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.

(WIVB)   Local community organizer who advocated passage of the NY SAFE act that forbids firearms on school grounds arrested for...wait for it   (wivb.com) divider line 280
    More: Obvious, NY SAFE, community organizer, passage, firearms, elementary schools  
•       •       •

6159 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 3:04 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-10 01:54:47 PM
Whoda thunk it?
 
2014-02-10 03:03:58 PM
Firearms were not permitted in schools before the SAFE Act.  SAFE just bumped it up to a felony status.
 
2014-02-10 03:07:04 PM
In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.
 
2014-02-10 03:08:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.
 
2014-02-10 03:09:07 PM

Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.


Nope. They work as intended.
 
2014-02-10 03:09:10 PM
Same level of hypocrisy as Diane Feinstein, who presses to strip all gun rights from the citizens while she has her own concealed carry permit.
 
2014-02-10 03:09:32 PM
Having sex with a dead dog?

What do I win?
 
2014-02-10 03:09:48 PM
Good.
 
2014-02-10 03:10:04 PM
Related:

McGruff the Crime Dog actor sentenced to 16 years in prison

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/8/mcgruff-crime-dog-act or -sentenced-16-years-prison/

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


'Splain, por favor.
 
2014-02-10 03:10:49 PM
Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.
 
2014-02-10 03:12:04 PM
Gun Nerds assemble!  You must defend the guns!
 
2014-02-10 03:12:16 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?
 
2014-02-10 03:13:48 PM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?


Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.
 
2014-02-10 03:13:56 PM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

 
2014-02-10 03:14:24 PM

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school. that the media is swinging us back and forth like a cat strapped to a tether ball.


The world is getting safer.  You just hear more about bad things, because if it bleeds then it leads.
 
2014-02-10 03:14:47 PM
So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?
 
2014-02-10 03:14:56 PM

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.


More likely events:
run over crossing the street.
hit while riding a bicycle.
struck by lightning.

What does making it legal for random armed idiots to walk into schools do to that probability?
 
2014-02-10 03:15:14 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?


That phrase was intended.  thanks for noticing.
 
2014-02-10 03:15:40 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?
 
2014-02-10 03:15:44 PM
"Local community organizer" -- stopped caring right there.
 
2014-02-10 03:16:34 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.


No, he had a good point.  Before gun free zone laws, shooters went into the pre-kindergarten rooms worried which one of those toddlers might be packing.  Now, without a gun, there is literally no way to resist or fight back.  Not a single way.
 
2014-02-10 03:17:11 PM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?


The boobie prize:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-10 03:17:23 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.


Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?  Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

Go ahead.  Take your time.

(The last two sentences, [one incomplete], are intended.)
 
2014-02-10 03:17:42 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.


Ahh, the classic Farklib line of argumentation.  Cast the magical incantation "Herp Derp" and you've "won" the argument without having to substantiate anything.
 
2014-02-10 03:18:10 PM
.....dary!
 
2014-02-10 03:18:22 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.


Wait, is that bumper sticker wisdom?
 
2014-02-10 03:18:50 PM

YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?


WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL
 
2014-02-10 03:19:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


They make voters with no critical thinking skills feel like their children are safer?
 
2014-02-10 03:19:30 PM
Another "Do as I say" jackass...  Gotta love people who think laws they supported don't apply to them.
 
2014-02-10 03:20:40 PM

Mell of a Hess: LessO2: Just a sad reminder that the media is swinging us back and forth like a cat strapped to a tether ball.
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com

 
2014-02-10 03:20:40 PM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?


It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.
 
2014-02-10 03:21:40 PM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?


Whoa. I HATE guns, but when you're right, you're right.
 
2014-02-10 03:23:12 PM

lindalouwho: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Whoa. I HATE guns, but when you're right, you're right.


LOL

It's astounding that you can't pick up the inherent flaw in this bumper sticker.
 
2014-02-10 03:27:18 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?

It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.


The intent is to enhance safety at schools.  So what , exactly, does the law do that enhances safety at schools?  What evidence do you have that this law decreased the number of shootings, accidental or otherwise, at schools?

Show your work.
 
2014-02-10 03:27:47 PM

HotWingConspiracy: lindalouwho: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Whoa. I HATE guns, but when you're right, you're right.

LOL

It's astounding that you can't pick up the inherent flaw in this bumper sticker.


Can't win them all. Care to explain your position?
 
2014-02-10 03:28:03 PM

YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?


You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime. The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.
 
2014-02-10 03:28:37 PM
That's pretty ironic; he organized the whole "the sky is falling" crowd to get this law passed. Now he's accused of two felonies and if he's convicted; he can't own guns anymore.

/ let me get out my smallest violin
 
2014-02-10 03:28:41 PM

Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?

It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.

The intent is to enhance safety at schools.  So what , exactly, does the law do that enhances safety at schools?  What evidence do you have that this law decreased the number of shootings, accidental or otherwise, at schools?

Show your work.


I think by this point in the thread it should be obvious he's not here to engage in intelligent debate.

/yes, I bit earlier
 
2014-02-10 03:29:02 PM
Typical of the Democrats.  You can't have guns, but I can.  Much like you will find Republicans who hate gays in airport bathroom stalls across the nation, or Tea Partiers riding around on their government-purchased Rascal scooters.
 
2014-02-10 03:29:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL


Dude, you're getting hammered.  Do you want to go do some research and get back with us?

motleydogs.com
 
2014-02-10 03:31:20 PM

Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.


Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.
 
2014-02-10 03:33:46 PM

Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?

It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.

The intent is to enhance safety at schools.


Partially.

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.
 
2014-02-10 03:33:48 PM

HotWingConspiracy: You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.


This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation.  Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

a) "it's not my job to fix your racism/classism/homophobia/sizism/looksism/your character flaw.

b) "you can use Google just as well as I can"

c) "everyone knows this, the facts are out there"
 
2014-02-10 03:34:35 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Egad.  I don't call people names on FARK, but

neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime?

and

today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer.

WTF are you talking about?
 
2014-02-10 03:34:50 PM

DanInKansas: HotWingConspiracy: You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.

This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation.  Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

a) "it's not my job to fix your racism/classism/homophobia/sizism/looksism/your character flaw.

b) "you can use Google just as well as I can"

c) "everyone knows this, the facts are out there"


I'm all about personal responsibility. Educate yourself, I don't care if you're dumb.
 
2014-02-10 03:36:17 PM

ferretman: Mell of a Hess: LessO2: Just a sad reminder that the media is swinging us back and forth like a cat strapped to a tether ball.
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 331x400]


Damn - that was a good catch.
 
2014-02-10 03:38:59 PM
This is funny... While I can imagine the occasional Joe Sixpack forgetting about his gun and wandering into a school, or even the airport, I can NOT understand how a guy who specifically endorsed a change in the laws regarding bringing a gun onto school grounds would bring a gun onto school grounds.
 
2014-02-10 03:39:43 PM
Remeber this one fact, and all the world will become clearer to you.

Anyone, of any political stripe, who pushes for a ban on anything, always means for it to apply to others, and not to themselves.

I personally think you should be handed a card stating this before walking in to the voting booth, and it should be placed on the currency as a constant reminder to all.
 
2014-02-10 03:40:25 PM
Every single gun owner I know of (and myself included) are hoping that this guy gets the book thrown at him.


What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.  I so hope that happens, because then it gives us a chance to go after these laws to get them struck down.
 
2014-02-10 03:42:47 PM
Of course, I never know which publications you FARKers will decry as blatantly conservative, but this is an interesting 3rd-party article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

A few things you won't hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K-12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects - the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that "gun-free" zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don't work.

Advertisement
First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades "displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings." New York Timescolumnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. "Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?" asks Professor Jacobson. "I doubt it."

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. "Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'" says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. "Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage," Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances - from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. - where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
 
2014-02-10 03:43:58 PM

shda5582: What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.


it's a black dude...
 
2014-02-10 03:44:03 PM
♪ Community organizers♫ ...what are they good for?.. ♫ absolutely nothing...SayitAgain.♫ .
 
2014-02-10 03:46:35 PM

DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with


Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?


You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:29 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-10 03:48:39 PM

lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.


See three or four posts up.  I showed my work.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:05 PM

Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund


Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...


With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:08 PM

Mikey1969: This is funny... While I can imagine the occasional Joe Sixpack forgetting about his gun and wandering into a school, or even the airport, I can NOT understand how a guy who specifically endorsed a change in the laws regarding bringing a gun onto school grounds would bring a gun onto school grounds.


