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.

(Click On Detroit)   Not news: Man breaks in to house. News: Woman in the home warns the man she has a gun and will shoot, and does, killing the man. FARK: This is the 8th time someone has broken in to their house   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 387
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

13840 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:36 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 07:37:05 PM

gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.

Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?

YOUR CLAIM:
LavenderWolf: "I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted."

MY QUERY:
So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?

YOUR ANSWER:?

/because it DID happen, and is impactful to people who did no wrong, and is a model of ex-post-facto abuse


I feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.
 
2014-03-03 07:37:41 PM

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.

Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.


... Were you born that way? Or do you practice?
 
2014-03-03 07:55:42 PM

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.

Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.

... Were you born that way? Or do you practice?


I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 08:19:19 PM

LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.


So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.
 
2014-03-03 09:26:27 PM

umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.


They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.
 
2014-03-03 09:37:25 PM

fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-an d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no
 
2014-03-03 10:44:31 PM

gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.


You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.
 
2014-03-03 10:45:20 PM

Agent Nick Fury: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensrolein C anada.aspx

I'll post this so maybe people can better understand where LavenderWolf is coming from.

"The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity, and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name."

So that's why someone from a colony such as this has a tough time grasping self-determined rights.


Wait, you actually think The Queen has any kind of authority in Canada?

You do realize that she is a figurehead and wields zero authority, right?
 
2014-03-03 10:50:24 PM

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.


Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legislation is put through, but I dislike when people who know nothing about firearms try to regulate them. You end up with a situation where an entire class of otherwise "normal" weapons (i.e. rifle with a pistol grip) while ignoring classes of weaponry actually used in crime. Banning firearms is a silly idea on its face, because the people who use them to commit crime really don't care that they're illegal. The exact same issue as the "drug war." You can make something illegal, but that doesn't stop people who don't care. Most people are well aware of this - that's why "gun control" is on life support.

I mean, what kind of answer do you want?
 
2014-03-03 10:55:06 PM

LavenderWolf: Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms.


20-40% of a political party can't force the rest of Congress to give in to their demands? Good to know, I guess that means the last two budget crises and the failure of multiple healthcare bills were really the work of everyone in Congress, and really not caused by a handful of Tea-Party crackpots as practically everyone claimed at the time.
 
2014-03-03 10:59:11 PM

ChaosStar: So you're moving the goal post from "Liberals are not trying to disarm you " to "Liberals are not successfully trying to disarm you"? I see, well then there's really no point in speaking with you further is there, as nothing I'm going to say is going to hit the target you keep moving?


Well, if you're going to be this defensive and snippy, maybe there isn't any point.

Earlier today you said Janet Reno was "on record" as telling supporters that regulation is only a step towards disarmament. But that was a paranoid fabrication. Now you've got another 20 year old quote about Feinstein not being able to pass an outright ban (on all firearms or assault weapons? I can't find a quote with context.)

Maybe she would like to outlaw all guns. How much does that sincerely matter? She isn't going to. I would like to spoon intimately with Christina Hendricks, but she doesn't have to phone the cops on me to keep it from happening.

You have every right to be wary of regulation, but it doesn't help to be paranoid about it. Nobody even mentioned the topic of gun control in this thread before Fark Independents had to run in and start unloading into fabricated strawmen.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:03:57 PM

LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legislation is put t ...


First candid thing you wrote that is fair and balanced.
The reason I asked your opinion and standing is that we in NY are facing just what you described.
And it has potential precedent to carry over vis-a-vis companion legislation in other states.
Gun control is most certainly NOT on life-support. The left wing is forcing it on ever-increasing segments of the population here under the disgusting banner of "think of the children" ever since Sandy Hook.
There are significant implications.
We here in the US can ignore at the risk of many more "Safety Act" nonsense laws being put through in uncontested manners.
Had there been a vote, Cuomo never would have gotten it through, FYI. The truly devious and dangerous part of it all is he did so using a very underhanded mechanism allowing sweeping latitude in ignoring legal process. And other far-lefts have already been heard to be praising the action as "innovative". That is disturbing.

