Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Politico)   Left-wing idol-of-the-month Wendy Davis supports Texas open-carry gun law, becomes right-wing idol-of-the-month   (politico.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1452 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 01:33:33 PM  

lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.


You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:49 PM  

sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.


Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:49 PM  

dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.


It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?
 
2014-02-06 01:36:41 PM  

Doom MD: You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.
 
2014-02-06 01:36:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.


Congress has also thought about repealing Obamacare. Congress has thought of a whole bunch of whacky things :)
 
2014-02-06 01:37:29 PM  

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.


I see stories of police injuring bystanders all the time (especially in NYC).

I don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Before people bring it up, yes, people do get shot due to negligence of firearm owners when they are "cleaning" their guns or "showing them to friends."  That's a different situation altogether.
 
2014-02-06 01:38:00 PM  

joness0154: rue, but for the most part, traffic code in the US is uniform.  There may be small idiosyncrasies here and there - like your green light example.  Whether or not the green arrow comes before the green light doesn't really matter since we have uniform code across states that says green arrow means X and green light means Y.  Everyone knows what a double yellow line is and everyone knows what a dashed white line is.  Speed limits may differ, but they're posted on signs.  Same with parking provisions, etc.

Imagine if green, yellow and red meant different things in each state.  Or if dashed yellow lines meant different things in each state.  For the most part, that's how gun laws in the states work today.


This is true.
If only Congress has some specified, enumerated, uh, let's call them "Powers", for giggles, that would let them set training standards and discipline and regulations for people bearing arms in the United States, and even to write any laws necessary and proper to exercise those Powers to implement standards, but leave it to the states to provide the training and trainers. If only.
/*sigh*
 
2014-02-06 01:38:21 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.

You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.


Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be. 

But yes, I am aware that our constitution and case law as it stands is a large impediment to reasoanble gun control, even if the politics of the country weren't prohibitively against it.   I was just talking about how it is successfully done elsewhere.
 
2014-02-06 01:39:11 PM  

cousin-merle: Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.


What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves.  Again, which would be best in this regard?
 
2014-02-06 01:39:53 PM  

joness0154: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

I see stories of police injuring bystanders all the time (especially in NYC).

I don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Before people bring it up, yes, people do get shot due to negligence of firearm owners when they are "cleaning" their guns or "showing them to friends."  That's a different situation altogether.


People are bringing it up because they're reaching. They need to find any old excuse to get more regulation. And I'm pretty sure that at least one person is scouring Google as I type to throw together a couple incidences to "prove" that this is a problem.
 
2014-02-06 01:40:37 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


You clearly don't know what in public is.

/Not surprising, considering the whole modal verb thing.
 
2014-02-06 01:41:49 PM  

lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.


I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.
 
2014-02-06 01:41:55 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.

You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.

Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be. 

But yes, I am aware that our constitution and case law as it stands is a large impediment to reasoanble gun control, even if the politics of the country weren't prohibitively against it.   I was just talking about how it is successfully done elsewhere.


Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?
 
2014-02-06 01:42:12 PM  

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.


Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.
 
2014-02-06 01:42:46 PM  

joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.


Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.
 
2014-02-06 01:43:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

You clearly don't know what in public is.

/Not surprising, considering the whole modal verb thing.


The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.
 
2014-02-06 01:44:47 PM  

lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.


It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...
 
2014-02-06 01:45:22 PM  

soporific: You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.


Requesting data that is actually directly relevant to your request, and that is not mixed with irrelevant data, is a "moving of goalposts". He has provided information; your demand that the information actually be meaningful is unreasonable.
 
2014-02-06 01:46:50 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.

I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.


I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.

Frank N Stein: Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?


Yes.   The courts decisions stand until some other court decides the decision was improper based on the development of law between then and now or a mistake in interpretation from a previous court.   

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because it would require them to admit that our standing army is kinda against the constitution, but hey - who knows.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:17 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.


Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:39 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.


Automobile insurance requirements are not driven by the number of deaths caused by automobiles, but by the amount of property damage accidents cause. 

Also, liability insurance usually doesn't cover you if the liability is the result of an unlawful action. Most firearm deaths in the US are a result of criminal activity, and would not be covered.

Accidental deaths are covered by insurance. When I got my first CHL, the state I was living in required that I also have a liability policy. It cost me all of 12 dollars a year, IIRC. They dropped that requirement a couple of years later due to the very, very small numbers of CHL holders who ever found themselves in such a situation.