Most likely, he assumed that a) the law doesn't apply to him, and b) if caught, he could just call a cop/mayor/attorney and this will never get prosecuted.  AKA above the law, like cops.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


You mean by expelling kids who happen to eat their sandwich into the shape of a gun, or by suspending kids who make a gun shape with their hands on the playground?
 
2014-02-10 03:49:47 PM

Mell of a Hess: lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

See three or four posts up.  I showed my work.


Look three or four posts up.  I debunked your stupid "work."
 
2014-02-10 03:51:01 PM

HotWingConspiracy: As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Unreasonable bans based upon arbitrary characteristics is not "working with" firearm owners. Classifying all firearm owners as future murderers is irrational and dishonest.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:27 PM
Dumbass tag is more appropriate. One would think that someone who helped pass the NY SAFE act would not be a big fan of firearms in general and have intelligence not to break his own law.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:46 PM

HotWingConspiracy: We've tried to work with them.


No you haven't. You've tried to pass any and all anti-gun laws that anyone has even hinted at being able to curb firearms-related violence (with, or more generally without evidence that it can help, usually justifying it with the idea that "anything is better than nothing!"), and when your BS is called out for what it is you throw up you hands and loudly proclaim "See? We tried, but these gun nuts just won't compromise!".

/Holy run-on sentence Batman!
 
2014-02-10 03:53:40 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Shirley, you can submit a nice graph that shows the number of shootings going down, for you to make such an authoritative statement.
 
2014-02-10 03:54:28 PM
No, No, it's different when HE does it. He's an activist, AN ACTIVIST!
 
2014-02-10 03:54:34 PM
"School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?
 
2014-02-10 03:54:38 PM

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.


How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.
 
2014-02-10 03:57:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL


Did somebody mention "Shotgun Joe" Biden, the guy who recommends blatantly illegal self-defense by shooting through doors with a shotgun?
 
2014-02-10 03:57:33 PM

GanjSmokr: "School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?


Blogger moms.

nathantimmel.com
 
2014-02-10 03:57:37 PM
HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.
 
2014-02-10 03:57:58 PM
There really are irrational gun-grabbers out there.  My favorite was a person--in favor of these "gun-free" zones--who was shown a map of local schools with the radii of gun-free zones plotted on it.  One freeway went through a zone.  Someone asked her if it would be OK to set up a checkpoint on the freeway to stop everyone and check for guns, as they were technically felons (never mind there'd be no way to know you were anywhere near a school when going by at 70 mph).

She thought it was an AWESOME idea.

Not a rational person worth listening to, but that's exactly the sort that will push for more laws.
 
2014-02-10 03:59:55 PM

dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.


And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html
 
2014-02-10 04:01:21 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names.  It does nothing for the conversation.

Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

"There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area that was gun free out of "coincidence." That's a nice little way of dismissing what is more-than-likely a secondary motivation for the location of their rampage. Just because there's a bigger, more personal motivator for attacking, say, an elementary school, does NOT mean that the fact that its a gun free zone by law is irrelevant. There's no such thing as coincidence.
Take Sandy Hook, for example. The Connecticut State Police Colonel said in New Orleans this year at the IACP annual conference that they believe Adam Lanza's motive for attacking Sandy Hook Elementary was because it was the path of least resistance wherein he could rack up the most kills, as in a video game. One of the primary reasons it was a path of least resistance is BECAUSE it was a gun free zone." Here's the source:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1291408
 
2014-02-10 04:01:30 PM

dittybopper: So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.


For additional perspective - schools, rec sports leagues and so on don't let kids play outside if there is lightning because it's too dangerous.
 
2014-02-10 04:02:41 PM

Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.


1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.
 
2014-02-10 04:03:46 PM

rkiller1: dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html


Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control.  You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.
 
2014-02-10 04:04:18 PM

Mell of a Hess: I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names.


I didn't call YOU names, I called your argument stupid.  I can't figure out why you conservatives keep trying to nail yourselves up on that cross.  Seems sacrilegious if you ask me.

Mell of a Hess: It does nothing for the conversation.


So calling your argument stupid is terrible.  But calling anyone who criticizes your source a whiner is perfectly acceptable and furthers the conversation:
 

Mell of a Hess: I never know which publications you FARKers will decry as blatantly conservative


Mell of a Hess you got yourself in here.
 
2014-02-10 04:05:07 PM

Headso: shda5582: What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.

it's a black dude...


Yea, but he was a "Community Organizer".

You know who else was a community organizer don't you?
 
2014-02-10 04:06:57 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry?  The conversation has always been about licensed adults.
 
2014-02-10 04:07:28 PM

Callous: For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning. That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html

Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control. You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.


I nearly penned that schools would be safer if we allowed guns and declared them "water free" zones, but didn't wanna jump into the political fray.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:02 PM
At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:37 PM

GanjSmokr: "School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?


Total FUBAR.
More likely to be shot by cop than a mass shooter, so this response makes perfect STOOPID.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:47 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Ah, yes.  The name caller.  Welcome.

If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

I've never felt that way.  I own several guns.  I have been enraged as an adult and as a pubescent teen.  Nope, never wanted to "escalate" my anger to the level of firing a handgun at a human being.

Guess I'm just funny that way.  Hmmm.
 
2014-02-10 04:10:04 PM

Callous: ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry?  The conversation has always been about licensed adults.


Check the mirror.
 
2014-02-10 04:10:22 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


I don't think it was students SAFE was aimed at. Did someone say students should be able to carry guns on campus?

/because that would be dumb
 
2014-02-10 04:10:50 PM

Mell of a Hess: Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:


I'm really curious, I cited a study with numbers and data and actual facts and evidence.  Where did you get your source that refuted it from?  Well the cool part about the internet and Google is I can just copy/paste your post into Google and find it myself.

Google Search - "There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area "

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun-free-zone-myth-no-relationshi p- between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

"ArmedWithReason.com?"  Seems legit, lets read more.

About - Evan and Devin write about guns.
This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control. The site is authored by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes.


You "refuted" a study with a goddamn BLOG?  Are you serious?  Let me get this straight.

Mell of a Hess: Dude, you're getting hammered. Do you want to go do some research and get back with us?


You want HotWingConspiracy to do some research and get back to us.  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?
 
2014-02-10 04:11:43 PM

ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.


Wow, I've never wanted to escalate ANYTHING to that extent, and I think I've gone through puberty.
/But to make sure, lemme check and get back to you.
//Just WOW
 
2014-02-10 04:11:52 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess:

I didn't call YOU names

... calling your argument stupid is terrible.  But calling anyone who criticizes your source a whiner is perfectly acceptable and furthers the conversation:


I didn't criticize your documentation, nor did I label you a whiner.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:10 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


Except every premise is flawed in your opinion article.

"No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way"

Yeah, because the vast majority of those were gun free zones and law abiding citizens pay attention to that law.

"Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED.  Not once.  So we're afraid of something that might happen

Try again.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:18 PM

Callous: Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry? The conversation has always been about licensed adults.


Is it?  I mean,  no one ever bothers to say that, because, you know, stupid positions don't lend themselves to getting these points out up front.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:32 PM

hasty ambush: At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.


Lesson?:
Hypocrisy is VERY profitable, when "real" and not the just shut down kind!
 
2014-02-10 04:14:24 PM
Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.
 
2014-02-10 04:14:58 PM

ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty


I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
 
2014-02-10 04:15:54 PM

lennavan: dittybopper: So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

For additional perspective - schools, rec sports leagues and so on don't let kids play outside if there is lightning because it's too dangerous.


For even more perspective:  People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

That's not to say guns belong in schools, necessarily, but the regulations that you and I will obey as a matter of course are always ignored by those intent on wrongdoing.

/Murder is already illegal, you know.
 
2014-02-10 04:16:05 PM

Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.


People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.
 
2014-02-10 04:16:23 PM

lennavan:  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?


Nope - I used that because I liked the response and wished to copy it.  The National Review is not a blog.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

  insist that if all the people who legally own firearms would just turn them in, there would be no firearms left on the streets.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:21 PM

Mell of a Hess: lennavan:  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?

Nope - I used that because I liked the response and wished to copy it.  The National Review is not a blog.


The article I posted included a study that debunked your National Review article.  You countered that with a blog.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:49 PM

hasty ambush: At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.


You don't say.
A rich West Virginian owns an AR-15 that was a gift from his kinfolk?
And rich people who have received death threats have bodyguards?
I'm surprised.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:13 PM

AngryDragon: ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty

I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Their side of the argument isn't holding water so he switched to trying to punch holes in ours with "You want to arm kids!!!!" BS.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:24 PM

AngryDragon: In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Ha.  When you make things up, it makes it look like nutters who don't understand their own pet issue.  With parental permission, there is no state in which posessing a large firearm is illegal.  Taking them into a school, per this exact law we're defending, is a felony in every state, but that couldn't possibly be what you mean.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:59 PM

rkiller1: Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.

