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.

(Inside Bay Area)   Knock knock. Who's there? Home Invasion. Home invasion who? Home inva...powpowpowpowpow   (insidebayarea.com) divider line 321
    More: Fail, Hayward Police Department  
•       •       •

16616 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 1:47 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-10 12:18:44 PM  
So he hit two of them, but missed the third one?

Ski one penalty lap and get back in the race. You can still catch the Norwegian.
 
2014-02-10 12:25:17 PM  
Good.
But you need more range time.
 
2014-02-10 12:35:23 PM  
If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.
 
2014-02-10 12:44:29 PM  
Will gladly sing praises to the homeowner:

www.pure7studios.com
 
2014-02-10 12:51:42 PM  
The homeowner was a fox?
 
2014-02-10 12:52:11 PM  
yeah, let me go get my crying towel.  I'll be right back...
 
2014-02-10 01:13:05 PM  
I love a story with a happy ending.
 
2014-02-10 01:19:03 PM  
"But...Why!?"

"Because I was home, you sh*tmasked motherf*cker."
 
2014-02-10 01:21:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I love a story with a happy ending.


for once, I agree with you.
 
2014-02-10 01:35:59 PM  
But remember, only the police should have guns.
 
2014-02-10 01:49:55 PM  

ManateeGag: Dancin_In_Anson: I love a story with a happy ending.

for once, I agree with you.


that was an awful story, only 1 out of 3 were killed.
 
2014-02-10 01:50:11 PM  
image.blingee.com
 
2014-02-10 01:50:34 PM  
Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.
 
2014-02-10 01:50:42 PM  
As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.
 
2014-02-10 01:51:05 PM  

mr_a: So he hit two of them, but missed the third one?

Ski one penalty lap and get back in the race. You can still catch the Norwegian.


Killed one, second had multiple gunshot wounds. I'm willing to give him a little leniency.
 
2014-02-10 01:52:11 PM  

kronicfeld: The homeowner was a fox?


She was pretty cute, but I don't know if I'd call her that.
 
2014-02-10 01:52:39 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


8/10, nicely disguised.
Troll on, dude.
 
2014-02-10 01:53:16 PM  
content.internetvideoarchive.com
Pic of the suspects who escaped
 
2014-02-10 01:53:38 PM  
How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?
 
2014-02-10 01:53:57 PM  

Silly_Sot: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

8/10, nicely disguised.
Troll on, dude.


Not really, basic economics gave him away.
5/10
 
2014-02-10 01:54:34 PM  
braden walker?
 
2014-02-10 01:55:24 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


I'm pro-union and pro-gun, and I'm happy to hear the story turned out the way it did.

/not all criminals are poor people just trying to get by in a hard world
//some of them are just assholes
 
2014-02-10 01:55:24 PM  
Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.
 
2014-02-10 01:56:26 PM  

Silly_Sot: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

8/10, nicely disguised.
Troll on, dude.


ah, damn, I shoulda looked at the poster's name
 
2014-02-10 01:57:02 PM  
Hero tag for the homeowner.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:09 PM  

diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.


This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:09 PM  
they found a deceased man who had appeared to have been shot,

Appeared to have been shot?
I'm pretty sure you'll know if someone has been shot or not.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:18 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


not as fast a whiny conservative plays the victim apparently.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:29 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.


As a cop I DEFINITELY would want to see more information on this. There's a LOT of holes in this account. That's some fine reporting there, Lou.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:42 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.
 
2014-02-10 01:57:58 PM  
It's too bad we live in a society where this guy will probably be charged with defending his home.

I just saw a news story where a guy went to jail for shooting someone that broke into his business when it was closed. The reporter asked a lawyer about the law (in my state, which is illinois) , and the lawyer basically said if someone kicks in your door, you can shoot them. Anything less and you can be charged.
 
2014-02-10 01:58:38 PM  

darch: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

As a cop I DEFINITELY would want to see more information on this. There's a LOT of holes in this account. That's some fine reporting there, Lou.


Some holes in the dead guy, too, apparently.
 
2014-02-10 01:58:50 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...
 
2014-02-10 01:58:50 PM  
Assuming the knocker is outside the house, and therefore the invader, and the knockee is inside the house, we should never get to the "home invasion who?" question of the joke.

Should have been:

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Home Invasion.

powpowpowpowpow *calls police* Sorry officer, I don't know the last name of the dead man on my floor, we didn't get that far.
 
2014-02-10 01:59:26 PM  
And nothing of value was lost.
 
2014-02-10 01:59:42 PM  

Headso: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

not as fast a whiny conservative plays the victim apparently.


I GOT ONE!
I GOT ONE!
 
2014-02-10 01:59:58 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.


I'm not very pro-gun,  but you pretty much right about that.   Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?
 
2014-02-10 02:00:17 PM  

MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.


TWO!
I GOT TWO!
 
2014-02-10 02:00:55 PM  

kronicfeld: The homeowner was a fox?


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-10 02:01:25 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.
 
2014-02-10 02:02:26 PM  
Since this happened in the Bay Area, I am sure the home owner now faces murder charges and weapons charges.
 
2014-02-10 02:02:31 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

I'm not very pro-gun,  but you pretty much right about that.   Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?


I'm not familiar with the hours home invaders keep, but this could be anything from a straightforward home invasion to a bad drug deal.
 
2014-02-10 02:03:21 PM  
sonofalich.com
 
2014-02-10 02:03:51 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
 
2014-02-10 02:05:16 PM  

AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.


Everybody point and laugh at the shrieking idiot.
 
2014-02-10 02:05:25 PM  

onyxruby: There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.


Too bad not enough sit on the Supreme Court.
 
2014-02-10 02:05:54 PM  

onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.


Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.
 
2014-02-10 02:06:27 PM  

CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...


Sadly the law in several states requires you to do exactly that.
 
2014-02-10 02:06:29 PM  
I. Am. Your singing telegram.
 
2014-02-10 02:06:39 PM  

Silly_Sot: MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.

TWO!
I GOT TWO!

 
2014-02-10 02:07:23 PM  

AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.


No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough
 
2014-02-10 02:07:28 PM  
Well. I guess you'll just have to imagine lolitrolu.jpg there.
 
2014-02-10 02:08:28 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: onyxruby: There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Too bad not enough sit on the Supreme Court.


I couldn't agree more.
 
2014-02-10 02:10:21 PM  

Sid_the_sadist: Assuming the knocker is outside the house, and therefore the invader, and the knockee is inside the house, we should never get to the "home invasion who?" question of the joke.

Should have been:

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Home Invasion.

powpowpowpowpow *calls police* Sorry officer, I don't know the last name of the dead man on my floor, we didn't get that far.


It's "Invasion"

Duh.
 
2014-02-10 02:11:05 PM  

Silly_Sot: Headso: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

not as fast a whiny conservative plays the victim apparently.

I GOT ONE!
I GOT ONE!


Great kid, don't get cocky.
 
2014-02-10 02:11:22 PM  
I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.
 
2014-02-10 02:11:41 PM  

CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...


C'mon there has to be one of you out there that thinks that hiding in fear and waiting for the police to arrive is always the best policy.
 
2014-02-10 02:12:37 PM  
AugieDoggyDaddy:  Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?

What?
 
2014-02-10 02:12:47 PM  

CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...


I dunno, if you get home-invaded in the UK, I'm pretty sure you can be found criminally liable if you don't offer the invader a spot of tea and some biscuits.
 
2014-02-10 02:13:38 PM  

AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.


you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
 
2014-02-10 02:13:45 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Well. I guess you'll just have to imagine lolitrolu.jpg there.


lol, I was wondering...
 
2014-02-10 02:14:31 PM  
In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh
 
2014-02-10 02:14:36 PM  
Of all the crimes out there, home invasions have to be the most horrific and brutal. You're literally busting down someone's door and attacking them in their refuge. At least let the victims step outside before you rob them, you f*cking assholes.

I hope the now-dead robber felt every bullet.
 
2014-02-10 02:14:49 PM  

AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.


FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.
 
2014-02-10 02:15:39 PM  
People should know better than to show up unannounced and drop your sack in someone's face.

Tub of popcorn or bag of nuts, you don't put your seeds in front of someones face and expect to get up from it.
 
2014-02-10 02:15:53 PM  

onyxruby: Galloping Galoshes: onyxruby: There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Too bad not enough sit on the Supreme Court.

I couldn't agree more.


scienceblogs.com
 
2014-02-10 02:16:29 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?


Yes, it's best to wait for dark, my brothers, real country dark.
 
2014-02-10 02:16:49 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


Does insurance cover replacing the carpet?  Plus you probably have to repaint the wall he was standing in front of.

We should encourage home invaders to break in via the kitchen; the linoleum (or tile) is much easier to clean.
 
2014-02-10 02:17:39 PM  

Onkel Buck: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

C'mon there has to be one of you out there that thinks that hiding in fear and waiting for the police to arrive is always the best policy.


Why call the police, you meanie?  Obviously this person had it worse off than the person he was trying to steal from, right?   Why not just hide in a closet and let them have what they want and then let them go on their way.  Are mere possessions worth bothering the police over?
 
2014-02-10 02:17:43 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: I'm not familiar with the hours home invaders keep, but this could be anything from a straightforward home invasion to a bad drug deal.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-10 02:18:30 PM  
Got one, winged a second and the third got away; sounds like someone needs more range time or more/larger mags.

/ I've been looking at 10 round mags for my 1911; I'd have one, but, I hear bad things about the springs.
 
2014-02-10 02:18:30 PM  

thamike: onyxruby: Galloping Galoshes: onyxruby: There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Too bad not enough sit on the Supreme Court.

I couldn't agree more.

[scienceblogs.com image 400x455]


Really?  You don't get out much, do you?  Spend more time reading rather than ranting.
 
2014-02-10 02:19:56 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.


"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.
 
2014-02-10 02:21:59 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Really?  You don't get out much, do you?  Spend more time reading rather than ranting.


This statement makes sense to you, does it?
 
2014-02-10 02:22:05 PM  

Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.

Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..
 
2014-02-10 02:24:04 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Does insurance cover replacing the carpet?  Plus you probably have to repaint the wall he was standing in front of.

We should encourage home invaders to break in via the kitchen; the linoleum (or tile) is much easier to clean.


Actually NC just passed the castle law, I can shoot through the door if they are trying to kick it in.
Yep, that's the ticket, through the door,
 
2014-02-10 02:24:05 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

There are a lot of blowhards with fantasies about heroically blowing away a crackhead breaking into their house (and that's probably not a healthy fantasy to have) but even those idiots are unlikely to genuinely relish having that fantasy to come true.

Even leaving aside all the psychological implications and repercussions; killing someone in self defense is likely to thoroughly screw up your life in the best of circumstances.
 
2014-02-10 02:24:07 PM  

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


Lolno

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_ i mmigrants-rights/second-amendment
 
2014-02-10 02:24:28 PM  

COMALite J: Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


The ACLU does support 2nd Amendment cases, same as they do the rest of the Constitution.  That's kind of their thing.
 
