FFL


Wait what? Edmundson was the suspect. The gun shop owner was Petro, the one who was killed. It doesn't appear that Petro did anything to warrant Edmundson's actions. But yes maybe the guy should have had a felony and some prison time even.
 
2014-01-02 12:27:16 AM  
No need to ban guns. Just put so much red tape in place that it becomes prohibitively regulated and/or expensive to own or transfer one short of surrendering it to law enforcement officials. It's working in New York and California!

/Californian
 
Displayed 8 of 158 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report