People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.


Yeah, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
2014-02-10 04:19:03 PM

dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.


This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?
 
2014-02-10 04:20:55 PM

Callous: AngryDragon: ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty

I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.

Their side of the argument isn't holding water so he switched to trying to punch holes in ours with "You want to arm kids!!!!" BS.


Oh look, you believed his oppositeofreality.txt, and swooped in to claim victory.  If it weren't for the ease with which myths about how unfair gun laws are were so easily believed by paranoid rubes, we could have a conversation without tremendous liars seizing the dialog.


//For my part, I feel the 2nd amendment is pretty air-tight, but it's completely outdated, and its advocates don't understand it.
 
2014-02-10 04:21:29 PM

lennavan: dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?


You say that like you haven't already.
 
2014-02-10 04:21:37 PM

Mell of a Hess: rkiller1: Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.

People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.

Yeah, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


assets.nydailynews.com
 
2014-02-10 04:22:24 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: lennavan:  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?

Nope - I used that because I liked the response and wished to copy it.  The National Review is not a blog.

The article I posted included a study that debunked your National Review article.  You countered that with a blog.


Dude, that blog was on YOUR side, not mine.  I simply quoted a response to it.

Geez.
 
2014-02-10 04:23:55 PM

Callous: You say that like you haven't already.


And yet, no one in the thread has pointed out whatever these blatant lies are.  It's almost like you think things without any sort of justification.

Have you ever considered that possibility?  That you could believe things for no reason?  I'm serious for now.  Have ya?
 
2014-02-10 04:24:01 PM

ikanreed: Callous: AngryDragon: ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty

I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.

Their side of the argument isn't holding water so he switched to trying to punch holes in ours with "You want to arm kids!!!!" BS.

Oh look, you believed his oppositeofreality.txt, and swooped in to claim victory.  If it weren't for the ease with which myths about how unfair gun laws are were so easily believed by paranoid rubes, we could have a conversation without tremendous liars seizing the dialog.


//For my part, I feel the 2nd amendment is pretty air-tight, but it's completely outdated, and its advocates don't understand it.


I wasn't commenting on his point, I was commenting on the failure of yours.
 
2014-02-10 04:25:46 PM

rkiller1: Mell of a Hess: rkiller1: Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.

People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.

Yeah, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x425]


Heh.  The guy in the background is laughing because Bill is pulling up the back of her dress.
 
2014-02-10 04:26:29 PM

Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.


These two Irishmen walk out of a bar ...
 
2014-02-10 04:27:26 PM

Callous: I wasn't commenting on his point, I was commenting on the failure of yours.


Uh, no.  I was defending the notion that perhaps gun-free-zones serve a useful function.  And then described that function.  Then idiot lied, with the intent of ignoring that critical point.  Then you went "ha, see, they wanted to do [thing that was impossible anyways, if and only if you accept the lie of the parent].

You can't say "ha, that point with which you're justifying your case is invalid because [statement of fact]" and still pretend conclusions from that [statement of fact] are relevant when it's demonstrated to be untrue.
 
2014-02-10 04:27:43 PM

AngryDragon: "Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED. Not once.


18 people were just shot and 6 people were just murdered in front of a Safeway (supermarket), you're only a few dozen yards away and you are carrying a gun.  You get to the scene and there is a guy with a gun standing over a guy on the ground.  You pull your gun, he sees you and starts to move.  What do you do?  You better answer fast, you wanted more information but you don't get it, that's all you know and decision time is RIGHT NOW.

I'm sure you'd do the right thing.  The guy who actually went through that scenario did the right thing.  But do you want all adult Americans, all those people you see in WalMart, to also possibly be making that decision?  What if it's you holding the gun, standing over the guy laying on the ground, after 18 people got shot and it's a goddamn bloody mess all around you.  Some redneck just rounded the corner.  I'm sure the last thing you'll think is "eh, freedom has its price."

Turned out you had tackled the shooter and taken his gun away.
 
2014-02-10 04:27:55 PM

ikanreed:  the 2nd amendment ... it's completely outdated, and its advocates don't understand it.


It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.
 
2014-02-10 04:28:57 PM

Callous: lennavan: dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?

You say that like you haven't already.


Wait, you didn't know child soccer leagues cancel games because of lightning?  You think I made that up?

el oh el
 
2014-02-10 04:29:53 PM

ikanreed: 1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


ikanreed: Callous: You say that like you haven't already.

And yet, no one in the thread has pointed out whatever these blatant lies are.  It's almost like you think things without any sort of justification.

Have you ever considered that possibility?  That you could believe things for no reason?  I'm serious for now.  Have ya?



Oh look there's one.  You accused the pro-gun side of advocating the arming of minors.
 
2014-02-10 04:30:02 PM

Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.


And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.
 
2014-02-10 04:33:11 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?

You say that like you haven't already.

Wait, you didn't know child soccer leagues cancel games because of lightning?  You think I made that up?

el oh el


I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.  I know you are trying to sweep that under the rug but it's there for everyone to see.
 
2014-02-10 04:33:28 PM

Draskuul: Same level of hypocrisy as Diane Feinstein, who presses to strip all gun rights from the citizens while she has her own concealed carry permit.


Feinstein also supports insider trading...for Congress. She is the typical rich liberal overlord.
 
2014-02-10 04:34:15 PM

AngryDragon:  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Oh really?
 
2014-02-10 04:34:54 PM

Callous: Oh look there's one. You accused the pro-gun side of advocating the arming of minors.


I certainly suggested that your idiot course of action would result in an increase of that.  Minors already can be armed, just not at school.  There's already nothing stopping that, and I'm not sure why you're pretending that's an extreme position.

Hell, I'd advocate allowing minors to use weapons(under appropriate circumstances) if it weren't legal already.  You're just arguing for getting rid of the laws that prevent it from happening at schools.  You could establish a new legal framework to allow it, for the sole purpose of having a gun in like the 2 teachers who'd take one's desk.  And even that would be a bad idea.  That's all irrelevant, because I'm defending the status quo, and you're a liar.

Lying about me lying just makes you a hypocritical liar.

So nice.  Real nice.
 
2014-02-10 04:35:39 PM

YixilTesiphon: Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?

It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.

The intent is to enhance safety at schools.  So what , exactly, does the law do that enhances safety at schools?  What evidence do you have that this law decreased the number of shootings, accidental or otherwise, at schools?

Show your work.

I think by this point in the thread it should be obvious he's not here to engage in intelligent debate.

/yes, I bit earlier


"engage in intelligent debate...?"

i257.photobucket.com

/gave up trying a while ago
//you can't use logic to convince a person to abandon a conclusion they arrived at illogically
///or something
 
2014-02-10 04:35:50 PM

ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.


Yeah, and that's a damn shame.

Y'all have a groovy thread.  I gotta go do my taxes, so that my tyrannical government can pay its creditors.
 
2014-02-10 04:36:17 PM

Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it. I know you are trying to sweep that under the rug but it's there for everyone to see.


You're a damn idiot, because you're
A. putting words in people's mouths
and
B. Denying minors' rights under the second amendment exist.  Minors can be armed, just not at farking school.  Because it's a school.
 
2014-02-10 04:36:52 PM

AngryDragon: ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty

I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Oh Rly?
The VC started AK-47 training at nine. ARVN at 16.
My personal, I actually saw it, record.
Nine years old, with better discipline that the entire LAPD.
 
2014-02-10 04:40:37 PM

Mell of a Hess: rkiller1: Mell of a Hess: rkiller1: Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.

People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.

Yeah, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x425]

Heh.  The guy in the background is laughing because Bill is pulling up the back of her dress.


I wonder if that "A" on her badge was scarlet?
 
2014-02-10 04:40:53 PM

Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.


How did you feel about the post I was responding to that claimed a gun is the ONLY way to resist or fight back?  Did you feel that was "crap" too?  Or was that legit?
 
2014-02-10 04:48:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

More likely events:
run over crossing the street.
hit while riding a bicycle.
struck by lightning.

What does making it legal for random armed idiots to walk into schools do to that probability?


Maybe it increases the chances of being struck by lightning, if you're carrying more metal.
 
2014-02-10 04:49:06 PM

ferretman: Mell of a Hess: LessO2: Just a sad reminder that the media is swinging us back and forth like a cat strapped to a tether ball.
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 331x400]


They said felony, not feline!
 