You keep insisting this is not going to happen. But it IS happening. I assure you. I am witnessing it. I know people sending their very normal firearms off to friends and family out of state to not have to sell them or spend money changing them.
You need to stop thinking that this isn't happening. And you need to know it has a likelihood of spreading.
Politicians ALL have agendas. I trust NONE of them. Just like lawyers.
 
2014-03-03 11:06:01 PM

Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no


They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:13:58 PM

fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.


You don't do a very good job at following links, do ya?

LGT letter sent out as a result of the Safety Act.
truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

Look at the date. Not '94. You are wrong.
 
2014-03-03 11:18:46 PM

the ha ha guy: Not even that, I speculated on the effectiveness of a full ban and confiscation of everything but bolt-action rifles


Like the weapon used to kill President Kennedy? I think you mean "sniper rifles", that was the proper term back in the 90s.

/just commenting on the use of jargon in this whole issue.
 
2014-03-03 11:32:08 PM

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.


So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have nothing to worry about because they failed, not because they tried, amirite?
 
2014-03-03 11:32:37 PM

gja: fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.

You don't do a very good job at following links, do ya?

LGT letter sent out as a result of the Safety Act.
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Look at the date. Not '94. You are wrong.


You misunderstood the "they" I was referring to. "They" were the posters I was replying to.
 
2014-03-03 11:35:40 PM

fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.


Oh, I guess when I get a no knock raid I'll show them your post, dance a jig, and state "no one is trying to take my guns" (tm)
 
2014-03-03 11:36:49 PM

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...


Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?
 
2014-03-03 11:37:24 PM

ko_kyi: the ha ha guy: Not even that, I speculated on the effectiveness of a full ban and confiscation of everything but bolt-action rifles

Like the weapon used to kill President Kennedy? I think you mean "sniper rifles", that was the proper term back in the 90s.

/just commenting on the use of jargon in this whole issue.


You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.
 
2014-03-03 11:39:51 PM

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...

Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?


My civil rights being attacked whenever the political opportunity presents itself. I'd say that's a pretty good start. Maybe rolling back some of the pre-existing infringements such as the Hughes amendment while were at it. Nationwide ccw would also be a high water mark to achieve.
 
2014-03-03 11:40:54 PM

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...

Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?

My civil rights being attacked whenever the political opportunity presents itself. I'd say that's a pretty good start. Maybe rolling back some of the pre-existing infringements such as the Hughes amendment while were at it. Nationwide ccw would also be a high water mark to achieve.


My civil rights *not being attacked.


Damn I need coffee
 
2014-03-03 11:44:10 PM

DarkVader: No, those features aren't safeties.


Global Industry standards disagree.  A 'safety' is any system designed to keep the firearm from shooting when it isn't supposed to.  What you're talking about is a manual safety.  There are also internal safeties.

DarkVader: A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety. Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior. Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior. And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.


I'm not disagreeing with you, a manual safety is a type of safety, what I was saying is that it isn't the ONLY type of safety.  You're doing the equivalent of insisting a rifle is a gun.  Shotguns aren't guns.  Rifles aren't rifles.  I'm using the specific terminology for the industry/equipment.

As for using manual safeties, well, 'not using it' is part of my USAF M-9 training(it goes into the holster with the safety off).  It's also standard training for many police departments, at least the ones not using Glocks or other handguns without one to begin with.  The 2 stage trigger on a glock is set up so that it's supposed to lock the trigger up if what's pushing on the trigger isn't a finger.

LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.


When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.

drew46n2: Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?


Because most anti-gun types only count it as a 'legitimate defensive gun use' if the weapon is fired, and 90+% of the time it's not?

LavenderWolf: I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases.


Citation?  I'd rate carrying a weapon as easier today on average, but buying them hasn't gotten any easier.
 
2014-03-03 11:47:24 PM

gja: LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legisl ...


You act like I don't understand your position.

Expanding on the already mentioned highly unpopular local legislation doesn't actually strengthen your case. Do what you can to defeat it - I already don't support it - but hardly do I think this is some kind of "slow conspiracy to take our guns" like you imply.