2014-02-10 02:24:52 PM  
What, no Grumpy Cat "Good" picture?!

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-02-10 02:25:02 PM  

tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.

"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.


I could go for that.  Couldn't we argue that means practice loads as well?
 
2014-02-10 02:26:05 PM  

JesseL: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

There are a lot of blowhards with fantasies about heroically blowing away a crackhead breaking into their house (and that's probably not a healthy fantasy to have) but even those idiots are unlikely to genuinely relish having that fantasy to come true.

Even leaving aside all the psychological implications and repercussions; killing someone in self defense is likely to thoroughly screw up your life in the best of circumstances.


This
 
2014-02-10 02:26:18 PM  

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


There are a number of third-amendment cases pending, where SWAT teams entered homes without permission or warrant to get better targeting on adjacent properties.
 
2014-02-10 02:26:36 PM  

JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.


www.caracol.com.co

Hardly.
 
2014-02-10 02:27:20 PM  

cig-mkr: Galloping Galoshes: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Does insurance cover replacing the carpet?  Plus you probably have to repaint the wall he was standing in front of.

We should encourage home invaders to break in via the kitchen; the linoleum (or tile) is much easier to clean.

Actually NC just passed the castle law, I can shoot through the door if they are trying to kick it in.
Yep, that's the ticket, through the door,


Well, normally I wouldn't want to shoot at something I can't see, but if they're coming through the door, I could see an argument.
 
2014-02-10 02:27:21 PM  

thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.



Hardly.


8 months later, still butthurt.
 
2014-02-10 02:27:43 PM  

COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support


I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.  "
 
2014-02-10 02:28:37 PM  

thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

[www.caracol.com.co image 340x255]

Hardly.



DRINK

img.fark.net

 
2014-02-10 02:29:16 PM  

thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

[www.caracol.com.co image 340x255]

Hardly.


www.gannett-cdn.com
 
2014-02-10 02:29:31 PM  

crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh


Good. That kind of idiot behavior that endangers tons of uninvolved people in the name of recovering a stolen golf cart is absolutely beyond the pale. Those guys deserve serious prison time.

There are plenty of things they could have done that would have seen their property recovered and the thieves caught without doing anything as reckless as shooting between moving vehicles.
 
2014-02-10 02:30:09 PM  

Frank N Stein: thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

Hardly.

8 months later, still butthurt.


Butthurt is the glue that keeps this place from falling apart
 
2014-02-10 02:30:30 PM  

CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...


I seriously doubt you have ever been in a "person shoots a home invader" thread before. They are usually filled with "your stuff isn't more valuable than my life! Herp!" and "Robbery isn't a capital crime! Derp!"
 
2014-02-10 02:30:46 PM  

Frank N Stein: thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

Hardly.

8 months later, still butthurt.


Jesus Christ, you guys are f*cked up.
 
2014-02-10 02:31:54 PM  

JesseL: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

There are a lot of blowhards with fantasies about heroically blowing away a crackhead breaking into their house (and that's probably not a healthy fantasy to have) but even those idiots are unlikely to genuinely relish having that fantasy to come true.

Even leaving aside all the psychological implications and repercussions; killing someone in self defense is likely to thoroughly screw up your life in the best of circumstances.


Indeed.

For one, regular citizens don't have the same protections that cops do; and can be sued, personally, for wrongful death.
 
2014-02-10 02:32:01 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


I agree. My son asked me when you should use a gun in self defense.  I answered "when you are fairly sure that you or your loved ones are going to die otherwise"

I've wondered if I would be able to live in the house where I ended somebody.  Not sure.  Don't ever want to find out.
 
2014-02-10 02:32:18 PM  

thamike: Galloping Galoshes: Really?  You don't get out much, do you?  Spend more time reading rather than ranting.

This statement makes sense to you, does it?


Here, let me help you a bit.  Go look up Kelo and how the Supreme Court ruled.
 
2014-02-10 02:32:46 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


How long before some dumbass assumes that liberals will decry the homeowner's actions?
Whoops, too late.
You win.
 
2014-02-10 02:33:06 PM  

crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh


Not sure if serious... This is the cell phone era, they spotted stolen goods and should have called the cops. Then kept a lingering tail until a cop showed up. Unless the golf cart was highly modified they could be seeing just some guy moving a golf cart.

/people these days don't have any spy craft
//couldn't follow anyone without NSA cell taps
 
2014-02-10 02:33:23 PM  

thamike: Frank N Stein: thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

Hardly.

8 months later, still butthurt.

Jesus Christ, you guys are f*cked up.


Your concern is noted.
 
2014-02-10 02:33:29 PM  
cman [TotalFark]


Poverty begets crime.
Which is why rich people never commit crimes.

// farking stupid argument.
 
2014-02-10 02:33:47 PM  

super_grass: DRINK


Please do.  This political sh*twave is what separates normal people who have guns and people like you who live in a hypothetical nethersphere.
 
2014-02-10 02:34:12 PM  
Don't do the crime if you can't dodge bullets.
 
2014-02-10 02:34:26 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Here, let me help you a bit.


You couldn't possibly.
 
2014-02-10 02:34:29 PM  

devilEther: Pic of the suspects who escaped


Jesus H. Christ, that farking movie was awful. I don't care what kind of point Haneke was trying to make. When you break the fourth wall like that and your only explanation is "fark you, that's why," you fail as a filmmaker.

/first movie I watched from Haneke
//also last
 
2014-02-10 02:34:31 PM  

JesseL: crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh

Good. That kind of idiot behavior that endangers tons of uninvolved people in the name of recovering a stolen golf cart is absolutely beyond the pale. Those guys deserve serious prison time.

There are plenty of things they could have done that would have seen their property recovered and the thieves caught without doing anything as reckless as shooting between moving vehicles.


Agree with the endangerment of others, not cool. However, if you are going to commit a crime against someone (theft, assault, etc..) you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. Those consequences don't necessarily stop at jail time.

Kind of like fooling around with your neighbors wife. He could approve, he could join in, or he could go all stabby on you. The risks you take..
 
2014-02-10 02:35:26 PM  
CSB

in college my roommates were victims of a home invasion. My friend was sitting in the living room watching tv when a guy just walked in through the backdoor unheard came up behind my roommate and put a gun to his head. My other roommate eventually came downstairs and was told to get on the floor don't move etc. After like 30 min my roommates said it was clear the guy was mentally ill ( maybe schizo? ) and extremely paranoid. They convinced him his only hope was leaving and even opened the door for him. As soon as the gunman walked outside they slammed the door and hit the deadbolt. Right then I walked in from class through the front door. They yelled at me and I slammed the front door and locked it. Called the cops and they caught the guy a few blocks over in a field. We lived in a duplex in a very family oriented neighborhood, heh the gunman just happened to walk into a duplex filled with college students. Had it been one with a poor hysterical mom and small kids it could have turned out really bad.

We got a nice writeup in our school newspaper and figured it was good for getting us laid but never happened :(
 
2014-02-10 02:35:30 PM  

super_grass: thamike: Frank N Stein: thamike: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.

Hardly.

8 months later, still butthurt.

Jesus Christ, you guys are f*cked up.

Your concern is noted.


OK.
 
2014-02-10 02:35:32 PM  

thamike: super_grass: DRINK

Please do.  This political sh*twave is what separates normal people who have guns and people like you who live in a hypothetical nethersphere.


i290.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-10 02:35:35 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?
 
2014-02-10 02:35:37 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?


I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember seeing/reading quite some time back an interview with a couple ex-burglars, and they both liked to hit homes at dinner time. Their logic was that while everyone was occupied at the table they had the most assurance that they wouldn't be interrupted anywhere else in the house. How that works out these days I have no idea.

/One of the most amusing It Takes A Thief episodes IMHO is the one where he cleans a house out while the homeowner was still in her home office working.
 
2014-02-10 02:36:01 PM  
....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)

There are places in the USA where deadly force as defense will get your ass locked up.

Not trolling.
 
2014-02-10 02:37:55 PM  

umad: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

I seriously doubt you have ever been in a "person shoots a home invader" thread before. They are usually filled with "your stuff isn't more valuable than my life! Herp!" and "Robbery isn't a capital crime! Derp!"


I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments, this very thread though has several whiny people playing the victim in the way you are doing here. Based on that I'm gonna say this is all in your heads, brehs.
 
2014-02-10 02:37:56 PM  

craigdamage: I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns.


There is no way that laws like this would hold up post McDonald.
 
2014-02-10 02:38:05 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


Do you have proof he was in danger?
 
2014-02-10 02:40:21 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough


Though not confirmed, it's 2 out of 3 were shot; 1 was killed, and one was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds.  She lived likely because of the gun control laws and how they always hurt women among other people who benefit from doing illegal alien minority things while the government tries to take my freedomballs.
 
2014-02-10 02:40:22 PM  

Theburner: JesseL: crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh

Good. That kind of idiot behavior that endangers tons of uninvolved people in the name of recovering a stolen golf cart is absolutely beyond the pale. Those guys deserve serious prison time.

There are plenty of things they could have done that would have seen their property recovered and the thieves caught without doing anything as reckless as shooting between moving vehicles.

Agree with the endangerment of others, not cool. However, if you are going to commit a crime against someone (theft, assault, etc..) you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. Those consequences don't necessarily stop at jail time.

Kind of like fooling around with your neighbors wife. He could approve, he could join in, or he could go all stabby on you. The risks you take..


No disagreement here.

Victimizing people has inescapable risks that have nothing to do with the law.  You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, and all that.
 
2014-02-10 02:40:39 PM  

JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.



I'll agree to that. I'd rather maim for a lasting lesson. Death is just an easy escape.
 
2014-02-10 02:40:58 PM  

FlashHarry: kronicfeld: The homeowner was a fox?

[img.fark.net image 800x387]


What does the gun say?
 
2014-02-10 02:41:57 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

I'm not very pro-gun,  but you pretty much right about that.   Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?


"Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?"

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm a pro-gun conservative, but I would wait until the facts are in before I too draw any conclusion.

/Also, I wouldn't celebrate the death of another human being, but that's just me.
 
2014-02-10 02:42:36 PM  

That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?


you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.
 
2014-02-10 02:43:11 PM  

craigdamage: ....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)

There are places in the USA where deadly force as defense will get your ass locked up.

Not trolling.


California has both Stand Your Ground and castle doctrine laws. The homeowner should be fine.
 
2014-02-10 02:43:16 PM  

Headso: playing the victim in the way you are doing here


Say what now? I don't give a fark what your stance is on the issue. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Headso: I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments


And you're full of shiat.
 
2014-02-10 02:43:56 PM  

Best Princess Celestia: JesseL: Hardly anyone really wants to kill anyone in self defense.


I'll agree to that. I'd rather maim for a lasting lesson. Death is just an easy escape.