2014-02-10 04:59:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


It is estimated that in the United States, there are about 43 million to 55 million gun owners.  31,672 people were killed by guns in the US in 2010 (19,392 of those were suicides).  Even including suicides, that makes the percentage of gun owners who take a life (not including self defense) at .073% (less than 1 tenth of 1 percent), assuming only 43 million gun owners.  So, tell me again how "gun owners so often turn out to be irresponsible".

Herpaderp, indeed.
 
2014-02-10 05:00:28 PM

mdeesnuts: I don't think it was students SAFE was aimed at. Did someone say students should be able to carry guns on campus?

/because that would be dumb


Happened every day during hunting season when I was in high school (1980s).  Nearly every boy who hunted had a hunting rifle in his vehicle so he could hunt for an hour or two before school and then go back into the woods after school.

I knew several who had to go see the principal for tardiness because they had to drop a deer off at the meat processor on the way to school.

Gun related body count for my high school career: 0
 
2014-02-10 05:01:49 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


I think maybe you should consult a therapist. I had guns when I was in high school. The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.
 
2014-02-10 05:02:05 PM
From a followup article, defending the fellow:
"Dwayne probably was in a position to help the police ..."

Oh, so any armed good guy in school is in a position to help the police? Then there should be more.
 
2014-02-10 05:02:32 PM

Seraphym: you can't use logic to convince a person to abandon a conclusion they arrived at illogically


That's so good, I'm gonna steal it, use as if I invented it, and not give you any credit.
Cheers!
 
2014-02-10 05:03:34 PM

Itstoearly: It is estimated that in the United States, there are about 43 million to 55 million gun owners. 31,672 people were killed by guns in the US in 2010 (19,392 of those were suicides). Even including suicides, that makes the percentage of gun owners who take a life (not including self defense) at .073% (less than 1 tenth of 1 percent), assuming only 43 million gun owners. So, tell me again how "gun owners so often turn out to be irresponsible".


The very best statistic you could think of to measure the number of irresponsible gun owners is gun deaths?

Itstoearly: Herpaderp, indeed.


Indeed.
 
2014-02-10 05:06:12 PM

EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.


You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.
 
2014-02-10 05:11:07 PM

The water was cold: "Local community organizer" -- stopped caring right there.


Do you know who else was a "community organizer"?

media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com
 
2014-02-10 05:11:23 PM
Typical liberal.... he doesn't want YOU to have something..... but it's ok for HIM and his ilk to.
 
2014-02-10 05:12:33 PM

lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.


No one sane does.
 
2014-02-10 05:13:02 PM

ikanreed: Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it. I know you are trying to sweep that under the rug but it's there for everyone to see.

You're a damn idiot, because you're
A. putting words in people's mouths
and
B. Denying minors' rights under the second amendment exist.  Minors can be armed, just not at farking school.  Because it's a school.


There is a huge difference between possessing and carrying.  Check it out.

lennavan: Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.

How did you feel about the post I was responding to that claimed a gun is the ONLY way to resist or fight back?  Did you feel that was "crap" too?  Or was that legit?


It's not the only way.  It's probably the best way, but when stupid laws deny you the best way you have to come with others.
 
2014-02-10 05:13:43 PM

EatenTheSun: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

No one sane does.


Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.
 
2014-02-10 05:14:00 PM

lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.


You're the one that suggested that everyone has.
 
2014-02-10 05:15:02 PM

Mell of a Hess: ikanreed:  the 2nd amendment ... it's completely outdated, and its advocates don't understand it.

It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.



Let's see:
Constitution says ...  BZZZZZZZZZZZT!
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Keep farking that chicken, though:  Sedition is still a felony.
 
2014-02-10 05:16:46 PM

Callous: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

You're the one that suggested that everyone has.


By all means, quote where I suggested everyone has thought to use a gun to kill someone else.

Quote it.
 
2014-02-10 05:17:43 PM

lennavan: Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.


Yeah, every teenager comes out of high school an alcoholic drug addict with a violent crime record and a kid.

Look, at least you know you're a sociopath who'd shoot someone as soon as you held a gun, and kudos to you for restraining yourself. But the vast majority of people aren't like you.
 
2014-02-10 05:19:11 PM

EatenTheSun: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

No one sane does.


The whole problem would be solved if you just make insanity illegal.

Umm, If insanity were legal, no
If only criminals were insane, no
If sanity were common, no

Fool me twice and be done with it.
 
2014-02-10 05:19:18 PM
i1211.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-10 05:19:27 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:
 

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.



If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

All you have succeeded in doing is feeling better about yourself.   You won a participation ribbon!
 
2014-02-10 05:19:45 PM

ikanreed: That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.


So I take it you never criticized the Iraq occupation?
 
2014-02-10 05:20:59 PM

Nutsac_Jim: If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.


You do.  The end.  The rest of this babble of yours is dumb.
 
2014-02-10 05:21:52 PM

Callous: lennavan: Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.

How did you feel about the post I was responding to that claimed a gun is the ONLY way to resist or fight back? Did you feel that was "crap" too? Or was that legit?

It's not the only way.


So it was stupid, I agree.  Would you suggest perhaps, so stupid it's worthy of mockery?  Great, now re-read the stupid that he posted:

Mell of a Hess: they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?


Hah, yeah that was really goddamn stupid.  We could refute his point but honestly, someone posting something that fundamentally stupid isn't utilizing their brain, so we'd just be wasting our time.  I see no point in wasting time putting together a well thought out reply if he didn't even bother to spend 5 seconds formulating his original thought.  Let's just go with sarcastic mockery:

lennavan: No, he had a good point. Before gun free zone laws, shooters went into the pre-kindergarten rooms worried which one of those toddlers might be packing. Now, without a gun, there is literally no way to resist or fight back. Not a single way.


Haha toddlers packing heat.  Yeah, that Mell of a Hess guy had a stupid post.
 
2014-02-10 05:22:37 PM

Nutsac_Jim: ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:
 

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.


If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

All you have succeeded in doing is feeling better about yourself.   You won a participation ribbon!


Oh NO!
Not that easily.
The bleeders have enabled an entire generation of politicians promising the inimpossible while stealing mos' all the country not nailed down.
 
2014-02-10 05:23:55 PM

lennavan: We could refute his point but honestly we can't so we'll fling poo and hope no one notices the difference.


FTFY
 
2014-02-10 05:24:00 PM

ikanreed: Nutsac_Jim: If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

You do.  The end.  The rest of this babble of yours is dumb.


Show us.
 
2014-02-10 05:25:16 PM

Boojum2k: lennavan: Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.

Yeah, every teenager comes out of high school an alcoholic drug addict with a violent crime record and a kid.

Look, at least you know you're a sociopath who'd shoot someone as soon as you held a gun, and kudos to you for restraining yourself. But the vast majority of people aren't like you.


Right, the vast majority of people aren't sociopaths who would shoot someone as soon as they held a gun.  So we should allow unlimited access to guns everywhere.  It's probably fine.
 
2014-02-10 05:26:33 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

You're the one that suggested that everyone has.

By all means, quote where I suggested everyone has thought to use a gun to kill someone else.

Quote it.


ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.


Quite sorry, I somehow confused the two of you..
 
2014-02-10 05:26:50 PM

lennavan: Boojum2k: lennavan: Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.

Yeah, every teenager comes out of high school an alcoholic drug addict with a violent crime record and a kid.

Look, at least you know you're a sociopath who'd shoot someone as soon as you held a gun, and kudos to you for restraining yourself. But the vast majority of people aren't like you.

Right, the vast majority of people aren't sociopaths who would shoot someone as soon as they held a gun.  So we should allow unlimited access to guns everywhere.  It's probably fine.


Far better than the fantasy you are selling.
 
2014-02-10 05:27:42 PM
Add him to the long list of liberals who shouldn't have access to guns.
 
2014-02-10 05:30:16 PM

lennavan: Right, the vast majority of people aren't sociopaths who would shoot someone as soon as they held a gun.


Exactly.

 

lennavan: So we should allow unlimited access to guns everywhere.


Aww, and you were doing so well at learning. Two steps forward, three back.
 
2014-02-10 05:31:02 PM

ikanreed: Nutsac_Jim: If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

You do.  The end.  The rest of this babble of yours is dumb.


You guys are just retards.  Seriously.  One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

Seriously?  Yes, i am so sure teachers, who want to instruct and work with children, will just whip out a gun and shoot them.

Why don't they?  Because it is INSANE.

Guess what, it is insane behavior to go into a school and shoot someone.
A sign isn't going to prevent them.

Now.. Be a good boy and back up your assertion that putting up gun free zones caused a drop in school shootings.
 
2014-02-10 05:31:04 PM

Callous: Quite sorry, I somehow confused the two of you..


