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.

(Rome News-Tribune)   If you had three days after Georgia's "guns in bars" bill was signed for the first fatal shooting in a bar, come on up and collect your prize   (northwestgeorgianews.com) divider line 355
    More: Obvious, Floyd County, guns  
•       •       •

11893 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 8:12 PM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-27 10:07:26 PM

Dimensio: ZAZ: The law goes into effect July 1, according to CNN.

Facts are not important when evaluating public safety policy.

/Whether the shooter had a valid concealed weapons permit is also irrelevant.


Well the bigger story is the last club at this location had its license pulled for violence, some clubs just have issues and LEGAL guns have never been the issue.
 
2014-04-27 10:07:42 PM

Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: Adolf Oliver Nipples: theprinceofwands: Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: bojon: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

Not really. I had to take a class for a couple hours, not have a felony on my record, I guess the same training as any cop has to take.

I had to give fingerprints, photographs, and references (which they check), and undergo a NICS check. Someone who gives the police everything they need to identify them in the event of a crime isn't likely to commit any.

Add in a 50K insurance policy to be on the safe side.

No requirements for insurance can be held lawful/constitutional. Attempts to require it would result in immediate, total revolution.

Suuuuure it would.  Turn down the hyperbole dial a little.

No hyperbole whatsoever. In fact, there are a number of militias that have included this in their 'bright line' statements.

The "cold, dead hands" crowd are a bunch of phonies. If the government passed a law banning guns tomorrow there would be a very small number of holdouts. Acting tough is easy to do in the absence of any realistic chance that they will be put to the test. Put them to that test and they'll fold.

I'll put my money on 10-30 million active participants, with up to 150-200 million siding with them. Remember that ~85% of citizens object to even handgun bans, and that's what's responsible for ~75% of violence. As evidence I would remind you that many of us already joined the military, often during a time of war, demonstrating that we are fully prepared to kill or die for what we believe in.

Further, it wouldn't matter since a large percent of 'the state' would refuse to participate against citizens, rendering the need for active engagement irrelevant.

I have a hard time believing you typed that with a straight face.


Former military, highly intelligent, highly educated in related social science fields, focus on this and related issues for most of my professional life - I assure you I'm completely serious.
 
2014-04-27 10:09:20 PM

theprinceofwands: More likely it would have been government agents murdering people, like in so many other 'standoff' situations. Not that it was a clear violation situation...that one was tenuous at best.


Murdering people? Aiming weapons at law enforcement officers properly executing their duties is a crime. If they were killed under those circumstances it wouldn't qualify as murder under any definition.

Bundy is wrong, he has been wrong for a long time, and he will continue to be wrong until he starts obeying the law. That the law hasn't been enforced for a long time doesn't mean that he wasn't breaking it. We are a nation of laws. An armed mob preventing enforcement is not consistent with that.
 
2014-04-27 10:09:30 PM

stoli n coke: You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?


Name calling on an anonymous internet board? Might want to take a look in the mirror.
 
2014-04-27 10:10:35 PM
theprinceofwands:

More likely it would have been government agents murdering people, like in so many other 'standoff' situations. Not that it was a clear violation situation...that one was tenuous at best.

Armed people walking onto government property to interfere with the legal removal of cattle trespassing on the land isn't a clear violation?  Yep, red is a nice color for you.
 
2014-04-27 10:11:06 PM

HawgWild: theprinceofwands: Freedom to not be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine.
Freedom to speak and/or assemble peacefully (without undue burden at least).
Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure.
Freedom from unjust detention without speedy trial.

That's a tax. Supreme Court says so. And I think we still have the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well as habeas corpus.

So ... yeah, no.


The supreme court also said we had to return slaves, separate but equal was ok, japanese internment was acceptable, corporations are people with unlimited political funding options, etc. Just because the court says something doesn't actually make it true...merely accepted.

We have empty amendments - ask anyone in Gitmo, ask the people having their data mined, etc, etc, etc.

So, yeah, yes.

I'm not saying we're nazi germany (YET), but neither do we retain the freedoms we once held. Period. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is ignorance, or intentional evil.
 
2014-04-27 10:11:20 PM

ronaprhys: DC doesn't really qualify as that's drug-related or gang-related crime. Those other places have their own issues. Specifically called out was a change in the rate of firearm-related problems when the laws were relaxed.


So the goalposts got moved because drug or gang related crime doesn't count.

And the second part of my previous response: A rise in gun death and injuries in areas where large percentages of the population have access to firearms, a statistic directly derived from making it easier to acquire firearms.