Dead men can't sue.  Goblins that survive being shot do and often win
 
2014-02-10 02:43:57 PM  
We only have one story.  For all we know, it was

"Hey look.  About that Super Bowl bet.  I only got part of the mon-" POWPOWPOWPOW
 
2014-02-10 02:44:03 PM  
the best part is when the Wealthy/big business patriots finally get rid of that pesky, nasty government,  you all will have the privilege of staying home 24/7 to protect your property.  it'll be the perfect excuse for not being able to come in to work.


while the wealthy stay protected by their gated communities/fortresses.


god, i love Freedom.
 
2014-02-10 02:44:22 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: Smeggy Smurf: No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough

Though not confirmed, it's 2 out of 3 were shot; 1 was killed, and one was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds.  She lived likely because of the gun control laws and how they always hurt women among other people who benefit from doing illegal alien minority things while the government tries to take my freedomballs.


Did you just have a stroke, or did your overzealous efforts to use sarcasm and irony collapse into some sort of derpy singularity from which meaning can't possibly escape?
 
2014-02-10 02:45:17 PM  

JesseL: Victimizing people has inescapable risks that have nothing to do with the law.


I really would like criminals to have to consider "I can break into that house and steal things or commit other offenses, but they can kill me without any more penalty as filling out some paperwork. Is it worth my life?"

And then when they lay there bleeding they can think "No, it really wasn't. Damn, should have taken that job at Co. . . "
 
2014-02-10 02:46:57 PM  
A man is dead under suspicious circumstances.  Let's show some respect and not politicize what could be a simple, unavoidable tragedy not unlike those that occur every day.

The deceased could've been selling encyclopedias door to door only to be gunned down by someone of unknown mental state.  We just don't know.

Wait until all the facts are in before coming to any conclusions.  No one has been convicted of anything.  A family is grieving.
 
2014-02-10 02:47:18 PM  

AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.




ACLU is big on amendments. They've actually worked/sided d with the NRA on cases.
 
2014-02-10 02:47:45 PM  

Silly_Sot: MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.

TWO!
I GOT TWO!


and you also just got a record for fastest person I've ever put on ignore.
 
2014-02-10 02:48:34 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


It would be obnoxious having some two bit punk haunting your doormat
 
2014-02-10 02:48:47 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


Why do you carry a jack in your car? Are you one of those pussies that lives in fear of a flat tire?
 
2014-02-10 02:49:50 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


Honestly, I'd be worried about damaging my stuff and than having to deal with cleaning the blood.

"Yeah, I shot the burglar but the round went through him and took out eight bottles of wine."
 
2014-02-10 02:50:22 PM  

CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...


The fark thread ; the user name you're looking for is UsikFark.
 
2014-02-10 02:50:53 PM  

GanjSmokr: Onkel Buck: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

C'mon there has to be one of you out there that thinks that hiding in fear and waiting for the police to arrive is always the best policy.

Why call the police, you meanie?  Obviously this person had it worse off than the person he was trying to steal from, right?   Why not just hide in a closet and let them have what they want and then let them go on their way.   Are mere possessions worth bothering the police over?


Probably not, since the SCOTUS has said that the police DO NOT have constitutional duty to protect you. Although, as we have seen on many FARK threads, they seem to think they do have a constitutional duty to kicks your ass if they want too.
 
2014-02-10 02:51:53 PM  

umad: Headso: playing the victim in the way you are doing here

Say what now? I don't give a fark what your stance is on the issue. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Headso: I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments

And you're full of shiat.


oh yeah, even though this thread has none of that threads about home invasions are "filled" with those kinds of comments, it's just you know, today is an off day so there's none but the next one will be back to being "filled" with them. My bad if your whiny comment wasn't based in partisanship as the other whiny comments with the same theme that are based in partisanship.
 
2014-02-10 02:52:00 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


Answer: probably not long. See: Old Blighty.

/ of course there you wouldn't have the gun, so moo point.
 
2014-02-10 02:52:12 PM  
Well I guess someone didn't want to order Girl Scout cookies . . .
 
2014-02-10 02:52:40 PM  

super_grass: thamike: super_grass: DRINK

Please do.  This political sh*twave is what separates normal people who have guns and people like you who live in a hypothetical nethersphere.

[i290.photobucket.com image 600x450]


The ironing is delicious.
 
2014-02-10 02:52:53 PM  

jaybeezey: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Why do you carry a jack in your car? Are you one of those pussies that lives in fear of a flat tire?


A real man doesn't need a jack or lug wrench to deal with a flat tire. He can change it with just his bare hands.

Anyone who isn't a real man should just call AAA and let the experts handle it.
 
2014-02-10 02:52:54 PM  

JesseL: Nana's Vibrator: Smeggy Smurf: No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough

Though not confirmed, it's 2 out of 3 were shot; 1 was killed, and one was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds.  She lived likely because of the gun control laws and how they always hurt women among other people who benefit from doing illegal alien minority things while the government tries to take my freedomballs.

Did you just have a stroke, or did your overzealous efforts to use sarcasm and irony collapse into some sort of derpy singularity from which meaning can't possibly escape?


you want to take away peoples' guns and now you're attacking my speech freedom so that dangerous criminals can live while you work on their tax money for border jumping Obamacare welfare thieves national debt?
 
2014-02-10 02:53:19 PM  

OnlyM3: cman [TotalFark]


Poverty begets crime.Which is why rich people never commit crimes.

// farking stupid argument.


Well stroll down the streets on Chicago and then New York and then ask yourself that very same question again. Poverty does indeed beget crime. That does not mean that crime doesn't come from other places, however.
 
2014-02-10 02:53:20 PM  

Headso: That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?

you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.


I don't know anything about that. My only experience with unions so far has been a long time ago when I worked for minimum wage as a grocery bagger they wanted a non-trivial portion of my paycheck in exchange for 15 cents on hour extra on Sundays. And I was required to be part of the union, but they couldn't just take the money out of my paycheck, so when it really came down to "pay up or your fired" I just quit and got a different minimum wage job that didn't take part of my paycheck.

I'm sure there's other perfectly good reasons to hate the modern union, but that's mine.Worker's rights back in the 19-whatevers? Awesome, good job raising the standards for everyone. Now? Just another layer of sleazy bureaucracy trying to separate you from your money.
 
2014-02-10 02:53:34 PM  

Headso: umad: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

I seriously doubt you have ever been in a "person shoots a home invader" thread before. They are usually filled with "your stuff isn't more valuable than my life! Herp!" and "Robbery isn't a capital crime! Derp!"

I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments, this very thread though has several whiny people playing the victim in the way you are doing here. Based on that I'm gonna say this is all in your heads, brehs.


Naw, I've seen the tri-weekly gun threads for some time here on fark.  There are definely libtards here who take the position "your stuff isn't more valuable than (someones) life!"

There are also the occasional guntard types that seem to look forward to an opportunity to blast a home invader or someone who assaults them.

The former tends to run a bit thin in the threads where someone successfully defends themself with a firearm.

A a proponent of the 2nd Amendment I think it's important to note, if the story we are reading here is more or less accurate, that one person stopped three people with the help of a firearm.

Short of being a martial arts or melee weapon expert, or having an armed guard in your back pocket - this is not something that would have really been possible w/o the help of a good blaster at your side, kid.
 
2014-02-10 02:53:53 PM  

tkwasny: "well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.


Conservation ranges in Missouri are well-kept and while not free are cheaper than private ranges, in general.  :-)
 
2014-02-10 02:54:22 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Silly_Sot: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

8/10, nicely disguised.
Troll on, dude.

ah, damn, I shoulda looked at the poster's name


Whats that supposed to mean?
 
2014-02-10 02:54:41 PM  

craigdamage: ....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)



http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Municipalities-can-t-ban-peopl e- from-owning-3298553.php

So nope.
 
2014-02-10 02:56:14 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: JesseL: Nana's Vibrator: Smeggy Smurf: No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough

Though not confirmed, it's 2 out of 3 were shot; 1 was killed, and one was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds.  She lived likely because of the gun control laws and how they always hurt women among other people who benefit from doing illegal alien minority things while the government tries to take my freedomballs.

Did you just have a stroke, or did your overzealous efforts to use sarcasm and irony collapse into some sort of derpy singularity from which meaning can't possibly escape?

you want to take away peoples' guns and now you're attacking my speech freedom so that dangerous criminals can live while you work on their tax money for border jumping Obamacare welfare thieves national debt?


Uh oh. Someone is stuck on random. Better let the batteries die out. Good thing they are rechargeable.
 
2014-02-10 02:56:17 PM  

onyxruby: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

Sadly the law in several states requires you to do exactly that.


So I read the Heller majority.

If you were willing to get the NRA to back you, there's *enough* stuff in Heller that more or less says that "The primary purposes of owning a gun are self-defense and possible defense of liberty against government, and thus the right to bear arms implies a right to reasonable self-defense" that if this was actually self-defense, you could take it to the Supreme Court and possibly win under the current court.

/Plus McDonald.  I'm really hoping we can get a couple more cases like this through before President Warren stacks the court.
 
2014-02-10 02:56:50 PM  

craigdamage: ....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)

There are places in the USA where deadly force as defense will get your ass locked up.

Not trolling.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)

Referendum restricting handguns was passed in 2005 but was struck down by courts before it could go into effect.  As an added bonus, the city of San Francisco was compelled to pay $380,000 to the NRA and other plaintiffs to cover their costs of litigating Proposition H.

Remember: Think, Google, then Post.  It keeps you from looking like you can't be bothered with facts when they get in the way of a compelling narrative.
 
2014-02-10 02:58:07 PM  

tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.

"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.


And my state does.  There's a pay state range about 5 miles away and a free state range about 30 miles away.
 
2014-02-10 02:58:16 PM  

Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.


That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.
 
2014-02-10 02:58:16 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: JesseL: Nana's Vibrator: Smeggy Smurf: No, he needs more range time or a scattergun.  1 out of 3 isn't good enough

Though not confirmed, it's 2 out of 3 were shot; 1 was killed, and one was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds.  She lived likely because of the gun control laws and how they always hurt women among other people who benefit from doing illegal alien minority things while the government tries to take my freedomballs.

Did you just have a stroke, or did your overzealous efforts to use sarcasm and irony collapse into some sort of derpy singularity from which meaning can't possibly escape?

you want to take away peoples' guns and now you're attacking my speech freedom so that dangerous criminals can live while you work on their tax money for border jumping Obamacare welfare thieves national debt?


o_0

If was going to take away people's guns it would only be to create market demand so I could sell them new ones. That would probably upset the customers though.

/unabashed and fully licensed merchant of death
 
2014-02-10 02:59:25 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


how long before we ask if the resident purchased the firearm more than two weeks ago and submitted a drivers license at purchase time for a background check? cause if he did, than nothing that happened here goes against what most goshdurn yellerbellied libruls are tryina take from muricans. also, doesn't go against what most polls show 90%+ percent of gun owners think.

if the firearm was purchased without a waiting period or using a background-check loophole, then ... well, the libruls might have left him with his dick in hand. or, he might have just bought it somewhere else and everything would be the same.
 