I have that issue, I need to change one of them to a different version of dipshiat grey.
 
2014-02-10 05:33:16 PM

Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.


When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.
 
2014-02-10 05:36:18 PM

Boojum2k: lennavan: We could refute his point but honestly we can't so we'll fling poo and hope no one notices the difference.

I could read the thread and find out you actually did that but honestly, I'd rather just imagine what's true and fling poo and hope no one notices the difference.


Your secret is safe with me dude.
 
2014-02-10 05:37:11 PM

Boojum2k: lennavan: Right, the vast majority of people aren't sociopaths who would shoot someone as soon as they held a gun.

Exactly.

 lennavan: So we should allow unlimited access to guns everywhere.

Aww, and you were doing so well at learning. Two steps forward, three back.


Wait, so you're for restricted access to guns and restrictions on where guns can be carried?  Why the fark are we arguing then, that's all I'm saying.  All your derping at me made me assume you disagreed with me.
 
2014-02-10 05:38:57 PM
If he was arrested for it, sounds like the law worked as advertised
 
2014-02-10 05:39:27 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Callous: I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.

How did you feel about the post I was responding to that claimed a gun is the ONLY way to resist or fight back? Did you feel that was "crap" too? Or was that legit?

It's not the only way.

So it was stupid, I agree.  Would you suggest perhaps, so stupid it's worthy of mockery?  Great, now re-read the stupid that he posted:

Mell of a Hess: they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

Hah, yeah that was really goddamn stupid.  We could refute his point but honestly, someone posting something that fundamentally stupid isn't utilizing their brain, so we'd just be wasting our time.  I see no point in wasting time putting together a well thought out reply if he didn't even bother to spend 5 seconds formulating his original thought.  Let's just go with sarcastic mockery:

lennavan: No, he had a good point. Before gun free zone laws, shooters went into the pre-kindergarten rooms worried which one of those toddlers might be packing. Now, without a gun, there is literally no way to resist or fight back. Not a single way.

Haha toddlers packing heat.  Yeah, that Mell of a Hess guy had a stupid post.


Anyone who claims to know why mass shooters select their targets(except in specific cases where it is known) is speculating.  These people are crazy and trying to apply logic to their choices is non-productive.    I don't know that gun-free zones encourage mass shooters to target those locations, but they do offer a level of protection from resistance places that allow guns don't.  How often do you hear about a mass shooter being stopped by anyone but himself or the cops that eventually show up?

Not often.

To say that a gun onsite would definitely stop him is dishonest.  To say that a gun onsite would be worse for the victims is dishonest.  Too many variables.  One thing is for certain, someone shooting back would give the shooter something to concentrate on other than running up his body count.
 
2014-02-10 05:40:48 PM
I want to ban things I am afraid of and don't understand.
 
2014-02-10 05:40:58 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Wow.  That's seriously the most retarded thing I've ever read on Fark.  I don't know what kind of torture puberty was for you, but when I went through it, I never, ever thought about killing someone.  Oh, and PS, during the fall, my car, along with probably 100 or so others in the school parking lot, had at least a shotgun if not a shotgun and high powered rifle in it, as well as tons of ammunition for them.  Guess how many kids at my school were killed by guns before they turned them in to gun free zones?
 
2014-02-10 05:43:06 PM

Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.


On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?
 
2014-02-10 05:44:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If he was arrested for it, sounds like the law worked as advertised


Yes, a man that harmed absolutely no one will now spend time in jail so that others can maintain their mythical feelings of safety.

Makes complete sense.

At least he will have time to think about the idiocy of the law that he supported.
 
2014-02-10 05:46:12 PM

Callous: At least he will have time to think about the idiocy irony of the law that he supported.


FTFY
 
2014-02-10 05:48:36 PM

lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?


So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?
 
2014-02-10 05:50:59 PM

Callous: Anyone who claims to know why mass shooters select their targets(except in specific cases where it is known) is speculating.


So what you are saying is anyone who claims to know that mass shooters select their targets because they are gun free zones is speculating and has no basis to make that claim?  Like when I made fun of this post that did exactly that?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?


You and I completely agree Callous.  It's okay, you can agree this Mell of a Hess post is really farking stupid.  Just because I'm for some gun control measures and presumably since you're disagreeing with me you're for no gun control measures, doesn't mean I suddenly win the argument and Obama shows up at your house to take your guns away.  It's fully possible to agree someone on your side is an idiot.

I bet you're also for gun control measures.  So far in this thread, at most I have suggested carrying guns in an elementary school is a bad idea and that only applies to non LEOs.  Whatever you think about me and my position in your head, that's all I have advocated in this thread.  So you need to take a step back and figure out how the fark you got the picture of me in your head when that's all I'm arguing here.  Well that and the occasional mockery of stupid arguments.

I would farking hope you and I can at least agree, who knows what we should to about gun control but whatever we do, we shouldn't be supporting our arguments with blog posts like this guy:

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

...
This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun .

 
2014-02-10 05:54:40 PM

Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?


Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?
 
2014-02-10 05:55:58 PM

lennavan: I know you are but what am I


Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.

lennavan: so you're for restricted access to guns and restrictions on where guns can be carried?


Yep. Allowing a teacher with certification to carry in a public school would provide more protection. Allowing parents who are legal gun owners with CCP's to carry when coming to drop off or pick up their kids would provide more protection. Requiring gun safety to be taught in schools would be a good plan, too.

lennavan: On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza. Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime. What could go wrong?


She was killed by her own crazy son, who then went to school and had unrestricted access to shoot kids with no one available to stop him. An armed teacher might not have stopped him, but the unarmed ones definitely did not.
 
2014-02-10 05:57:52 PM

Boojum2k: Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.


I actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread.  He countered with a blog.  Search the thread for the word "blog."
 
2014-02-10 05:59:15 PM

lennavan: Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?


Considering it didn't happen, that's obviously not what was suggested. I'd have liked to see the poor lost soul who tried, though, Mr. biology teacher was a former Ranger.
Hey, there's a good idea. Encourage more prior-service types to take up teaching, they'll do a better job of communicating to children (quick, simple, and to the point is strongly encouraged in the military) and provide a better line of defense in case of lone, random, statistically unlikely school shooter.
 
2014-02-10 06:00:02 PM

lennavan: actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread


Nah, I read your rebuttal, it started with a strawman and beat the poor scarecrow to death without ever actually rebutting the point.
 
2014-02-10 06:00:17 PM

ikanreed: AngryDragon: In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.

Ha.  When you make things up, it makes it look like nutters who don't understand their own pet issue.  With parental permission, there is no state in which posessing a large firearm is illegal.  Taking them into a school, per this exact law we're defending, is a felony in every state, but that couldn't possibly be what you mean.


You're right.  I meant handgun.
 
2014-02-10 06:04:32 PM

Draskuul: Same level of hypocrisy as Diane Feinstein, who presses to strip all gun rights from the citizens while she has her own concealed carry permit.


Ummmmmm no.  See law-maker status for one thing.  For the other, I bet that if she had gotten what she wanted when she started her efforts most of the guns used in mass-murders across the country would not have even been manufactured.  What hypocisy?

Most of the AR/AK rifles, over 10 cap. pistols  I see at crime scenes are 1990's and up manufacture.  These are the guns that she is primarily against.

Bubba/Jamal kills fewer people in polite society when he has less sophisticated weaponry.  Machetes work well in Rwanda, but in the US you need an AK to really let loose.
 
2014-02-10 06:04:58 PM
Wait, again? Didn't he just have this happen a few days ago? I'm pretty sure we even had a thread about it.
 
2014-02-10 06:06:02 PM

lennavan: Boojum2k: Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.

I actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread.  He countered with a blog.  Search the thread for the word "blog."


Except he never quoted the blog at all. And you might want to read a few words past where it says "This is a blog".
 
2014-02-10 06:06:48 PM

lennavan: Callous: Anyone who claims to know why mass shooters select their targets(except in specific cases where it is known) is speculating.

So what you are saying is anyone who claims to know that mass shooters select their targets because they are gun free zones is speculating and has no basis to make that claim?  Like when I made fun of this post that did exactly that?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You and I completely agree Callous.  It's okay, you can agree this Mell of a Hess post is really farking stupid.  Just because I'm for some gun control measures and presumably since you're disagreeing with me you're for no gun control measures, doesn't mean I suddenly win the argument and Obama shows up at your house to take your guns away.  It's fully possible to agree someone on your side is an idiot.