Why does the agenda have to be hidden? Seems it's in plain sight for those who actually hold to it. You imply the existence of people in power who say they support access to firearms but in actuality support anti-gun legislation. You're going to have to prove that the people in power - now, not in 2004 or 1994 - are trying to take away your guns. Only then will I believe it.
 
2014-03-03 11:48:55 PM

Doom MD: You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.


You mean semiautomatic gun, or bolt action hunting rifle.  Using sneaky words to get a gun ban is reprehensible.  Using legitimate terminology is the tool of a free man.  Let us all know when you grow up and you can rejoin the discussion.  "Assault weapon" is not synonymous with Assault Rifle, and means you want to band gun because they are scary looking. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Bye.
 
2014-03-03 11:49:54 PM

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legisl ...

You act like I don't understand your position.

Expanding on the already mentioned highly unpopular local legislation doesn't actually strengthen your case. Do what you can to defeat it - I already don't support it - but hardly do I think this is some kind of "slow conspiracy to take our guns" like you imply.

Why does the agenda have to be hidden? Seems it's in plain sight for those who actually hold to it. You imply the existence of people in power who say they support access to firearms but in actuality support anti-gun legislation. You're going to have to prove that the people in power - now, not in 2004 or 1994 - are trying to take away your guns. Only then will I believe it.


Did you not see the link I posted?
 
2014-03-03 11:51:07 PM

ko_kyi: Doom MD: You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.

You mean semiautomatic gun, or bolt action hunting rifle.  Using sneaky words to get a gun ban is reprehensible.  Using legitimate terminology is the tool of a free man.  Let us all know when you grow up and you can rejoin the discussion.  "Assault weapon" is not synonymous with Assault Rifle, and means you want to band gun because they are scary looking. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Bye.


Thatsthejoke.jpeg
 
2014-03-03 11:51:34 PM

Firethorn: LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.


You still can. You can order them online.

Citation?  I'd rate carrying a weapon as easier today on average, but buying them hasn't gotten any easier.

Several weapons bans have expired and legislation has been enacted both federally and on the state level in many states specifically further protecting the right to purchase firearms.
 
2014-03-03 11:55:53 PM

Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?


Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.
 
2014-03-04 12:02:11 AM

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.


You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.
 
2014-03-04 12:07:33 AM

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.

You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.


I haven't moved any goalposts. I said originally that aside from "highly unpopular local legislation" that gun control is dead. And it is; the vast majority of voting Americans support access to firearms. It's political suicide to propose firearm restrictions on any large scale, and places such as Arizona and Texas ensure that legislating area by area wouldn't work.

You're framing this as something bigger than it is. One city which has done so before has enacted a (limited) gun ban, and gun control cheerleaders are doing their thing.
 
2014-03-04 12:15:38 AM

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.

You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.

I haven't moved any goalposts. I said originally that aside from "highly unpopular local legislation" that gun control is dead. And it is; the vast majority of voting Americans support access to firearms. It's political suicide to propose firearm restrictions on any large scale, and places such as Arizona and Texas ensure that legislating area by area wouldn't work.

You're framing this as something bigger than it is. One city which has done so before has enacted a (limited) gun ban, and gun control cheerleaders are doing their thing.


So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements? Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year? Yes, it thankfully failed but only because of a massive effort on the part of 2a supporters. It's a sobering reminder that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. We'd be having a very different conversation if 2a supporters rolled on this garbage. Gun control legislation isn't dead, it was repelled. I haven't heard "I surrender" declarations from the gun control crowd.
 
2014-03-04 12:34:39 AM
Doom MD:

So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements?

Quite the opposite. Of course they will. As per usual, though, they won't get anywhere.

Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year?

Extremely short lived and without majority support from either party? Yeah. Terrifying, that was.

Did you think the gun control crowd was going to go on the news and admit eternal defeat? They have no teeth with which to bite you. You guys can stop going into literally every single discussion that involves a firearm and crowing about the gun control boogeyman. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? You guys keep crying wolf. Limit your jabbering to those discussions that are actually about gun control and you'll meet far better results than threadshiatting everywhere. You might support what you say later, with links and citations and stacked questions, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to bring up the subject f*cking everywhere.