The state I reside in now does not require it, but I still have the rider, because it costs little and it might save me a whole bunch if I ever have to use my firearm in a defensive manner.

In other words, accidental damage by firearms is negligible, while willful damage is covered by the criminal laws already established.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:56 PM  

joness0154: lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.

It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...


How many cities have a density like Manhattan and liberal gun laws?
 
2014-02-06 01:48:41 PM  

HeadLever: What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves. Again, which would be best in this regard?


www.corporategiftscompany.com

I can think of one at least.  As an added bonus, when some kid picks it up to play with it, they can actually use it for its intended purpose without you having to worry about them shooting someone in the head.
 
2014-02-06 01:49:35 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.

I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.

I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.

Frank N Stein: Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?

Yes.   The courts decisions stand until some other court decides the decision was improper based on the development of law between then and now or a mistake in interpretation from a previous court.   

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because it would require them to admit that our standing army is kinda against the constitution, but hey - who knows.


That's why I said "not to sound like a dick" because I figured you more than likely did understand the concept.
I think we might be at the opposite ends of this issue. I feel pretty confident that there will be no radical changes to our existing gun laws. God bless the NRA :)
 
2014-02-06 01:49:54 PM  

cousin-merle: Doom MD: You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.


Frangible ammo is what the Federal Air Marshals use, just in case a marshal ever has to use his weapon during a flight and misses, that bullet will not go thru the walls of the plane or window and depressurize the cabin.
 
2014-02-06 01:52:31 PM  

Frank N Stein: That's why I said "not to sound like a dick" because I figured you more than likely did understand the concept.
I think we might be at the opposite ends of this issue. I feel pretty confident that there will be no radical changes to our existing gun laws. God bless the NRA :)


Like I said, I agree we aren't getting rid of guns any time in the forseeable future.

I actually agree with the God bless the NRA, as long as the far right rails against something largely insignificant like gun rights they aren't spending those resources somewhere where they could do far more damage.
 
2014-02-06 01:53:05 PM  
Oh shiat, the GOP will really shiat their pants now.
 
2014-02-06 01:54:45 PM  

dmaestaz: Frangible ammo is what the Federal Air Marshals use, just in case a marshal ever has to use his weapon during a flight and misses, that bullet will not go thru the walls of the plane or window and depressurize the cabin.


First, air marshals have not used frangible ammo for years (they use 357 SIG).  Second, apartment complexes and airplanes are made out of different materials.  Hope that helps.
 
2014-02-06 01:55:00 PM  

lilplatinum: I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.


That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?
 
2014-02-06 01:55:18 PM  

Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?


I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.
 
2014-02-06 01:56:36 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure.

Then your response to my concern did not address my concern. I am aware such ammo exists, that doesn't mean people will use it.

Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.

I never claimed everyone lived in tightly grouped apartments, but it is one of the most densely populated areas in the country and if you are in an apartment you still have shared walls and ceilings, thus making gun ownership a pretty big danger for your neighbors who have to hope that you actually give a fark about them and spend money on proper ammo (or use a shotgun, which you should be using if you are a fearful coward and want to defend your studio apartment from all the scary people out to get you).


Of course I care about my neighbors, that's why I arm myself appropriately and don't use ammo that will drill straight through the building I currently reside at. If you cared about your neighbors, you'd allow them to defend themselves. You deem someone a coward because they want to be safe? As opposed to the courageous person that will sit by the bedside for 10-30 minutes while a bunch of guys take turns raping his wife? Do you not have survival instinct? I have pretty damn good reason to want to arm myself. Would you want some hoods to get their hands on my prescription pad?
 
2014-02-06 01:58:50 PM  

HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?


Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.
 
2014-02-06 01:59:18 PM  

dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.


I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 01:59:20 PM  

cousin-merle: I can think of one at least.


Ammo?  really?

At least you could have linked to a picture of a rock. At least your weapon range would be 15 to 20 feet instead of 6. Neither one is going to be as useful as a firearm for self defense, though.
 
2014-02-06 01:59:30 PM  
I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?
 
2014-02-06 01:59:44 PM  

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


Bullshiat.  Liberals don't demand purity because "liberal" is a catch all term for people who have a batch of progressive ideas and are willing to accept that government has a role in implementing those ideas.  Davis is a Texas Democrat.  That means she likes guns, but notice that it's regulation of something people will do anyway and done for public safety.