2014-02-10 02:59:42 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.

"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.

I could go for that.  Couldn't we argue that means practice loads as well?


Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.
 
2014-02-10 03:00:02 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Headso: That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?

you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.

I don't know anything about that. My only experience with unions so far has been a long time ago when I worked for minimum wage as a grocery bagger they wanted a non-trivial portion of my paycheck in exchange for 15 cents on hour extra on Sundays. And I was required to be part of the union, but they couldn't just take the money out of my paycheck, so when it really came down to "pay up or your fired" I just quit and got a different minimum wage job that didn't take part of my paycheck.

I'm sure there's other perfectly good reasons to hate the modern union, but that's mine.Worker's rights back in the 19-whatevers? Awesome, good job raising the standards for everyone. Now? Just another layer of sleazy bureaucracy trying to separate you from your money.


your only experience with unions is...but then you....and then the assertions in your last senten.... eh whatever, rock on, champ!
 
2014-02-10 03:00:54 PM  
JesseL:

If was going to take away people's guns it would only be to create market demand so I could sell them new ones. That would probably upset the customers though.


Cash for Clunkers
 
2014-02-10 03:02:12 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


My gut reaction is to disagree with you, but it's more my reaction to unions.  This will get worse before it gets better.
 
2014-02-10 03:02:23 PM  

JesseL: unabashed and fully licensed merchant of death


I've been out of the gun habit for years, considering getting one for range time. I was very comfortable with the Beretta 92F/M9, I see the 96 is in .40 which is what most of my friends fire (so we can split ammo costs), but is it otherwise the same feel?
 
2014-02-10 03:03:07 PM  

Kahabut: Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.


So, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, or the internet?
 
2014-02-10 03:03:12 PM  
And nothing of value was lost.
 
2014-02-10 03:03:27 PM  

vudukungfu: Good.
But you need more range time.


3 attackers, one dead, the second hit multiple times, didn't take a shot at the third... probably because he was already running the fark away at that point?

Nah, shooter's technical skills are fine, possibly even exceptional.  Since if there was any collateral damage or injury it'd be mentioned in TFA, this is pretty much perfect-score on self-defense with a firearm.  Even trained soldiers  wish they could pull that kind of precision off when attacked.
 
2014-02-10 03:03:51 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


Right, because that explains Aaron Hernandez
 
2014-02-10 03:04:27 PM  

Boojum2k: JesseL: unabashed and fully licensed merchant of death

I've been out of the gun habit for years, considering getting one for range time. I was very comfortable with the Beretta 92F/M9, I see the 96 is in .40 which is what most of my friends fire (so we can split ammo costs), but is it otherwise the same feel?


Should be really close. Generally going from a 9mm to a .40 means recoil gets a bit snappier, but IIRC the 96 has a heavier slide so it's probably a wash.
 
2014-02-10 03:05:59 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 3 attackers, one dead, the second hit multiple times, didn't take a shot at the third... probably because he was already running the fark away at that point?


Two out of three ain't bad. Better than LAPD, for certain.
 
2014-02-10 03:07:58 PM  

cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.


Troller Puh-leez.
 
2014-02-10 03:08:31 PM  
I don't need guns cuz if they come at me bros I'm gonna fire mah lazer.
 
2014-02-10 03:09:49 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.

Does insurance cover replacing the carpet?  Plus you probably have to repaint the wall he was standing in front of.

We should encourage home invaders to break in via the kitchen; the linoleum (or tile) is much easier to clean.


Your homeowner's insurance will cover this.

/My Mom told me - really
 
2014-02-10 03:09:54 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

ACLU is big on amendments. They've actually worked/sided d with the NRA on cases.



Not unless you're in a militia.

"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.  ":

... and "In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.  "

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform _i mmigrants-rights/second-amendment
 
2014-02-10 03:10:02 PM  

JesseL: Should be really close. Generally going from a 9mm to a .40 means recoil gets a bit snappier, but IIRC the 96 has a heavier slide so it's probably a wash.


Thanks!
 
2014-02-10 03:10:53 PM  

Headso: That Guy Jeff: Headso: That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?

you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.

I don't know anything about that. My only experience with unions so far has been a long time ago when I worked for minimum wage as a grocery bagger they wanted a non-trivial portion of my paycheck in exchange for 15 cents on hour extra on Sundays. And I was required to be part of the union, but they couldn't just take the money out of my paycheck, so when it really came down to "pay up or your fired" I just quit and got a different minimum wage job that didn't take part of my paycheck.

I'm sure there's other perfectly good reasons to hate the modern union, but that's mine.Worker's rights back in the 19-whatevers? Awesome, good job raising the standards for everyone. Now? Just another layer of sleazy bureaucracy trying to separate you from your money.

your only experience with unions is...but then you....and then the assertions in your last senten.... eh whatever, rock on, champ!


My experience with unions is that they protect the weak and stupid.  I worked in the food product industry for a short while, and had the opportunity to be in both union and non-union shops.  Same area, same industry, but the non-union shop was cleaner, people were nicer, I made more money, and had better benefits.  Also, no potheads ran me over with a forklift like they did at the union shop, which was full of surly alcoholics who couldn't be fired.

Apparently I'm not the only one in Wisconsin who had a negative experience with unions.
 
2014-02-10 03:11:53 PM  

Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Troller Puh-leez.


Oh look, a newb
 
2014-02-10 03:13:03 PM  

Road Rash: and "In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. "https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform _i mmigrants-rights/second-amendment


The ACLU is a good organization, but they have a lot of Euroweenie wannabes running the show, and while a lot of Europe's social programs would probably do well here (after much resistance) their gun laws would not. Completely different cultures.
 
2014-02-10 03:13:27 PM  

Molavian: My experience with unions is that they protect the weak and stupid.  I worked in the food product industry for a short while, and had the opportunity to be in both union and non-union shops.  Same area, same industry, but the non-union shop was cleaner, people were nicer, I made more money, and had better benefits.  Also, no potheads ran me over with a forklift like they did at the union shop, which was full of surly alcoholics who couldn't be fired.

Apparently I'm not the only one in Wisconsin who had a negative experience with unions.


The new hotness is employee-owned or co-op businesses where the union doesn't get between the money and the worker. Turns out elected representatives sometimes screw over their constituents for personal gain, sad but true.
 
2014-02-10 03:14:50 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.

So, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, or the internet?


You really want to have the semantics argument?  The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media.  The second specifically mentions a well regulated milita, which could be argued that it means the militia of the time, which was armed with single shot hand loaded BP rifles.

So if you are going to argue that the government should provide that training and cover the costs, then I'm going to make literalism jokes about it.
 
2014-02-10 03:15:41 PM  

Phony_Soldier: AugieDoggyDaddy: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

I'm not very pro-gun,  but you pretty much right about that.   Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?

"Isn't 5:28 an odd time for a home invasion?"

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm a pro-gun conservative, but I would wait until the facts are in before I too draw any conclusion.

/Also, I wouldn't celebrate the death of another human being, but that's just me.


Thank you for the dose of sanity.  Holy crap, this isn't a farking Hollywood movie...these are actual people dying.  I have absolutely no problem with someone defending themselves and/or their property, but cheering the death of someone, and bemoaning the lack of further death is borderline psychotic.  There is not enough info in this story to justify such a gleeful reaction.

These tough guys are the kind of people who make me cringe when it comes to the gun debate...the Dirty Harry wannabe motherfarkers that sit around just hoping for some "action".  These assholes make it sound like lethal force should be the first option, no matter the situation, and criticize others for not being lethal enough.  fark them in their perpetually puckered sphincters.
 
2014-02-10 03:16:15 PM  

Molavian: I made more money, and had better benefits.


lol
 
2014-02-10 03:16:27 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Headso: That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?

you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.

I don't know anything about that. My only experience with unions so far has been a long time ago when I worked for minimum wage as a grocery bagger they wanted a non-trivial portion of my paycheck in exchange for 15 cents on hour extra on Sundays. And I was required to be part of the union, but they couldn't just take the money out of my paycheck, so when it really came down to "pay up or your fired" I just quit and got a different minimum wage job that didn't take part of my paycheck.

I'm sure there's other perfectly good reasons to hate the modern union, but that's mine.Worker's rights back in the 19-whatevers? Awesome, good job raising the standards for everyone. Now? Just another layer of sleazy bureaucracy trying to separate you from your money.


But you still voted for Obama over McCain in 2008, right?
 
2014-02-10 03:16:51 PM  

China White Tea: CanuckInCA: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

I seriously doubt you'll see people advocating the prosecution of somebody defending themselves in a home invasion no matter how liberal they are, but please continue trolling...

I dunno, if you get home-invaded in the UK, I'm pretty sure you can be found criminally liable if you don't offer the invader a spot of tea and some biscuits.


That really only applies if they invade your home between half three and five o'clock.
 
2014-02-10 03:18:36 PM  

Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.


A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.  So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

// States likewise can't restrict gun sales beyond the usual restrictions on enumerated rights for the same reasons the 1st amendment expands to apply to their regulation of religion and the press.
 
2014-02-10 03:21:34 PM  
Knock knock. Who's there? Home Invasion. Home invasion who? Home inva...powpowpowpowpow

That can't be how it went down. One of the perps was found inside, which means the homeowner didn't employ the Joe Biden, "shoot thru the door" technique.
 
2014-02-10 03:21:38 PM  

Kahabut: The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If it's not you talking unaided or using ink, it ain't covered, by your blackpowder analogy.

Look, you made the stupid statement. Let it go man, 1st rule of holes.
 
2014-02-10 03:22:23 PM  

Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.


question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul
 
2014-02-10 03:24:10 PM  

Kahabut: Boojum2k: Kahabut: Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.

So, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, or the internet?

You really want to have the semantics argument?  The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media.  The second specifically mentions a well regulated milita, which could be argued that it means the militia of the time, which was armed with single shot hand loaded BP rifles.

So if you are going to argue that the government should provide that training and cover the costs, then I'm going to make literalism jokes about it.


The supreme court specifically addressed the argument that the second amendment might apply only to weapons in use at the time it was drafted.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html 
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.  "
 
2014-02-10 03:25:09 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

Do you have proof he was in danger?


Do you have proof he wasn't?

/See, works both ways pal
 
2014-02-10 03:25:37 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.

A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.   So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

// States likewise can't restrict gun sales beyond the usual restrictions on enumerated rights for the same reasons the 1st amendment expands to apply to their regulation of religion and the press.



My conclusions don't fail - the ACLU's do. That's their position, not mine. I was merely letting a previous poster know that the ACLU is no friend of an individula's right to keep and bear arms.
 
2014-02-10 03:25:49 PM  

cman: Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Troller Puh-leez.

Oh look, a newb


And still spotted you.
 
2014-02-10 03:26:34 PM  

kindms: Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.

question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul


Nobody uses guns.  We just want to have them!  My rights Newtown methlab Obama donut store 1% abortion dumpster factory Zimmerman!
 