I bet you're also for gun control measures.  So far in this thread, at most I have suggested carrying guns in an elementary school is a bad idea and that only applies to non LEOs.  Whatever you think about me and my position in your head, that's all I have advocated in this thread.  So you need to take a step back and figure out how the fark you got the picture of me in your head when that's all I'm arguing here.  Well that and the occasional mockery of stupid arguments.

I would farking hope you and I can at least agree, who knows what we should to about gun control but whatever we do, we shouldn't be supporting our arguments with blog posts like this guy:

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

...
This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun .


I agree with you that no one knows why they select their targets, except in cases where it's a kid shooting up his school, etc.  However HOM has a point in that gun free zones do provide a measure of resistance prevention.  I don't agree with him that we know it has any bearing on target selection.  Other than anecdotal evidence of so many of them occurring in such places.

I do agree with some gun restrictions.  No violent felons, crazies, etc.  As far as carrying in a school I think any one that has a permit to carry should be allowed to carry.  If you think there are teachers that are so unhinged that they would shoot a student for stupid reasons you should be actively fighting to have them no longer be teachers.
 
2014-02-10 06:07:54 PM

Turbo Cojones: I bet that if she had gotten what she wanted when she started her efforts most of the guns used in mass-murders across the country would not have even been manufactured.


What would you bet? How about your right to vote? If her assault weapon ban would not have stopped mass shootings, would you give up your right to vote?

Turbo Cojones: See law-maker status for one thing.


Lawmaker is not an aristocrat.
 
2014-02-10 06:07:55 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?

Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?


She was in bed asleep when it happened.  I don't think the two are comparable.
 
2014-02-10 06:14:52 PM
Ha.

This arrest proves we should allow guns on school grounds! How can you disagree when a local guy who argued to make guns illegal on school grounds later went on to carry a gun on school grounds?

Let me clarify: because a local guy who said we should criminalize possession of firearms on school grounds himself later went on to possess a firearm on school grounds, we should therefore permit possession of firearms on school grounds.

Logic. Suck it, libs.
 
2014-02-10 06:26:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Sedition is still a felony.


Want to explain to the class why Randy Weaver was never even charged with Sedition?
 
2014-02-10 06:27:29 PM

Boojum2k: lennavan: Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?

Considering it didn't happen, that's obviously not what was suggested. I'd have liked to see the poor lost soul who tried, though, Mr. biology teacher was a former Ranger.
Hey, there's a good idea. Encourage more prior-service types to take up teaching, they'll do a better job of communicating to children (quick, simple, and to the point is strongly encouraged in the military) and provide a better line of defense in case of lone, random, statistically unlikely school shooter.


static2.wikia.nocookie.net
too many butthurt parents and lawsuits waiting to happen after their little snowflake comes home crying because the teacher yelled at them.
 
2014-02-10 06:29:17 PM

russsssman: Add him to the long list of liberals who shouldn't have access to guns.


Well, if he is charged and convicted, he will now be a felon.  Looks like he will get a taste of gun confiscation first-hand.
 
2014-02-10 06:31:27 PM

echomike23: too many butthurt parents and lawsuits waiting to happen after their little snowflake comes home crying because the teacher yelled at them.


Former Ranger teacher never yelled at us. He didn't need to.
 
2014-02-10 06:37:48 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Really? I'm pretty sure sandy book was a gun free zone.
 
2014-02-10 06:52:18 PM
Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.
 
2014-02-10 06:55:03 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Sedition is still a felony.

Want to explain to the class why Randy Weaver was never even charged with Sedition?


I've never been charged with murder. Therefore, murder is no longer a felony.

Suck it, libs.
 
2014-02-10 07:20:48 PM

Baz744: I've never been charged with murder.


Have you ever taken up arms against the US Government?

No?  OK get back in your Mom's basement.
 
2014-02-10 07:28:13 PM
Hey guys, what's going on in h...
static.fjcdn.com
media0.giphy.com


www.passionsearch.com
...I left the stove on
 
2014-02-10 07:37:58 PM
Wiberals, do as I say, not as I do.  Gun fwee zones pwotect ebbywon because we know cwiminals obey the waw.
 
2014-02-10 07:38:37 PM

Baz744: HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Sedition is still a felony.

Want to explain to the class why Randy Weaver was never even charged with Sedition?

I've never been charged with murder. Therefore, murder is no longer a felony.

Suck it, libs.


I don't see Sonja unless you quote Sonja.
Please don't quote Sonja.
 
2014-02-10 07:46:27 PM

ikanreed: Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.


When did puberty involve wanting to kill people?
 
2014-02-10 07:50:10 PM

EatenTheSun: ikanreed: Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.

When did puberty involve wanting to kill people?


ikanreed and lennavan are pretty much self-identified sociopaths, and think everyone else is the same.
 
2014-02-10 07:52:43 PM

Mean Daddy: Wiberals, do as I say, not as I do.  Gun fwee zones pwotect ebbywon because we know cwiminals obey the waw.


It's about time we abandon all pretenses and just treat public schools like little jails.  This means

- no weapons or sharp objects for the inmates
- guns for security guards only, if needed
- safety procedures for visitors no contraband is smuggled
- somewhat better food
 
2014-02-10 07:56:42 PM

HeadLever: Baz744: I've never been charged with murder.

Have you ever taken up arms against the US Government?

No?  OK get back in your Mom's basement.


You're assuming Weaver's conduct met all the elements of the crime of sedition, if in fact it exists. The fact that he did something you think sounds like sedition in ordinary English doesn't mean he actually committed the crime of sedition as defined by law. Other matters could have prevented such a charging decision too. Maybe it required a specific state of mind the government didn't feel it could prove.

There was an outed troll awhile back named something like "violentacrze." He was excoriated by people for distributing "child pornography" because he was involved with Reddit's "Jailbait" thread. Yet violentacrze was never charged with possession of child pornography even though given the facts of the case of the government's case would have been a slam dunk. After all, he dealt in photographs of underaged girls for their prurient interest.

The problem was that the type of "Jailbait" photos he dealt in aren't actually illegal.

So, to make a better analog for your poor reasoning:

Violentacrze was never charged with child pornography. Therefore, child pornography is no longer a felony.

Now, take your c*ck out of your mom's "basement."
 
2014-02-10 08:06:03 PM

lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?


Therefore... ban everything?

What are you advocating, exactly?  At what point does gun control go too far?
 
2014-02-10 08:24:29 PM

rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?


Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2014-02-10 08:31:26 PM

Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.


Please cite for me how common these "friendly fire" incidents are at mass shootings.
 
2014-02-10 08:35:45 PM

Doom MD: Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.

Please cite for me how common these "friendly fire" incidents are at mass shootings.


Ooooo!  I'll help!  Is the answer zero?
 
2014-02-10 08:37:49 PM

Baz744: You're assuming Weaver's conduct met all the elements of the crime of sedition, if in fact it exists.


You mean that there are extenuating circumstances of sedition?  Wellll, color me shocked.  You may want to have a wee big of a discussion with  demaL-demaL-yeH and set him straight.
 
2014-02-10 08:40:26 PM
Another leftist that thinks the rules don't apply:
http://m.timesunion.com/local/article/Ready-aim-point-talk-5116592.ph p
 
2014-02-10 08:46:30 PM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


Really, if you need to get the largest number of people killed in the shortest possible time in order to create a crisis and push your agenda then Gun Free Zones are indispensable.
 
2014-02-10 08:50:49 PM

Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.


It's a joke.  Leave us subhuman liters alone, and go hang out with the cool kids in TFD.
 
2014-02-10 08:53:35 PM

Baz744: The fact that he did something you think sounds like sedition in ordinary English doesn't mean he actually committed the crime of sedition as defined by law.


You mean making sweeping generalizations about sedition may be somewhat retarded?
 
2014-02-10 08:58:19 PM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


I can't remember the last time 26 people were killed at a gun range or firearms store.  When was that exactly?
 
2014-02-10 09:07:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


By "so often" you mean at the lowest rate in 30 years and falling? The only purpose of "Gun Free Zones" is to provide blood for liberals to dance in and family of their victims to use as props in their propaganda.
 
2014-02-10 09:50:43 PM

Boojum2k: EatenTheSun: ikanreed: Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.

When did puberty involve wanting to kill people?

ikanreed and lennavan are pretty much self-identified sociopaths, and think everyone else is the same.


FTFY

Lennavan has made no such statements.  I made that same mistake earlier.
 
2014-02-10 09:54:49 PM

lennavan: EatenTheSun: lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.

No one sane does.

Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.


Callous: Lennavan has made no such statements. I made that same mistake earlier.


He piped in and agreed with it.
 