I don't support a ban. I think confiscation is an implausible idea that dumb people wank to. I'm saying that projectile launchers capable of ending a human life, either through malice or negligence, are under-regulated for the potential harm one could do with it. I also believe responsible, intelligent gun owners are the majority (like any hobby group - the 10% asstard demographic gets undue attention relative to their size).

Cars, alcohol, weaponry, and especially drugs need a serious re-evaluation on policy goals.
 
2014-04-27 10:13:30 PM

stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.

You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?

I guess being surrounded by 2 tons of steel that can outrun anyone wishing harm on you in less than four seconds just isn't security enough.


You're an idiot. Lemme see you 'outrun' anything in rush hour traffic, or in Geo anywhere. You fail to understand what being prepared is, and why people choose to be so. It's your right to be ignorant, of course, but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
 
2014-04-27 10:13:40 PM

theprinceofwands: Former military, highly intelligent, highly educated in related social science fields, focus on this and related issues for most of my professional life - I assure you I'm completely serious.


I'm sure you are serious. Were we talking about a revolution it would probably happen that way. A potential repeal of the 2nd Amendment, properly ratified, or even a state or local ordinance, would not be the catalyst for revolution. The government would demand the weapons and the 2nd Amendment absolutists would largely line up and turn them in.
 
2014-04-27 10:14:21 PM
Wow. This is just getting silly.
 
2014-04-27 10:14:22 PM

ronaprhys: stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.

You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?

I guess being surrounded by 2 tons of steel that can outrun anyone wishing harm on you in less than four seconds just isn't security enough.

So, in lieu of an actual argument, you resort to nonsense?

A winnar is you.


The "helpless zone" is nonsense. By that logic, the law forces hunters into a helpless zone every time they have to stow their weapons.
 
2014-04-27 10:15:45 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: theprinceofwands: More likely it would have been government agents murdering people, like in so many other 'standoff' situations. Not that it was a clear violation situation...that one was tenuous at best.

Murdering people? Aiming weapons at law enforcement officers properly executing their duties is a crime. If they were killed under those circumstances it wouldn't qualify as murder under any definition.

Bundy is wrong, he has been wrong for a long time, and he will continue to be wrong until he starts obeying the law. That the law hasn't been enforced for a long time doesn't mean that he wasn't breaking it. We are a nation of laws. An armed mob preventing enforcement is not consistent with that.


That's the key right there. Not to invoke Godwin, but by your definitions you should have been shot if you'd tried to hide Jews in Germany...after all, they were legally carrying out their duty. That's why you're wrong, and a terrible person.

Doing what you believe to be right is the ONLY law that matters. Ever. It's how/why this nation exists, and is a requirement to name yourself among its citizens in my opinion.
 
2014-04-27 10:16:22 PM

theprinceofwands: HawgWild: theprinceofwands: Freedom to not be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine.
Freedom to speak and/or assemble peacefully (without undue burden at least).
Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure.
Freedom from unjust detention without speedy trial.

That's a tax. Supreme Court says so. And I think we still have the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well as habeas corpus.

So ... yeah, no.

The supreme court also said we had to return slaves, separate but equal was ok, japanese internment was acceptable, corporations are people with unlimited political funding options, etc. Just because the court says something doesn't actually make it true...merely accepted.

We have empty amendments - ask anyone in Gitmo, ask the people having their data mined, etc, etc, etc.

So, yeah, yes.

I'm not saying we're nazi germany (YET), but neither do we retain the freedoms we once held. Period. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is ignorance, or intentional evil.


Holy crap, dude. The government boogey man ain't out to get you.
 
2014-04-27 10:16:32 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: ronaprhys: DC doesn't really qualify as that's drug-related or gang-related crime. Those other places have their own issues. Specifically called out was a change in the rate of firearm-related problems when the laws were relaxed.

So the goalposts got moved because drug or gang related crime doesn't count.

And the second part of my previous response: A rise in gun death and injuries in areas where large percentages of the population have access to firearms, a statistic directly derived from making it easier to acquire firearms.

I don't support a ban. I think confiscation is an implausible idea that dumb people wank to. I'm saying that projectile launchers capable of ending a human life, either through malice or negligence, are under-regulated for the potential harm one could do with it. I also believe responsible, intelligent gun owners are the majority (like any hobby group - the 10% asstard demographic gets undue attention relative to their size).

Cars, alcohol, weaponry, and especially drugs need a serious re-evaluation on policy goals.


No, idiot.  I talked about an increase in firearm-related violence due to the relaxation of laws.  You tried to move the goalposts and use places where laws have not changed, have had a long history of firearm crimes, etc.  That's basically lying on your part.
 
2014-04-27 10:16:36 PM

theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.

You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?

I guess being surrounded by 2 tons of steel that can outrun anyone wishing harm on you in less than four seconds just isn't security enough.