2014-02-10 03:26:42 PM  

thamike: COMALite J: Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..

The ACLU does support 2nd Amendment cases, same as they do the rest of the Constitution.  That's kind of their thing.


The ACLU's position is that the Supreme Court was Wrong in both Heller and McDonald:

"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right...For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision inUnited States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view...the Supreme Court's decision inD.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment...Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision inU.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent onMiller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."
 
2014-02-10 03:28:06 PM  

kindms: question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul


When it stops shooting as well as you need it to - assuming of course that all the other factors that might cause it not to shoot well have been eliminated as causes. Stuff like copper fouling, a damaged crown, etc.
 
2014-02-10 03:28:09 PM  

lordjupiter: That Guy Jeff: Headso: That Guy Jeff: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

How does giving part of your paycheck to a corrupt union boss in exchange for 15 cent an hour more on Sundays help prevent poverty? Or are you referring to unions "back in the day"?

you gotta get your talkingpoints in order, unions are supposedly bankrupting the government and companies because they get too much for their workers that it makes them unable to compete with the slave labor in china.

I don't know anything about that. My only experience with unions so far has been a long time ago when I worked for minimum wage as a grocery bagger they wanted a non-trivial portion of my paycheck in exchange for 15 cents on hour extra on Sundays. And I was required to be part of the union, but they couldn't just take the money out of my paycheck, so when it really came down to "pay up or your fired" I just quit and got a different minimum wage job that didn't take part of my paycheck.

I'm sure there's other perfectly good reasons to hate the modern union, but that's mine.Worker's rights back in the 19-whatevers? Awesome, good job raising the standards for everyone. Now? Just another layer of sleazy bureaucracy trying to separate you from your money.

But you still voted for Obama over McCain in 2008, right?


Yup. unions are a pretty trivial concern compared to reining in the national security state and stopping wars. Hah, joke was on me though, McCain couldn't possibly have done a worse job on those matters than Obama has. Though, given only those two options, Obama was still probably the better choice just based off Palin being one heart attack away from the oval office. Now THAT would be scary. I sure wish there had been a real opponent to Obama in 2012; I hate to see liars rewarded. I'm disappointed the GOP couldn't pull someone even half decent out, like that Huntsman fella. Not perfect, but at least an alternative. But I digress. Unions: awful and worse than worthless in their current form. Anyone who admires them apparently stopped paying attention to them after the 1920s or so.
 
2014-02-10 03:28:37 PM  

Cold_Sassy: HaywoodJablonski: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

Do you have proof he was in danger?

Do you have proof he wasn't?

/See, works both ways pal


Knock knock.
Who is it?
Girl Scout Cookies.
Come on in.
Powpowpowpow
Bwahahahaha. The Thin Mints are MINE!

Hey, it could happen.
 
2014-02-10 03:29:00 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: kindms: Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.

question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul

Nobody uses guns.  We just want to have them!  My rights Newtown methlab Obama donut store 1% abortion dumpster factory Zimmerman!


Bam, this thread shoots to the top of all google search results.
 
2014-02-10 03:29:50 PM  

Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Troller Puh-leez.

Oh look, a newb

And still spotted you.


I wasn't trolling, newb
 
2014-02-10 03:31:43 PM  
Good example of why someone would need more than 7 or 10 or fill-in-the-blank arbitrary number of rounds. There can be more than one assailant.
 
2014-02-10 03:32:14 PM  
2 notches on the front door. Nice.
 
2014-02-10 03:32:17 PM  

Prey4reign: Will gladly sing praises to the homeowner:

[www.pure7studios.com image 300x381]


I lol'd
 
2014-02-10 03:34:35 PM  

Deep Contact: 2 notches on the front door. Nice.


Little silhouettes would look better.
 
2014-02-10 03:35:07 PM  

iheartscotch: Got one, winged a second and the third got away; sounds like someone needs more range time or more/larger mags.

/ I've been looking at 10 round mags for my 1911; I'd have one, but, I hear bad things about the springs.


1) Back-up revolver.
 
2014-02-10 03:35:48 PM  

crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh


Uhh, yeah dude. This isn't farking Grand Theft Auto..
 
2014-02-10 03:36:40 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Good example of why someone would need more than 7 or 10 or fill-in-the-blank arbitrary number of rounds. There can be more than one assailant.


According to at least one farker I recall, needing more than 6 shots means you're either a terrible shot or you should just accept that you're screwed and die.
 
2014-02-10 03:39:04 PM  

MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.


dude. its california. about even odds they have already charged the homeowner, and at least 50-1 odds that the surviving gunshot recipient has already had lawyers offering to sponsor a suit against the homeowner.
 
2014-02-10 03:40:12 PM  

onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.


amen brother.
 
2014-02-10 03:40:22 PM  

crusher2: In my county, two guys saw their stolen golf cart on a trailer behind a pickup truck. They turned around, ran them down, shot the tires out, and held them until police arrived. Now THEY are being charged for firing into a vehicle. smh


reneedezvous.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-10 03:40:28 PM  
csb:

friend of mine was sitting in the cigar bar he runs part-time and fell asleep after hours.  Lights were off and the TV was going.  He's black and was wearing dark clothing(I'd passed by an hour earlier and tried to wake him up by knocking on the window ... no such luck) so he blended into his surroundings: dark furniture, dark paint on the walls.  Some idiot decided to break into the bar through a window.  The sound of breaking glass finally woke my friend up, so he stands up and moves to the window in question, through which a couple of display bottles of rum are being taken out.  Imagine the surprise of the thief in the bar when he turns around to find a 6 foot tall, 230 pound black ex-golden-glove boxer throwing a punch at him.  My friend played down the amount of damage he did to the burglar, but the guy was physically thrown out of the broken window by the damage my friend did to him.  No gun needed in this instance...

/csb

/the funny part is that the thieves got away with 3 bottles of ... wait for it ... water.
//the sad part is that the back of the building abuts the local police station
 
2014-02-10 03:42:59 PM  
Pin a medal on the shooter! YES! Can we have our 2nd amendment rights back, People's Republic of Kalifornia? You know, I pay confiscatory taxes (over half), we have bad schools, crime, horrific cost of living and 0.01_percenters driving teslas all over in their reserveed special lane for special people, can I please have a firearm to defend myself in the anarchy you've created, PROK?
 
2014-02-10 03:43:41 PM  

Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.


Not more than me and any two people I know. I know plenty of Rangers, Green Berets, SWAT types and Marines :)
 
2014-02-10 03:44:31 PM  
There is absolutely zero information in this article with regards to motive.  Before we go calling this guy a hero, I'd like to know the robbers motives, and why they chose this house.

If this was a random home invasion robbery, then kudos to dude.

If this was a case of invasion on a home, where the robbers knew this guy was keeping illicit drugs/cash/stolen goods, then they're low life's all around.  I guess we can still give the shooter props because we're less one, but he wouldn't be some hero.

I'm willing to bet this wasn't random, and that something shady was going on with resident.
 
2014-02-10 03:45:02 PM  

AngryDragon: COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support

I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.  "




Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended.
 
2014-02-10 03:45:14 PM  

iheartscotch: Got one, winged a second and the third got away; sounds like someone needs more range time or more/larger mags.

/ I've been looking at 10 round mags for my 1911; I'd have one, but, I hear bad things about the springs.


I've had VERY bad luck with them. Stick with eight or have a second gun
 
2014-02-10 03:45:32 PM  

kindms: Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.

question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul


I have no idea why "librul" has entered into this.  I'm about as liberal as it gets and don't see the connection to being a gun owner.

In any case, it can be noticed with a drop in accuracy, but by that point, you'e already farked up.  I scope my barrel on a regular basis, and I use a micrometer to measure it.  When it begins to get out of tolerance, the barrel becomes "spare parts for emergencies" and is replaced.  A high quality barrel that is well cared for will fire a great many rounds before this becomes an issue.  Typically on the 10's of thousands range.

For competition shooting, it's more like 5000.

Some barrels come with burn in marks.  Tiny grooves that when they are flush with the barrel material indicate wear and time for replacement, like with car tires.  I have used this method as well, but a micrometer is better in my opinion.

There may in fact be better ways, but I don't know about them.
 
2014-02-10 03:46:28 PM  

zeio: Pin a medal on the shooter! YES! Can we have our 2nd amendment rights back, People's Republic of Kalifornia? You know, I pay confiscatory taxes (over half), we have bad schools, crime, horrific cost of living and 0.01_percenters driving teslas all over in their reserveed special lane for special people, can I please have a firearm to defend myself in the anarchy you've created, PROK?




Leave.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:17 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If it's not you talking unaided or using ink, it ain't covered, by your blackpowder analogy.

Look, you made the stupid statement. Let it go man, 1st rule of holes.


I made a joke.  You decided "the stupid statement" deserved debate so I gave it to you.  YAY content creation.

If you really want to make yourself out like winner, accuse me of something I've never done, and then call me names and attack my character.  Then you'll have the hat trick and I'll be forced to cry in the corner.

/you need a new sarcasm detector
 
2014-02-10 03:49:39 PM  

JesseL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Good example of why someone would need more than 7 or 10 or fill-in-the-blank arbitrary number of rounds. There can be more than one assailant.

According to at least one farker I recall, needing more than 6 shots means you're either a terrible shot or you should just accept that you're screwed and die.



Well, in all fairness to the homeowner/shooter, the first one in may have compromised his aim at the remaining two.
 
2014-02-10 03:50:56 PM  

anuran: iheartscotch: Got one, winged a second and the third got away; sounds like someone needs more range time or more/larger mags.

/ I've been looking at 10 round mags for my 1911; I'd have one, but, I hear bad things about the springs.

I've had VERY bad luck with them. Stick with eight or have a second gun


This. I have a classic 1911a1 for nostalgia purposes, but I have a gun designed within the last century for actual carry use. One actually -built- for concealed carry use for that matter. No matter how you mod it, the 1911 was simply never designed for CCW or anything even remotely close.
 
2014-02-10 03:52:02 PM  

JesseL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Good example of why someone would need more than 7 or 10 or fill-in-the-blank arbitrary number of rounds. There can be more than one assailant.

According to at least one farker I recall, needing more than 6 shots means you're either a terrible shot or you should just accept that you're screwed and die.


You're not safe unless you have a belt-fed weapon with thousands rounds.  Cuz ya never know when you'll be attacked by a Mongolian horde.
 
2014-02-10 03:52:32 PM  

Kahabut: kindms: Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.

question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul

I have no idea why "librul" has entered into this.  I'm about as liberal as it gets and don't see the connection to being a gun owner.

In any case, it can be noticed with a drop in accuracy, but by that point, you'e already farked up.  I scope my barrel on a regular basis, and I use a micrometer to measure it.  When it begins to get out of tolerance, the barrel becomes "spare parts for emergencies" and is replaced.  A high quality barrel that is well cared for will fire a great many rounds before this becomes an issue.  Typically on the 10's of thousands range.