Here's Doglover threadshiatting: "But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!"
AngryDragon had this to say: "Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting."

And this is the bullshiat I have been talking about.

Somebody uses a gun legally, nobody has a problem with it whatsoever, but two people within the first dozen posts jump on that as an opportunity to crow about the evil anti-gun crowd.

Tell me you understand what I'm saying, please.
 
2014-03-04 12:39:50 AM

LavenderWolf: Doom MD:

So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements?

Quite the opposite. Of course they will. As per usual, though, they won't get anywhere.

Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year?

Extremely short lived and without majority support from either party? Yeah. Terrifying, that was.

Did you think the gun control crowd was going to go on the news and admit eternal defeat? They have no teeth with which to bite you. You guys can stop going into literally every single discussion that involves a firearm and crowing about the gun control boogeyman. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? You guys keep crying wolf. Limit your jabbering to those discussions that are actually about gun control and you'll meet far better results than threadshiatting everywhere. You might support what you say later, with links and citations and stacked questions, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to bring up the subject f*cking everywhere.

Here's Doglover threadshiatting: "But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!"
AngryDragon had this to say: "Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting."

And this is the bullshiat I have been talking about.

Somebody uses a gun legally, nobody has a problem with it whatsoever, but two people within the first dozen posts jump on that as an opportunity to crow about the evil anti-gun crowd.

Tell me you understand what I'm saying, please.


So because gun control advocates have been unsuccessful recently people should let their guard down? There is a concerted effort by certain factions in politics to enact gun control. Is this not beyond doubt? Why do you malign people for opposing those that would infringe in them, especially by mocking these trite talking points? Being passive is what got us the nfa, the Hughes amendment, and the original awb. If anything pro-2a people need to use their momentum to remove past infringements.

The blood in the streets predictions by gun control advocates have not panned out.
 
2014-03-04 12:49:40 AM
Doom MD:

So because gun control advocates have been unsuccessful recently people should let their guard down?

Quite the opposite. Keep your shield up and pointed in the right direction.

There is a concerted effort by certain factions in politics to enact gun control. Is this not beyond doubt?

I don't doubt it at all. They're just not powerful factions.

Why do you malign people for opposing those that would infringe in them, especially by mocking these trite talking points?

I malign no-one. Those aren't mocking "trite talking points," they are mocking a strawman. I challenge you to name one person in history who has ever said "Guns are only used to kill children," or "Defensive gun use is a myth."

Being passive is what got us the nfa, the Hughes amendment, and the original awb. If anything pro-2a people need to use their momentum to remove past infringements.

And being passive aggressive and idiotic is what gets you the shiat like Doglover's and AngryDragon's posts. Go ahead, have an active defense. Where it actually matters. Those of us who don't feel the need to flagellate our firearms are more annoyed by this shiat than the gun control crowd is, I can tell you that.


The blood in the streets predictions by gun control advocates have not panned out.

And? This matters to me why? I don't support the gun control nutters any more than I support threadshiatting about them.
 
2014-03-04 02:07:29 AM

drew46n2: GanjSmokr: drew46n2: gun-humpers

Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT


Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?


Because those numbers are relatively small.  On par with auto accidents, and miles and miles behind such things are heart disease, cigarette-related deaths, and even simple slips and falls.


LavenderWolf: Firethorn: LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.

You still can. You can order them online.


Only if you jump through all the legal hoops and expenses of getting a FFL.  Otherwise, you have to have it sent to someone holding such a license, usually your local gun shop, where they get to tack on additional handling fees.
 
2014-03-04 04:37:20 AM

LavenderWolf: You still can. You can order them online.


Order yes, with pre-arrangement with a local FFL(gun store), pay any fees they charge, and pick it up from the FFL with a background check.  Unless you're after something special, it's generally cheaper to just buy it from the dealer directly.

Which is why I said 'shipped to your house'.
 
Displayed 37 of 387 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report