You're an idiot. Lemme see you 'outrun' anything in rush hour traffic, or in Geo anywhere. You fail to understand what being prepared is, and why people choose to be so. It's your right to be ignorant, of course, but don't waste my time with your stupidity.


Do you really think you're going to get carjacked during rush hour? Either you're moving or you're stuck in traffic, which makes the thief's getaway impossible.
 
2014-04-27 10:17:20 PM

stoli n coke: ronaprhys: stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.

You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?

I guess being surrounded by 2 tons of steel that can outrun anyone wishing harm on you in less than four seconds just isn't security enough.

So, in lieu of an actual argument, you resort to nonsense?

A winnar is you.

The "helpless zone" is nonsense. By that logic, the law forces hunters into a helpless zone every time they have to stow their weapons.


A winnar is you.
 
2014-04-27 10:18:04 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: theprinceofwands: Former military, highly intelligent, highly educated in related social science fields, focus on this and related issues for most of my professional life - I assure you I'm completely serious.

I'm sure you are serious. Were we talking about a revolution it would probably happen that way. A potential repeal of the 2nd Amendment, properly ratified, or even a state or local ordinance, would not be the catalyst for revolution. The government would demand the weapons and the 2nd Amendment absolutists would largely line up and turn them in.


We have a fundamental disagreement that cannot be resolved. Fortunately we're both allowed to continue to hold those beliefs and just see how it turns out in the end. Fortunately I sincerely doubt it will ever come to that. As dumb as politicians are I can't believe they'd ever risk it.
 
2014-04-27 10:21:33 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Deathfrogg: Then there's this guy.

I'm sure the NRA would just love to put him in their commercials.

Oh, no one cares about the Georgia gun owner who repelled an angry mob all by himself without firing a shot.


Heh..."THE CHILDREN!!!11!!1!!"
 
2014-04-27 10:21:42 PM

stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.

You feel "helpless" in your own car unless you're armed? You're a real manly man, ain't ya?

I guess being surrounded by 2 tons of steel that can outrun anyone wishing harm on you in less than four seconds just isn't security enough.

You're an idiot. Lemme see you 'outrun' anything in rush hour traffic, or in Geo anywhere. You fail to understand what being prepared is, and why people choose to be so. It's your right to be ignorant, of course, but don't waste my time with your stupidity.

Do you really think you're going to get carjacked during rush hour? Either you're moving or you're stuck in traffic, which makes the thief's getaway impossible.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-investigate-more-bu mp -and-run-carjackings/2013/10/11/dc242aca-32a2-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_s tory.html

Or the one in colorado recently where the kid was in the back?

Is it likely to happen? No. DOES it EVER happen? Yes.
 
2014-04-27 10:22:51 PM

stoli n coke: i have to ask, what do CCW holders hope to accomplish with a law like this?

Not even figuring in the intoxication factor, bars are often crowded, it's loud, it's dark, sometimes there's pushing and shoving. If they were suddenly faced with the "bad guy with a gun" scenario they get excited over, it seems they'd be more likely to shoot someone who had nothing to do with it. FFS, even Old West Saloons didn't want firearms inside.

It's the same reason guns in movie theaters is a horrible idea.


It's not really that anyone thinks that they are going to need to be in a gun fight in a bar, or anywhere else for that matter, it's more so that you don't have to leave your weapon in a car semi-secured.  Thieves here target trucks looking for guns.  For CCW permit holders, it's pretty much a hassle to have to think "can I take my weapon in this place"?  I can promise that before the law, and even now, there are lots of guns in prohibited places for this reason, and know one knows.....because it's concealed.

I always laugh at these threads simply because everyone gets so worked up.  If you don't like the laws, get them changed.  Good luck to you.
 
2014-04-27 10:23:01 PM

Danger Avoid Death: baorao: The Chevy Club was formerly known as the Cadillac Club.

*snert*

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x313]

"Hi! I'm Chevy Club and you're not."


This is what I came here for. Let's have more humor and less "second amendment is best amendment" wank, whaddaya say, Internet?
 
2014-04-27 10:23:02 PM

theprinceofwands: Doing what you believe to be right is the ONLY law that matters. Ever. It's how/why this nation exists, and is a requirement to name yourself among its citizens in my opinion.


No, that's not correct. The Constitution establishes a framework to enact change. The states provide a framework to enact change. Local governments? The same. You most decidedly do NOT have the right to decide what laws you will or will not obey. Let's say that I believe abortion is murder and I take it upon myself to rescue unborn children from their murderers. Does that give me the affirmative right to shoot up an abortion clinic? How about if I determine that I have an absolute right to defend every inch of my property and plant a minefield to keep people out?