For competition shooting, it's more like 5000.

Some barrels come with burn in marks.  Tiny grooves that when they are flush with the barrel material indicate wear and time for replacement, like with car ...


You can use bore gauges, too, to measure wear.  Crown, throat, bore, sometimes it's easier just to replace something at X number of rounds.
 
2014-02-10 03:56:40 PM  
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Man-knew-home-invasion-suspect-he - killed-5221443.php

"A Hayward resident who shot and killed a home-invasion robber Sunday evening knew the suspect and had been the victim of a similar attack four months ago, police officials said Monday."

"The latest incident happened at a single-family, two-bedroom home ...  The resident, who lives in an attached structure on the property"


a) The resident knows the dead man
b) The resident ... lives in "an attached structure" of a two-bedroom home? ...would that be the garage?
 
2014-02-10 03:56:59 PM  

Kahabut: I made a joke.


Poe's Law. Keep in mind your statement has also been made by a whole lot of the gun-fearing types here on Fark unironically.
 
2014-02-10 03:58:04 PM  

cman: Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: Whatchoo Talkinbout: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Troller Puh-leez.

Oh look, a newb

And still spotted you.

I wasn't trolling, newb


Shoulda been Stoob.
 
2014-02-10 03:59:26 PM  

DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.


Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....
 
2014-02-10 04:02:42 PM  

spicorama: Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....


Eh. Rap and hip-hop are oversaturated with talent now.
 
2014-02-10 04:02:53 PM  

DarkVader: craigdamage: ....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Municipalities-can-t-ban-peopl e- from-owning-3298553.php

So nope.


As I recall, a number of firearm-opposing individuals were quite butthurt when their Proposition H was taken away.
 
2014-02-10 04:03:29 PM  
I've been enjoying this thread so far. Popcorn?
 
2014-02-10 04:04:50 PM  

Dimensio: DarkVader: craigdamage: ....again, this happened in the Bay Area. There are strict anti-gun ordinances in San Francisco.

I seem to recall that homeowners are NOT allowed to have handguns. (I don't know if a pistol was used in this story)


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Municipalities-can-t-ban-peopl e- from-owning-3298553.php

So nope.

As I recall, a number of firearm-opposing individuals were quite butthurt when their Proposition H was taken away.


It is a crime that I can only click Funny once.
 
2014-02-10 04:05:27 PM  

Boojum2k: spicorama: Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....

Eh. Rap and hip-hop are oversaturated with talent now.


what?? surely the shooting VICTIM would have made it big if the home owner wouldnt have killed him...family will sue for that un-earned revenue in civil court
 
2014-02-10 04:05:37 PM  

spicorama: DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.

Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....


assets.diylol.com
 
2014-02-10 04:06:24 PM  

StopLurkListen: b) The resident ... lives in "an attached structure" of a two-bedroom home? ...would that be the garage?


It's very, very common for rich Asian people in this area to create a separate studio apartment attached to the house for the grandparents to live in in their old age.  (I'm guessing there's a name for this, but I don't know what it is).

Then when the grandparents die/parents move out, they board up the door, and offer it up for rent on Craigslist.

/Seriously, while raising property taxes along with values has it's own set of issues, maybe if we did that, we could get a consensus on building more housing in the Valley.  Because once you get the density, then you could lay down some actual transit, and suddenly, SJ is a modern city.  But the Valley's just too big for effective transit, especially at current densities.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:24 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: I made a joke.

Poe's Law. Keep in mind your statement has also been made by a whole lot of the gun-fearing types here on Fark unironically.


Fair enough.
 
2014-02-10 04:10:35 PM  
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/4-teens-arrested-in-Oakland-home- i nvasion-5221816.php

Related news, 4 teens have been arrested in connection with a home invasion robbery in which an elderly woman was shot (she lived).

It's too easy for criminals to get illegal guns, what's the solution? I don't think everyone should have guns. Too many kids have accidents with guns in the home.
 
2014-02-10 04:13:30 PM  
For hunting vermin inside the home ... my fav ...

i299.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-10 04:13:31 PM  

StopLurkListen: It's too easy for criminals to get illegal guns, what's the solution? I don't think everyone should have guns. Too many kids have accidents with guns in the home.


Start with early education. Teach kids gun safety so they know it like their ABC's.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:57 PM  

kindms: kindms: Kahabut: Anayalator: AngryDragon: Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.

FAIL tag is for home invaders, your trolling.

I promise I've put more rounds down range than you and any two people you know combined.

That's an idiotic statement.  You can't possibly know that, and so it makes you just as stupid as him for saying.

If he can count me as someone he knows (which isn't really reasonable, but for the sake of argument), I've got not less than half a million rounds down range, and another 100k of ballshot from BPs.  I don't actually keep close count, so that's a ballpark based on how much ammunition I've purchased/loaded and what I have left right now.  This of course doesn't account for any ammo I didn't provide while shooting, which would be fairly substantial if we could figure the number.

To put that in perspective, my 30.06 is on it's second barrel.  It's hardly the only gun I shoot, its not even number 1.

question from a non-gun owner. When do you know it is time to replace the barrel ? Is it a noticeable always off by X or random grouping on the target etc ? or just I have fired x amount of ammo through this, time to replace ?

Honesty curious librul


Pretty much everyone who even gives replacing a barrel on a rifle a second thought is either a target shooter or has OCD but i repeat myself. A bad barrel shows itself in a steady drop in precision but barrels last a long long time, I've never known anyone to replace one because it has worn out. All of the barrel replacements I've seen done were for a higher quality ( more precise ) barrel or because of accidental damage.
 
2014-02-10 04:19:41 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: No matter how you mod it, the 1911 was simply never designed for CCW or anything even remotely close.


They may not have been designed with concealed carry in mind, but with a decent holster they aren't that difficult to conceal. Personally, I find that with my preferred CC (IWB, small of the back), the width of a gun is more of a factor than overall length, meaning a thinner single stack full size handgun is often easier to conceal than anything else.

Having said that, my carry piece is a Sig P226.
 
2014-02-10 04:21:54 PM  

guestguy: spicorama: DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.

Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....

[assets.diylol.com image 510x385]


So you are saying there are no white rappers? :)

People from that low socio-economic level have few options to make it big...  its either hip-hop/rap/etc "artists", sports or drugs.
 
2014-02-10 04:22:14 PM  
Seems like a good thread to ask, do they sell a gun-shaped fleshlight?
 
2014-02-10 04:29:26 PM  

Mentalpatient87: Seems like a good thread to ask, do they sell a gun-shaped fleshlight?


Objection.  Leading the witness.
/Yes.  it's the size of a .22
 
2014-02-10 04:29:42 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended


Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.
 
2014-02-10 04:30:42 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Leave


On the way out. Hasta la vista.
 
2014-02-10 04:32:27 PM  

COMALite J: ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
 
2014-02-10 04:34:04 PM  

Road Rash: collective right


There are no collective rights. no one. nowhere else. and SHALL NOT seems to have a clear meaning everywhere else as well. People really should just read the thing with a side measure of federalist papers if plain english isnt your thing.
 
2014-02-10 04:34:52 PM  

thamike: onyxruby: Galloping Galoshes: onyxruby: There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Too bad not enough sit on the Supreme Court.

I couldn't agree more.

[scienceblogs.com image 400x455]


Rights are so stupid. Like totally. yeah, raleigh, yah! so totally dumb and stuff.
 
2014-02-10 04:34:54 PM  

Boojum2k: StopLurkListen: It's too easy for criminals to get illegal guns, what's the solution? I don't think everyone should have guns. Too many kids have accidents with guns in the home.

Start with early education. Teach kids gun safety so they know it like their ABC's.


Do you have kids? Everyone makes mistakes. Even adults make mistakes. Adults that are in law-enforcement make mistakes. Adults in law-enforcement that teach firearm safety make mistakes. Kids are an order of magnitude more forgetful and more oblivious and more prone to 'magical-thinking' than adults.

You can teach kids firearm safety at the range, but a gun at home, where they could have unlimited access at any time ... and friends who might not have had the same training ... Gun locks, gun safes reduce but don't prevent everything.
 
2014-02-10 04:35:51 PM  

Mentalpatient87: Seems like a good thread to ask, do they sell a gun-shaped fleshlight?


No need.  Regular guns work just fine for those inclined.
 
2014-02-10 04:38:23 PM  
There I Was:

Referendum restricting handguns was passed in 2005 but was struck down by courts before it could go into effect.  As an added bonus, the city of San Francisco was compelled to pay $380,000 to the NRA and other plaintiffs to cover their costs of litigating Proposition H.

Ineffective balm for assholes costs the city a lot of money. Who knew?
 
2014-02-10 04:39:36 PM  

StopLurkListen: Gun locks, gun safes reduce but don't prevent everything.


The perfect is the enemy of the good. A child currently is twice as likely to be hit by lightning than be killed by a firearm. Teaching gun safety would reduce that even further, and is far better than not teaching it.
 
2014-02-10 04:41:59 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.


Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.
 
2014-02-10 04:43:27 PM  

Boojum2k: JesseL: unabashed and fully licensed merchant of death

I've been out of the gun habit for years, considering getting one for range time. I was very comfortable with the Beretta 92F/M9, I see the 96 is in .40 which is what most of my friends fire (so we can split ammo costs), but is it otherwise the same feel?


Absolutely despise the Beretta 92. The weird three-stage trigger pull is an acquired taste not worth acquiring. The skeletonized slide was designed to keep crap out but just lets it get in. My wife - who achieved Zen with the supposedly too big for women 1911 - pull her shots horribly to the left. But that's just how it happened to work for us.

There are plenty of good .40s out there. Glock, Kahr, Sig, so on and so forth. Go to a good gun store or a range that has a bunch of different firearms for rent. Pick up lots of them. Find the one that fits YOUR hand comfortably and shoots well for YOU.
 
2014-02-10 04:46:22 PM  

spicorama: guestguy: spicorama: DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.

Aspiring rapper... they are ALWAYS an aspiring rapper....

[assets.diylol.com image 510x385]

So you are saying there are no white rappers? :)

People from that low socio-economic level have few options to make it big...  its either hip-hop/rap/etc "artists", sports or drugs.


Hehe, touche :P
 
2014-02-10 04:46:24 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-10 04:47:02 PM  

anuran: Absolutely despise the Beretta 92. The weird three-stage trigger pull is an acquired taste not worth acquiring.


AFSP augie-doggie many years back. I learned to like it,the Beretta always felt right in my hands, and I was a decent shot with it. Denied Expert ribbon with it due to (*cough* being an augie *cough*) completing qualification in the rain, the rain obscured the target therefore my shooting might have been a fluke.
 
2014-02-10 04:49:34 PM  

StopLurkListen: You can teach kids firearm safety at the range, but a gun at home, where they could have unlimited access at any time ... and friends who might not have had the same training ... Gun locks, gun safes reduce but don't prevent everything.


Then you aren't using them correctly.
 