Rat
2014-02-10 10:17:45 PM
I'm a bit conflicted.  Part of me that knows that this SAFE act was kneejerked into legislation, and at least in my mind unconstitutional.  The other part of me says hey, you wanted this law and even championed it, so you need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three) I'd hope that this upstanding member of society could back away from all this and go on leading the productive life it seems he's been leading, as I'd hope I could if something like this ever happened to me.

™ but my feet are chiming in to say fark him, send him to PMITA club sing sing
 
2014-02-10 10:38:04 PM

Rat: Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three)


Holy shiat, a Motie!

/The gripping hand gives it away.
 
2014-02-10 10:45:31 PM
If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.
 
2014-02-11 06:49:19 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Until they don't.
 
2014-02-11 07:01:04 AM

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.

Egad.  I don't call people names on FARK, but

neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime?

and

today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer.

WTF are you talking about?


Don't bother, the actual facts mean nothing to him.
 
2014-02-11 07:28:53 AM
I'm so prescient it hurts. Thanks for the laughs.
 
2014-02-11 07:44:57 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Nope. They work as intended.


Kinda like the Redecker Plan, only for deranged killers instead of zombies.

/whether we're actually at the point where we need to implement such a plan is something to consider though
 
2014-02-11 08:32:37 AM

kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.


Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".
 
2014-02-11 08:38:40 AM

snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".


Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?
 
2014-02-11 08:42:32 AM

HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?


Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?
 
2014-02-11 08:45:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom smug posts to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone. think they are better than both sides of any argument.

img.fark.net

 
2014-02-11 08:48:27 AM

snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?


Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?
 
2014-02-11 08:49:12 AM

SpectroBoy: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom smug posts to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone. think they are better than both sides of any argument.

[img.fark.net image 373x330]


I'm not superior, but I was correct.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?

Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?


I was an equal opportunity sorta deal.
But, let's talk about your shortcomings a bit more.
I am fascinated by anonymous internet pukes.
 
2014-02-11 08:57:55 AM

snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: HotWingConspiracy: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Hahahahahaha

Yeah man, you're "defending society" because you own a gun. Do you people ever actually listen to yourselves?

Well, actually, I had my turn.
How about you, Pud?

Oh wow, I had no idea. Who did you defend our society from?

I was an equal opportunity sorta deal.


So nobody?
 
2014-02-11 10:14:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
 
2014-02-11 10:21:30 AM

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem


That's nice for you. The corpses that lie at the feet of gun owners don't really get to make a choice anymore.
 
2014-02-11 10:36:48 AM

ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.


You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.
 
2014-02-11 10:41:04 AM

jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.


You don't need guns to topple governments.
 
2014-02-11 10:57:42 AM

Boojum2k: lennavan: Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?

Considering it didn't happen, that's obviously not what was suggested.


Oh, so it didn't happen in this one single instance, so therefore it is not possible?  Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
 
2014-02-11 10:59:21 AM

Callous: lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?

Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?

She was in bed asleep when it happened.  I don't think the two are comparable.


You're right.  My analogy is not applicable to people who do not sleep.
 
2014-02-11 11:02:06 AM

Callous: I agree with you that no one knows why they select their targets, except in cases where it's a kid shooting up his school, etc. However HOM has a point in that gun free zones do provide a measure of resistance prevention. I don't agree with him that we know it has any bearing on target selection. Other than anecdotal evidence of so many of them occurring in such places.

I do agree with some gun restrictions. No violent felons, crazies, etc. As far as carrying in a school I think any one that has a permit to carry should be allowed to carry. If you think there are teachers that are so unhinged that they would shoot a student for stupid reasons you should be actively fighting to have them no longer be teachers.


No, he does not have a point there.  There is no evidence to support that, indeed there is evidence that directly counters that assertion and I actually provided the citation in this thread.  I know saying that sounds correct, it sounds logical and seems to make sense but the actual data does not back it up.

Problem of course is we only find out they are that unhinged AFTER the school shootings.  Duh.
 
2014-02-11 11:04:14 AM

EatenTheSun: lennavan: Boojum2k: Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.

I actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread.  He countered with a blog.  Search the thread for the word "blog."

Except he never quoted the blog at all. And you might want to read a few words past where it says "This is a blog".



Yes he did.  You can actually search the thread and see it.  This is an absolute knowable fact.  30 seconds to search the thread and you can find it.  When you read it, you will note he PURPOSELY left out that it was a blog.  He just quoted it.  I google searched it to find the source of his quote.

You see, I actively searched for the truth.  You're purposefully ignoring it.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:39 AM

Fark It: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

Therefore... ban everything?

What are you advocating, exactly?  At what point does gun control go too far?


Therefore only LEOs can have guns in schools.  Is that really so disagreeable to you that you need to stretch that argument into "BAN EVERYTHING?!?!?!"
 
2014-02-11 12:14:10 PM

Rat: The other part of me says hey, you wanted this law and even championed it, so you need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three) I'd hope that this upstanding member of society could back away from all this and go on leading the productive life it seems he's been leading, as I'd hope I could if something like this ever happened to me.™ but my feet are chiming in to say fark him, send him to PMITA club sing sing


Nope. Just because someone has led an otherwise exemplary productive life is no reason not to apply mandatory minimum prison terms for the first time they inadvertently violate a gun law. Really. That's what mandatory minimum sentencing is all about.
 
2014-02-11 01:58:35 PM

snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".


Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.
 
2014-02-11 02:00:41 PM

jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.


I'm getting awfully tired of fark seditionists.
/Take up arms and die for your convictions or STFU.
 
2014-02-11 03:12:29 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: jaybeezey: ikanreed: Mell of a Hess: It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.

And that's exactly what it's outdated, yes.  That would not work, not under any strategic scenario.  Not in a non-agrarian society.  It was beggining to become impossible by the beginning of the 20th century, and it's laughable now.

You make that assumption based on the might of the united states military, without understanding who comprises the united states military and what side they may or may not fall on.

I'm getting awfully tired of fark seditionists.
/Take up arms and die for your convictions or STFU.


The faster they do it, the faster the rest of us can continue running a peaceful democracy.
 
2014-02-11 03:29:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.


WTF? The only defend society you mutts can come up with is supposedly an armed one?
cough bullzhit cough
pity the fools

Your agenda is showing.
 
2014-02-11 03:53:50 PM

snocone: demaL-demaL-yeH: snocone: kombat_unit: If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.

Should be a felony to abrogate your duty to defend society.
Pussies want their heavy lifting done "over there" by "sumbudy else".

Ah, so you're for reinstituting the organized Militia of the United States, too.
Good.

WTF? The only defend society you mutts can come up with is supposedly an armed one?
cough bullzhit cough
pity the fools

Your agenda is showing.


We are an armed society. That isn't going to change any time soon.

 It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service - to fulfill their responsibility to uphold the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion as members of an organized Militia.
At the very least it will train, discipline, qualify, inspect, and regulate the Militia and its arms in accordance with Article I Section 8.
 
2014-02-11 03:55:03 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service


The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
 
2014-02-11 04:12:20 PM

Boojum2k: The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


Yeah, it's undeniable that the second amendment exists.  I don't think even the most lefty left of actual judges would support his position.

//That doesn't mean the second amendment is a good thing, just that it's definitely there.
 
2014-02-11 04:16:38 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, it's undeniable that the second amendment exists. I don't think even the most lefty left of actual judges would support his position.//That doesn't mean the second amendment is a good thing, just that it's definitely there.


It's a cultural thing. It works well for Europe to have strict gun control, because the people there have long histories of being serfs, it's part of the cultural mindset. The U.S. does not have the same mindset, and a lot more restrictions on government power, so any kind of strict gun control along with an elimination of the 2nd amendment would be unenforceable and disastrous. You'd have to throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights to make any kind of headway.
 
2014-02-11 04:19:00 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.
 
2014-02-11 04:23:10 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: But Congress can fix it


No, Constitutionally they cannot, any more than Congress can repeal Roe v Wade. Your argument lost.
 
2014-02-11 04:25:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.


I assume you are opposed to having local, state, and federal police agencies, since that is what the debate in the Wikipedia article was primarily about.
 
2014-02-11 05:25:16 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: But Congress can fix it

No, Constitutionally they cannot, any more than Congress can repeal Roe v Wade. Your argument lost.


LOLWUT?
SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have power
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

There ain't farkall the Supremes can do about it, either.
 
2014-02-11 05:31:43 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.

I assume you are opposed to having local, state, and federal police agencies, since that is what the debate in the Wikipedia article was primarily about.


*looks upthread*
Ah. Here's the  missing link. Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.
 
2014-02-11 05:33:52 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia


And the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms in equal weight to that, and has been correctly determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right just like all the others.
Congress could levy a tax to provide firearms and training to all adult citizens, under that clause, but they can't take the guns away from them.
 
