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 73
    More: Fail, Hayward Police Department  
•       •       •

16611 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 1:47 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-10 04:46:24 PM
6 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-02-10 01:55:24 PM
6 votes:

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 12:35:23 PM
4 votes:
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 04:41:59 PM
3 votes:

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 03:31:43 PM
3 votes:
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 03:24:10 PM
3 votes:

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 03:21:38 PM
3 votes:

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 03:03:07 PM
3 votes:

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 02:53:34 PM
3 votes:

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 02:27:43 PM
3 votes:

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 01:57:18 PM
3 votes:

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 10:13:57 PM
2 votes:

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 05:14:20 PM
2 votes:

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 04:58:20 PM
2 votes:

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 03:03:27 PM
2 votes:

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 02:29:31 PM
2 votes:

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 02:27:21 PM
2 votes:

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



Hardly.


8 months later, still butthurt.
2014-02-10 02:26:36 PM
2 votes:

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


www.caracol.com.co

Hardly.
2014-02-10 02:11:22 PM
2 votes:
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 01:57:09 PM
2 votes:
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 01:13:05 PM
2 votes:
I love a story with a happy ending.
2014-02-10 12:25:17 PM
2 votes:
Good.
But you need more range time.
2014-02-11 04:17:42 PM
1 votes:

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 04:09:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:20:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:43 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-10 08:44:45 PM
1 votes:

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 07:17:31 PM
1 votes:

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 07:14:08 PM
1 votes:

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 06:57:25 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:04 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:33 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:23 PM
1 votes:
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 04:34:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:32 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:37 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:36 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:16 PM
1 votes:

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 02:56:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:56:17 PM
1 votes:

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 02:46:57 PM
1 votes:
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 02:34:31 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:01 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:19:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:49 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:36 PM
1 votes:
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 02:13:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:07:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:06:29 PM
1 votes:
I. Am. Your singing telegram.
2014-02-10 02:03:51 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:25 PM
1 votes:

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 01:57:09 PM
1 votes:

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 01:57:02 PM
1 votes:
Hero tag for the homeowner.
2014-02-10 01:52:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:42 PM
1 votes:
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 01:50:34 PM
1 votes:
Fail?  Did the big, bad gun scare you subby?

Homeowner should get a medal.
2014-02-10 01:49:55 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:59 PM
1 votes:
But remember, only the police should have guns.
2014-02-10 01:19:03 PM
1 votes:
"But...Why!?"

"Because I was home, you sh*tmasked motherf*cker."
2014-02-10 12:51:42 PM
1 votes:
The homeowner was a fox?
2014-02-10 12:44:29 PM
1 votes:
Will gladly sing praises to the homeowner:

www.pure7studios.com
2014-02-10 12:18:44 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report