2014-02-10 04:49:53 PM  

Boojum2k: Deep Contact: 2 notches on the front door. Nice.

Little silhouettes would look better.


img0.etsystatic.com
 
2014-02-10 04:50:06 PM  

meyerkev: StopLurkListen: b) The resident ... lives in "an attached structure" of a two-bedroom home? ...would that be the garage?

It's very, very common for rich Asian people in this area to create a separate studio apartment attached to the house for the grandparents to live in in their old age.  (I'm guessing there's a name for this, but I don't know what it is).


It's called a "Granny Flat"
 
2014-02-10 04:50:20 PM  

Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.


This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.
 
2014-02-10 04:52:22 PM  

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


The ACLU is simply acknowledging that rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States are not necessarily the final word on Constitutionality, a position held by many truly great intellectual minds. Such as Senator Rand Paul.
 
2014-02-10 04:52:51 PM  

Boojum2k: anuran: Absolutely despise the Beretta 92. The weird three-stage trigger pull is an acquired taste not worth acquiring.

AFSP augie-doggie many years back. I learned to like it,the Beretta always felt right in my hands, and I was a decent shot with it. Denied Expert ribbon with it due to (*cough* being an augie *cough*) completing qualification in the rain, the rain obscured the target therefore my shooting might have been a fluke.


As I said, that was just our experience. If it's the gun for you, it's the gun for you, and I'd have gladly made you a really good deal when we sold ours.
 
2014-02-10 04:53:30 PM  

anuran: There I Was:

Referendum restricting handguns was passed in 2005 but was struck down by courts before it could go into effect.  As an added bonus, the city of San Francisco was compelled to pay $380,000 to the NRA and other plaintiffs to cover their costs of litigating Proposition H.

Ineffective balm for assholes costs the city a lot of money. Who knew?


You are too late. I have already stated a Preparation H joke.
 
2014-02-10 04:55:43 PM  

meyerkev: Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.

This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.


*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Try this quote on for size:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,  "
 
2014-02-10 04:58:20 PM  

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


And if you read the decision, it was 9-0 on the right being an Individual right.   The 5/4 Split came on whether the DC laws violated that right.
 
2014-02-10 04:59:37 PM  

RightWingWacko: AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?


Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.

And if you read the decision, it was 9-0 on the right being an Individual right.   The 5/4 Split came on whether the DC laws violated that right.



media.giphy.com

 
2014-02-10 05:01:10 PM  

darch: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

As a cop I DEFINITELY would want to see more information on this. There's a LOT of holes in this account.


Almost as many as in the victim :)
 
2014-02-10 05:01:46 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: Since this happened in the Bay Area, I am sure the home owner now faces murder charges and weapons charges.


Not to mention the civil lawsuits that will be brought against him by his victims.
 
2014-02-10 05:06:33 PM  

Calmamity: But remember, only the police should have guns.


and you should call the police and wait for them to arrive.  because the Supreme Court has already said that the police are not there to strictly protect you.
 
2014-02-10 05:07:04 PM  

Road Rash: Jim_Callahan: Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.

A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.   So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

// States likewise can't restrict gun sales beyond the usual restrictions on enumerated rights for the same reasons the 1st amendment expands to apply to their regulation of religion and the press.


My conclusions don't fail - the ACLU's do. That's their position, not mine. I was merely letting a previous poster know that the ACLU is no friend of an individula's right to keep and bear arms.


Oh, please.  The ACLU is wrong on the 2d Amendment, but they're right on the rest of them.  And it's not like they a) go around grabbing guns, or b) go around cheering when the Due Process Clause gets gutted... like the NRA did under Bush.

I'd give the NRA some points for coming to their senses, but I think it's only because there's a Dem in the Oval Office.  Put another R in there, they'll bend right over again.

No Due Process = No Rights At All.
 
2014-02-10 05:14:20 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.

So, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, or the internet?


And the 4th doesn't apply to phone records, email etc.
 
2014-02-10 05:39:08 PM  

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.



People still biatch about the 2000 elections. You think 6 years is gonna satisfy them?
 
2014-02-10 05:47:40 PM  
And now the nappy headed dead dude's family will sue the shiat out of the homeowner, and win all their money, and house, and cars. Because fark you for defending your home thats why.
 
2014-02-10 05:55:43 PM  

meyerkev: Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.

This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.


The Soviet Union did a great job of looking after collective rights, because collective rights is bullshiat terminology fit for communist dictators and theocrats. I think the ACLU has seriously hurt their credibility by cherry picking which amendments to pursue as individual rights.

The best approach is to propose a new amendment, because the meaning of the current one is well established.
 
2014-02-10 05:56:11 PM  
 
2014-02-10 06:10:50 PM  

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


*scrolling up*  Huh... it seems to be just you.
 
2014-02-10 06:13:03 PM  

Dragonflew: *scrolling up* Huh... it seems to be just you.


As opposed to the previous thread on another defensive shooting:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8135844/Climbing-through-your-ex-girlfr ie nds-bedroom-window-slapping-her-around-Thats-a-shootin-paralyzing-comp liments-of-her-mom

Yesterday.
 
2014-02-10 06:51:27 PM  

Boojum2k: Dragonflew: *scrolling up* Huh... it seems to be just you.

As opposed to the previous thread on another defensive shooting:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8135844/Climbing-through-your-ex-girlfr ie nds-bedroom-window-slapping-her-around-Thats-a-shootin-paralyzing-comp liments-of-her-mom

Yesterday.


I checked that article out, there is not enough evidence/detail to draw conclusions either way.
 
2014-02-10 06:52:15 PM  

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue.
 
2014-02-10 06:53:45 PM  
The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.
 
2014-02-10 06:57:25 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue


If SCOTUS reverses, which is HIGHLY unlikely, they could then adjust their position accordingly.  The fact remains that they are dragging their feet when this is the law of the land.   It doesn't look good and says something about both their integrity and their objectivity.
 
2014-02-10 07:04:18 PM  

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue

If SCOTUS reverses, which is HIGHLY unlikely, they could then adjust their position accordingly.  The fact remains that they are dragging their feet when this is the law of the land.   It doesn't look good and says something about both their integrity and their objectivity.


They are going to make a good, legal argument that will stand on the courts recent ruling.

That's going to take a while. They may have to change their position.

Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns.
 
2014-02-10 07:14:08 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns.


Yep, especially since the 3D printer revolution is coming.  If you don't think that working guns are going to be middle-adopters at worst, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So we get to deal with a world in which any person can, with a few minutes lag time, produce a gun in the safety and privacy of their own home.  There's ways to prevent that, but *creepy security state dystopia*, and just having laws never actually does anything without realistic enforcement.  In THAT world, the "gun nut" people (I have a gun, and sort of know what I'm doing with it.  Just in case.  Because you never know, and I am not a mass murderer) sound WAY more sane (or at least realistic).

/Personally, I'm holding out for 3D-printed bespoke clothing.  In shoe length, I'm an 11, but in shoe width, I'm a 14 4E wide because that's the smallest size I fit in (in part because my toes don't bend in).  Someone's going to become a billionaire, and I'm going to get shoes that fit.  See.  Trickle-down works.
 
2014-02-10 07:17:31 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: They are going to make a good, legal argument that will stand on the courts recent ruling.

That's going to take a while. They may have to change their position.

Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns


The ACLU adopted the right to abortion as a platform in 1967.  Roe v Wade was ruled in 1973.  6 years after the platform change.

Heller was ruled in 2008.  As of 2014, the ACLU is still debating their position.  6 years after the ruling.

A 12 year difference in taking action.  But there's no bias against the 2nd amendment...
 
2014-02-10 07:20:53 PM  

nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.


Only in the minds of entitled right wing twits. The militia was originally supposed to be the body of citizen-soldiers available for national defense. That's why the Organized and Unorganized Militias are those wearing a uniform and men between (it keeps changing) 17 and 45 who are capable of serving. It's related to the reason why the Navy is on a two year budget cycle and the Army is Constitutionally required to go back and beg Congress every year.
 
2014-02-10 07:42:22 PM  
I wonder if it was a gun fwee zone.
 
2014-02-10 08:44:45 PM  

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


yeah, I mean it's going to be YOUR couch and rug the guy's brains are scattered across.  Who wants to deal with that kind of cleanup, amirite?

Fun fact:  the survivor guy can now be charged for murder for the death of his buddy by the homeowner!
 
2014-02-10 09:05:10 PM  

Silly_Sot: MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.

TWO!
I GOT TWO!


Don't be so proud of yourself, these two are low hanging fruit.
 
2014-02-10 09:10:54 PM  

DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.


You forgot the part about the "He dreamed of being a pediatrician" part, even though he had dropped out of high school at 16 and read at a 3rd grade level.
 
2014-02-10 09:18:02 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.


might be hardwood, or even tile...  could have fallen on a pile of clothes...
 
2014-02-10 09:22:47 PM  

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


Very infrequently a local ACLU chapter will support a gun case but the stated opinion of the National ACLU is that they are against the Second Amendment.
 
2014-02-10 09:37:50 PM  

lordjupiter: A man is dead under suspicious circumstances.  Let's show some respect and not politicize what could be a simple, unavoidable tragedy not unlike those that occur every day.

The deceased could've been selling encyclopedias door to door only to be gunned down by someone of unknown mental state.  We just don't know.

Wait until all the facts are in before coming to any conclusions.  No one has been convicted of anything.  A family is grieving.


Don't worry, the sad trombone will be there to comfort them.
 
2014-02-10 09:59:45 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If it's not you talking unaided or using ink, it ain't covered, by your blackpowder analogy.

Look, you made the stupid statement. Let it go man, 1st rule of holes.


When they use that argument, they are always so surprised when it backfires on them.  Really, how stupid do you have to be, not to see it coming.

/ Don't own a gun.
 
2014-02-10 10:02:49 PM  

zimbomba63: When they use that argument, they are always so surprised when it backfires on them. Really, how stupid do you have to be, not to see it coming.


Usually they are pretty stupid, but he said he was joking and after reading his other comments he's not one of the anti-gun crazies.
 
2014-02-10 10:13:57 PM  

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently.
 
2014-02-10 10:16:08 PM  

Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently


I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.
 
2014-02-10 11:35:15 PM  
hey, I told the in-laws, alway call first, never just drop in unannounced.  look what happened.
 
2014-02-11 12:53:52 AM  

Boojum2k: Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently

I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.


Aye, I should've scrolled more before replying.
 
2014-02-11 01:02:45 AM  

Doom MD: Aye, I should've scrolled more before replying.


No, no, it's good. Should be a learning experience for him :)
 
2014-02-11 01:04:20 AM  

Headso: umad: Headso: playing the victim in the way you are doing here

Say what now? I don't give a fark what your stance is on the issue. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Headso: I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments

And you're full of shiat.

oh yeah, even though this thread has none of that threads about home invasions are "filled" with those kinds of comments, it's just you know, today is an off day so there's none but the next one will be back to being "filled" with them. My bad if your whiny comment wasn't based in partisanship as the other whiny comments with the same theme that are based in partisanship.