And it's easy to be pure to the tea party because their whole point could be drawn up on a napkin.  liberal positions are disparate, possibly contradictory and numerous.  One couldn't find a pure liberal if one tried.
 
2014-02-06 02:00:18 PM  

Triaxis: I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?


Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe!
 
2014-02-06 02:01:36 PM  

joness0154: The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.


Ya.
Sure ting.
You betchya.
Fer shure.
Yessiree Bob.
Uh-huh.
Yup.
Right.
Proceed.
Walking around armed in public does not increase the danger to yourself and the public. In a pig's eye.

NB: Licensed concealed carriers for every single one of those, um   isolated incidents  up there in the last few months.
 
2014-02-06 02:01:42 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.


A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.
 
2014-02-06 02:02:35 PM  

cousin-merle: HeadLever: What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves. Again, which would be best in this regard?

[www.corporategiftscompany.com image 400x600]

I can think of one at least.  As an added bonus, when some kid picks it up to play with it, they can actually use it for its intended purpose without you having to worry about them shooting someone in the head.


Please by all means give that to your grandmother to defend herself from a hood at 3 am.
 
2014-02-06 02:03:22 PM  

Frank N Stein: Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.

Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.


I didn't say it was a bad idea, in fact I said that it has it's advantages. The problem is that by-standers are catching stray rounds, frangible or not. Proper training and practice will do more to stop innocents from being shot, yet mandating training standards and requiring minimums for range time seems to be anti-freedom.

/yes, I am aware that many states require training for CCW and open carry. But do they require a certain number of range hours to ensure you can actually shoot without missing?
//I've practiced about four hours, weekly, for the past three years and I am still only a IPSC/IPDA "B-class" shooter.
///slashies for my CZ-SP01 Tactical
 
2014-02-06 02:03:46 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sprawl15: speaking of phallucies

That's the best you can do? Weak.


That's rich coming from you.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:20 PM  

Doom MD: Of course I care about my neighbors, that's why I arm myself appropriately and don't use ammo that will drill straight through the building I currently reside at.


Thats super, most human beings are super selfish, so what you would chose to do does not really really reflect what most people would choose to do.

You deem someone a coward because they want to be safe?

We live in pretty much the safest period of human history, so yes, I think those who are too afraid to go outside their houses in this day and age without being armed are gaping pussies.    Home defense is a little more reasonable, but concealed carry folk are cowards.

Do you not have survival instinct? I have pretty damn good reason to want to arm myself. Would you want some hoods to get their hands on my prescription pad?

I've spent time in Johannesburg and Bogota, places where you would actually need to defend yourselves with weapon.   Nothing about anywhere in the US I have been, with the possible exception of parts of NOLA, have even remotely ticked my 'survival instinct'.

Theres always a base chance that some random event of violence will occur with you.  For people who take reasonable precautions this chance is so miniscule that the chance of a gun getting you into more trouble is equal or greater.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:49 PM  

lilplatinum: Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.


Ok, Fair enough.To each their own.  I definable can see where it is not for everyone, but I love to hunt and I love to shoot.  For me, being able to hit an egg at 150 yards every time with ammunition you have loaded yourself is really satisfying.  Though, the biggest pain right now is all the damn hysteria and hoarders out there is making it very difficult to find reloading components even today.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:51 PM  

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.

A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.


I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:54 PM  

lilplatinum: joness0154: lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.

It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...

How many cities have a density like Manhattan and liberal gun laws?


Not even Phoenix, but Phoenix is far more dangerous and has extremely liberal firearm laws.
 
2014-02-06 02:06:05 PM  

Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.


I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).
 
2014-02-06 02:06:05 PM  

Doom MD: Please by all means give that to your grandmother to defend herself from a hood at 3 am.


My grandmother is legally blind, but you sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'll go ahead and get her a couple firearms instead.

/Charles Bronson movies aren't real life
 
2014-02-06 02:06:47 PM  

Saiga410: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.

A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.


I hate the oft used car examples in these threads. It always end with people debating car regulations. Plus, computers, and by extension, represent information and communication. 1st amendment shiat. So it relates in that matter.
 
2014-02-06 02:07:36 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.

Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.

I didn't say it was a bad idea, in fact I said that it has it's advantages. The problem is that by-standers are catching stray rounds, frangible or not. Proper training and practice will do more to stop innocents from being shot, yet mandating training standards and requiring minimums for range time seems to be anti-freedom.

/yes, I am aware that many states require training for CCW and open carry. But do th ...


CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.
 
Displayed 50 of 542 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report