2014-02-11 05:37:56 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.


Oddly enough, that version did not make it into the Bill of Rights. And again, you're opposing organized law enforcement at this point, not modern gun ownership or a modern military.
 
2014-02-11 05:44:42 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia

And the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms in equal weight to that, and has been correctly determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right just like all the others.
Congress could levy a tax to provide firearms and training to all adult citizens, under that clause, but they can't take the guns away from them.


Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?
Well?
 
2014-02-11 05:49:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?Well?


Trying to figure out what you are arguing, you're so all over the map you've got Texas mud on your feet and Maine dirt in your hair, with some New Zealand pollen clinging to your sleeves.

I've stated before I think gun safety education should begin in elementary school. Make it second nature for children to understand and respect firearms, for starters. That sounds like it's in line with what you are arguing.
 
2014-02-11 05:53:43 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Wiki gives the Madison originals that clearly show that bearing arms was referring to military service.

Oddly enough, that version did not make it into the Bill of Rights. And again, you're opposing organized law enforcement at this point, not modern gun ownership or a modern military.


What the fark are you nattering about?
I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.
We meet in the equivalent of the town square, drill, train, and qualify with our arms and ammunition, which are inspected.
Every person 16 legally present in the United States and over until death dost thou part participates to the fullest extent possible - participation mandatory and with real penalties attached for missing drill.
Alternative service is done by felons, the mentally ill, physically disabled, and conscientious objectors.
Everybody is screened, physically and mentally for fitness for duty, and must meet minimum standards.
You can own whatever firearms you qualify with, and you must keep them in proper repair and properly secured.
Crew-served weapons are stored at the armory.
 
2014-02-11 05:55:00 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.


Nope. Long since replaced by the National Guard.
 
2014-02-11 05:55:56 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Did I say anything about confiscating firearms from anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?Well?

Trying to figure out what you are arguing, you're so all over the map you've got Texas mud on your feet and Maine dirt in your hair, with some New Zealand pollen clinging to your sleeves.

I've stated before I think gun safety education should begin in elementary school. Make it second nature for children to understand and respect firearms, for starters. That sounds like it's in line with what you are arguing.


Back when the CMP was run by the Army, we did this.
 
2014-02-11 05:59:17 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.

Nope. Long since replaced by the National Guard.


The National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.
 
2014-02-11 06:00:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.


Eh, these days it's a bit different.
 
2014-02-11 06:15:07 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: National Guard is not the organized Militia. The invention of a National Guard of federalized state troops supplemented by an "unorganized Militia" - a true oxymoron, if there ever was one - was one of Congress' biggest farkups ever.

Eh, these days it's a bit different.


It doesn't have to be. What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.
 
2014-02-11 06:23:43 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.


So start with the mandatory education. In a generation we'll have people much better able to handle firearms safely and competently. Improve mental health treatment, restore mandatory physical education through high school, things like that.

Hey, best of the left and right wing worlds!
 
2014-02-11 06:47:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.


And that's just law enforcement!
 
2014-02-11 06:47:25 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a clusterfark of the untrained, the incompetent, other idiots of all stripes, and the fearful and mentally ill.

So start with the mandatory education. In a generation we'll have people much better able to handle firearms safely and competently. Improve mental health treatment, restore mandatory physical education through high school, things like that.

Hey, best of the left and right wing worlds!


Who the fark is left wing?
/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.
//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.
 
2014-02-11 06:52:30 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Who the fark is left wing?/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.


How about Lincoln?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin133463.html
 
2014-02-11 07:13:50 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Who the fark is left wing?/As liberal as Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.//Not as liberal as Thomas Paine.

How about Lincoln?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin133463.html


OK. If you insist:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
 
2014-02-11 07:16:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.


It's like you scanned for what you agree with, bolded it, and ignored the rest.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Hey look, it's the modern Republican position!
 
2014-02-11 07:20:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.


God you're an idiot.

It is entertaining to imagine the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you post increasingly tangential thoughts.

The current second amendment is what passed ratification
That is now clarified by SCOTUS decision as law of the land.
Congress would only be able to change that with a Constitutional Convention
Which SCOTUS could still interpret to mean exactly what they started with.

SCOTUS is the ultimate umpire on what is and isn't law, not Congress.  Sorry.  Anyone with a 10th grade education knows this.
 
2014-02-11 07:21:23 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

It's like you scanned for what you agree with, bolded it, and ignored the rest.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Hey look, it's the modern Republican position!


No, it farking isn't.
 
2014-02-11 07:23:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it farking isn't.


Yes, actually it is. Adding new disabilities and burdens is the Democratic Party's position.
 
2014-02-11 07:25:02 PM

AngryDragon: demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.

God you're an idiot.

It is entertaining to imagine the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you post increasingly tangential thoughts.

The current second amendment is what passed ratification
That is now clarified by SCOTUS decision as law of the land.
Congress would only be able to change that with a Constitutional Convention
Which SCOTUS could still interpret to mean exactly what they started with.

SCOTUS is the ultimate umpire on what is and isn't law, not Congress.  Sorry.  Anyone with a 10th grade education knows this.


Tell us how Amendment II nullifies any of the enumerated Militia powers of Congress.
The Supremes do not fark with specifically enumerated powers, although they do chip at   necessary and proper.
Hint: These laws were passed immediately after Amendment II was ratified.
 
2014-02-11 07:35:13 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it farking isn't.

Yes, actually it is. Adding new disabilities and burdens is the Democratic Party's position.


Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?
Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?

What color is the sky on your home planet, madam?
 
2014-02-11 07:41:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?


No, forcing people to join parasitic organizations to fund the Democratic Party is their position. And yes, disenfranchising voters is the Democrat position. particularly military voters.
 
2014-02-11 07:44:30 PM

Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: Right to Work is the Democratic Party's position?Disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party's position?

No, forcing people to join parasitic organizations to fund the Democratic Party is their position. And yes, disenfranchising voters is the Democrat position. particularly military voters.


*sigh*
You oversold it.
'Bye.
 
2014-02-11 07:47:47 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: You oversold it.


Sorry, I don't lie to people to make them feel better.
 
2014-02-11 09:45:09 PM

lennavan: EatenTheSun: lennavan: Boojum2k: Seriously, dude, I read the thread. You're a strawman-toting derper and I called you out for it. Own it, it's yours.

I actually factually rebutted his claim later in the thread.  He countered with a blog.  Search the thread for the word "blog."

Except he never quoted the blog at all. And you might want to read a few words past where it says "This is a blog".

Yes he did.  You can actually search the thread and see it.  This is an absolute knowable fact.  30 seconds to search the thread and you can find it.  When you read it, you will note he PURPOSELY left out that it was a blog.  He just quoted it.  I google searched it to find the source of his quote.

You see, I actively searched for the truth.  You're purposefully ignoring it.


No, he didn't. He quoted a reply to the blog.
 
2014-02-11 10:36:09 PM

lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?


I know.. lets punish everyone because of one dumb biatch what left guns out where her kid can get them.
 
2014-02-11 10:38:32 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?

Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?


How many teachers or peace officers have had their gun taken away from them while carrying at school?
 
2014-02-11 10:39:43 PM

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Callous: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

So you wanna blame the victim?  You are aware that he robbed and murdered her right?

Are you suggesting it's possible a legal gun owner might have their gun taken away and used for nefarious purposes?  Kinda makes you re-think that high school teacher who carried while at the High School then, doesn't it?

She was in bed asleep when it happened.  I don't think the two are comparable.

You're right.  My analogy is not applicable to people who do not sleep.


You are right too.  We need to take guns away from everyone that is asleep at school.
 
2014-02-11 10:41:44 PM

lennavan: Fark It: lennavan: Boojum2k: Nutsac_Jim: One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers had a .357 revolver he carried, as part of a program with the police to protect students.
Coincidentally, while he was there, there was never a school shooting. Might have been tiger-repelling rock, but the year after he left and they discontinued the program there was a shooting in the parking lot.

On December 13, 2012, you could have made the same post about Nancy Lanza.  Legal gun owner, legally using a gun to do legal stuff, definitely not a victim of crime.  What could go wrong?

Therefore... ban everything?

What are you advocating, exactly?  At what point does gun control go too far?

Therefore only LEOs can have guns in schools.  Is that really so disagreeable to you that you need to stretch that argument into "BAN EVERYTHING?!?!?!"


Why dont you show us the pending threat of all the teachers who shoot their kids at school.
Surely these loose cannons sometimes are around kids at other hours and mow them down....
 
Displayed 280 of 280 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report