I don't know if you're messing with him or serious but that seemingly implausible scenario is absolutely true. While they are inexplicably absent today there are usually loads of "people>stuff" running around in these threads.
 
2014-02-11 01:07:20 AM  

notatrollorami: don't know if you're messing with him or serious but that seemingly implausible scenario is absolutely true. While they are inexplicably absent today there are usually loads of "people>stuff" running around in these threads.


I have empty soda cans I'd value more than the life of a home invader. Don't do the crime if you want any more time.
 
2014-02-11 04:30:43 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: There are a number of third-amendment cases pending, where SWAT teams entered homes without permission or warrant to get better targeting on adjacent properties.

Interesting! And I agree that such should be contested. Paramilitarized law enforcement kills innocent people and needs to be much more strongly regulated at the very least.

Darth_Lukecash: AngryDragon: COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support

I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."

Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous ― it's the 5−4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the M(i)litia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended.

Actually, that cute little girl in the commercial is appropriate here: "Why not both?" The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a "collective Right." No other Right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is interpreted as being "collective," even though many of them use the same language: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,..." does not mean that individual persons don't have such a right.

The Militia as understood by the Framers is composed of the body of the people. This is not opinion. Three consecutive drafts of what would become the Second Amendment say that outright: "A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free State,...". The only reason that the bolded text was removed from the final version was to save space, because it was considered redundant ― inherent in the very word "Militia"! (Note also that the security that the Militia provides to a free State was upgraded from being merely "...the best security..." to being "...necessary to the security....")

That said, the reason for the Right was indeed the Militia, to defend the nation. It was not to provide a defense against a federal (or state or local for that matter) government turned tyranny, contrary to right-wing post-Cincinnati Revolt of 1977 NRA nutcases like Wayne LaPierre and their fabricated quotes from Founders. That said, the Militia was not a requirement for the Right. It was a reason for it, and the most important reason in the mind of the Framers, but not a requirement. But neither was it a mere example as SCOTUS ruled in Heller.

Service in the Militia was a responsibility. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was primarily to facilitate one's participation in this responsibility. It was a responsibility as well as a Right to keep and maintain small hand-wieldable weaponry ("arms" as opposed to "ordnance" such as canon in those days, or artillery, bombers, tanks, etc. in modern times ― those were the responsibility of the army, which didn't exist in peacetime, thus the need for the Militia to act as a first and last line of defense until the army could be formed and mobilized once Congress declared war).

At any rate, my post was merely my memory of what the ACLU website used to say on the subject. I hadn't re-checked it since Heller and was unaware of how they disagreed with it, nor with their ludicrous claim of the right being a "collective" one (no such thing).  The responsibility is collective (like jury duty ―). The right is individual ― but not because of what SCOTUS ruled in Heller.
 
2014-02-11 06:06:36 AM  

nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.


What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?
 
2014-02-11 06:12:41 AM  

onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.


Shocking, isn't it??
 
2014-02-11 08:00:12 AM  
As a detective for Scotland Yard, 3 time biathlon champ, and a fairly decent break dancer I think this story needs fresher beats.
 
2014-02-11 08:06:02 AM  

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?


Well you hippies seem to say one thing about domestic conflict and another about foreign ones.  I bet you think the Taliban can do it.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:58 AM  

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?



A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:19 AM  

Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.


I wouldn't bet on being able to detonate any round with a delayed fuse...
 
2014-02-11 10:26:34 AM  

bestie1: As a detective for Scotland Yard, 3 time biathlon champ, and a fairly decent break dancer I think this story needs fresher beats.


Let's dance!
 
2014-02-11 10:30:10 AM  

ex-nuke: Very infrequently a local ACLU chapter will support a gun case but the stated opinion of the National ACLU is that they are against the Second Amendment.


Boojum2k: Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently

I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.


See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.
 
2014-02-11 12:58:40 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: For hunting vermin inside the home ... my fav ...

[i299.photobucket.com image 640x480]


Are you saying you've actually shot people in your home, or do you just fantasize about it?
 
2014-02-11 01:03:40 PM  

COMALite J: See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.


You mean the ACLU, the NRA are the other guys.
 
2014-02-11 02:12:24 PM  

Kahabut: What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?


Words.
 
2014-02-11 02:16:24 PM  

bestie1: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?

Well you hippies seem to say one thing about domestic conflict and another about foreign ones.  I bet you think the Taliban can do it.


OH, I see.  You're confused (or retarded).

I'm not a hippy you moron.  (are there even hippies anymore?)

The Taliban has russian (~70's vintage) anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.  Or at least they did.  I'm not saying they can do it, even with that gear.

With unlimited access to gear, I could show you how to take ALL the drones down at once.  BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESS.  But hey, if you think you can get a number of high altitude precision guided missiles and some really big sub-nuclear explosive EMPs, I'll tell you how to use them.
 
2014-02-11 02:18:53 PM  

Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.


Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.
 
2014-02-11 02:21:48 PM  

Kahabut: (are there even hippies anymore?)


They communicate via frisbee.
 
2014-02-11 02:32:42 PM  

Kahabut: Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all. And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.


Most of the military is on my side :) You figure out what to do about them.
 
2014-02-11 03:20:51 PM  

Kahabut: Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.

Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.


They have to take a pee break sometime.
 
2014-02-11 04:09:15 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: AngryDragon: COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support

I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.  "

Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requireme ...


Please cite this court case that upholds the 2A as an EXPLICITLY and EXCLUSIVELY collective right and states that it WASN'T also an individual right (not that it doesn't mention an individual right, but specifically states that it isn't an individual right.) (Waiting for the inevitable MIller V. U.S.) -- read the decision about the militia, it doesn't say what you think it says. The decision states that the WEAPON must have legitimate use in a militia, not that the person must be a member of a militia.  Miller lost the case because he was dead when it was finally argued and the SCOTUS was unaware that the US military as well as police departments used (still do use) SBS.

/Just like ROE V. WADE, MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, and TINKER V. Des Moines were unanimous.  BROWN V. BoE is the only unanimous descision I can think of.

//If you understand English grammar and sentence structure, you'd understand SCOTUS is correct about the way the Amendment is written.

///Read Jefferson's feelings on weapons retention by the people, the founding fathers grew up in a time when everyone who was physically able to lift a gun had and regularly used one...this included 8 year old children. Irrational fear of firearms is a strictly modern invention.
 
2014-02-11 04:17:42 PM  

Boojum2k: StopLurkListen: It's too easy for criminals to get illegal guns, what's the solution? I don't think everyone should have guns. Too many kids have accidents with guns in the home.

Start with early education. Teach kids gun safety so they know it like their ABC's.


This.

Leftists feel about gun safety education in schools the way radical fundamentalists feel about anything other than abstinence only in schools.

\Not sure if its just fear or a desire to keep people in the dark about weapons.

\\Lack of knowledge breeds fear

\\\Fear helps their gun-banning agenda
 
2014-02-11 04:24:33 PM  

Deep Contact: Kahabut: Deep Contact: Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?


A tank can be stopped by placing a round right down main barrel when loaded. The bigger the round the better.

Great, so now figure out how to shoot down the barrel of a tank going 50mph, and do it reliably enough to stop them all.  And while you're at it, figure out what to do about all the APCs with 20mm guns, and the strykers, and the air support, and you'll have yourself a revolution.

:stare:  You can't be that dumb.

They have to take a pee break sometime.


Asymmetric Warfare: The operators of tanks, warplanes, crew-served weapons all require people to operate, they have to take a break sometime, potty/food/sleep, that's when they get hit by insurgents. Of course, kind of hard to hit drone pilots if you're in Afghanistan, and the pilots are in Tampa, FL.
 
2014-02-11 04:32:10 PM  

Kahabut: nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.

What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?


Doesn't matter...you don't attack the tank.

You attack supply lines, logistics support, and people when they're NOT in tanks.  Pretty simple.
 
2014-02-11 04:32:46 PM  

Boojum2k: COMALite J: See my Reply above. ex-nuke is wrong that the national NRA's stated position is being against the Second Amendment entirely. As for claiming that it's a collectivist right, I did not know that, but if they indeed do hold that position, it's wrong of them to do so. It is indeed an individual right backing a collective responsibility.

You mean the ACLU, the NRA are the other guys.

Right. Thanks for catching that.
 
2014-02-12 12:10:42 AM  

tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: diaphoresis: Guns kill people... guns occasionally miss.

This is why there needs to be more gun control.  If the homeowner had more gun control, none of them would have gotten away.
/get back to the range.

"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.


Wow, that's the most hilarious misrepresentation of the second amendment I've yet heard. Normally it's just ignoring the whole bit about the well regulated militia and focusing on the right to bear arms but I've never see anyone take on the well regulated militia bit so superbly.

/A well regulated militia is not a bunch of guys who can aim straight, it's a state-sanctioned and regulated reservist force under the control of military authorities. A bunch of guys with guns is an always has been a mob, and their stories don't usually end well in the history of the US with the obvious exception being your War of Independence. Interestingly, no uprisings in history have claimed a lawful right to exist under the second amendment. Doesn't stop literally tens of millions of Americans believing that the second amendment gives them the constitutional right to rise up against tyranical government. The only thing stupider than that is the complete failure to recognise that a tyranical government will have suspended or torn down the constitution and the Supreme Court is never going to be able to confirm your rights anyway. Farking NRA.
 
2014-02-12 12:18:15 AM  

DarkVader: tkwasny: Galloping Galoshes: ....
"well regulated" right in the 2nd amendment means well trained in 18th century speak. The state or feds are responsible to provide range time for its citizens.

And my state does.  There's a pay state range about 5 miles away and a free state range about 30 miles away.


Socialism!!!
 
2014-02-12 12:59:10 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.

A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.


Crap. A militia is defined and regulated under state law. It's not a wing of the state government in the usual sense but it's commander in chief would be the state governor.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Total crap. Try getting together a private army and opposing federal forces and claim you have a second amendment right to do so. That would be totally hilarious. Think through your statement and ask yourself why private armies don't actually do any fighting but instead just behave like a bunch of kids playing cowboys even when they hate their government and state it's tyrannical because there's a health insurance website problem. It's not just me who thinks you're a tool, James Madison does too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46)

A non-state-sanctioned militia is not regulated. It falls outside the second amendment. Don't agree? Well what regulations do you cite in support?

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.  So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

I don't particularly disagree, but you have got the bit about the right being to buy guns to be part of the militia and not hassled by the government totally arse-backwards. In pre-second-amendment times, militia involvement and hence gun ownership was frequently compulsory and this was enforced - authorities came to your home and you could be charged if you couldn't show them your musket or, in the case of cavalry men, pistol. The right to bear arms actually provided the right to NOT bear arms in a number of states, and was introduced to appease folks who felt that gun ownership went against their religion. (I want to say Quakers but I might have that wrong.)

But keep trying and you might just get one detail correct someday.
 
Displayed 321 of 321 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report