Every right has a limit, and the reason is that we cannot all agree on what those rights should be. Therefore, we have reasonable limits that are duly ratified by people we choose to represent us, perhaps satisfying nobody but representing the best compromise we can make at the time. What you are suggesting is anarchy, that we can and should determine individually what laws we should obey. No society can endure under those conditions.
 
2014-04-27 10:24:42 PM

theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.


Wow dude, a gun is not your identity.

 
2014-04-27 10:29:01 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: theprinceofwands: Doing what you believe to be right is the ONLY law that matters. Ever. It's how/why this nation exists, and is a requirement to name yourself among its citizens in my opinion.

No, that's not correct. The Constitution establishes a framework to enact change. The states provide a framework to enact change. Local governments? The same. You most decidedly do NOT have the right to decide what laws you will or will not obey. Let's say that I believe abortion is murder and I take it upon myself to rescue unborn children from their murderers. Does that give me the affirmative right to shoot up an abortion clinic? How about if I determine that I have an absolute right to defend every inch of my property and plant a minefield to keep people out?

Every right has a limit, and the reason is that we cannot all agree on what those rights should be. Therefore, we have reasonable limits that are duly ratified by people we choose to represent us, perhaps satisfying nobody but representing the best compromise we can make at the time. What you are suggesting is anarchy, that we can and should determine individually what laws we should obey. No society can endure under those conditions.


Disagree. Again, see previous examples. You cannot work 'within' a system when that system has been corrupted. You can only 'abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' You'll notice the US wasn't formed by petitioning Parliament.

You are correct that people have differences of opinion. That's why no nation should ever consider itself sacred and/or immutable. Instead, we must be fluid, allowing the dynamic adjustment of state to accommodate shifts in citizen beliefs and preferences. If some people don't want firearms, for instance, they should be free to create a nation with that as a foundation. Meanwhile the rest of us should be free to continue to enjoy our freedoms in this regard. Compromise is merely the great destroyer, ensuring no one has a situation they can live with.
 
2014-04-27 10:30:26 PM
eeehhhhh, maybe there should mandatory abortions for a couples first borne...Hear me out, much like the sand mandala, maybe it would prepare couples for how little everybody else cares about their slobbery, pants shiatting, sticky handed, squalling crotch fruit.
 
2014-04-27 10:30:32 PM

Bear151556: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.


Wow dude, a gun is not your identity.


You are correct. In fact, I don't even much like them.

The RIGHT to them, however, IS my identity. As an American citizen, and a free man.
 
2014-04-27 10:30:54 PM

Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: and statistics have shown that permit holders are far less likely than the general population to commit violent crimes with guns

Yeah, giving $50 to some guy at a gun show makes you a responsible gun owner.


Yes, that's how you get a carry permit.

Nothing about this story appears to be related to the new law.

I have to assume that prior to the passing of the law, no was ever shot at a club/bar ever in Georgia.
 
2014-04-27 10:38:04 PM

theprinceofwands: Bear151556: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.


Wow dude, a gun is not your identity.

You are correct. In fact, I don't even much like them.

The RIGHT to them, however, IS my identity. As an American citizen, and a free man.


This solves a lot of logistical problems

www.gumcreekcustoms.com
 
2014-04-27 10:41:06 PM

BravadoGT: theprinceofwands: Bear151556: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.


Wow dude, a gun is not your identity.

You are correct. In fact, I don't even much like them.

The RIGHT to them, however, IS my identity. As an American citizen, and a free man.

This solves a lot of logistical problems

[www.gumcreekcustoms.com image 850x637]


While I am a big fan of Springfields, that still leaves it relatively plain view for any criminal, leading to the potential for theft.  And at $600 a pop, that's a pain in the ass.
 
2014-04-27 10:43:10 PM

Pokey.Clyde: EvilEgg: My solution is they have to wear their permits like badges.

Kind of defeats the purpose of concealed carry, doesn't it?

/didn't think that one all the way through, did you?


I'm 100% against concealed carry. They should be visible. After all, isn't the wet dream wank fantasy that you'll use the gun to save the day instead of shoot yourself in the ass? Might as well make it visible so everyone knows you're a total badass, amirite????
 
2014-04-27 10:45:45 PM

BravadoGT: theprinceofwands: Bear151556: theprinceofwands: You want me to sit forward, reach under my coat/shirt, free my sidearm, open the glove compartment (or in my case my gun safe), and safely stow my weapon WHILE driving??? I think the police and the NHTSA might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that one should NEVER disarm until absolutely required by law as it creates a 'helpless zone' where you are open to harm.


Wow dude, a gun is not your identity.

You are correct. In fact, I don't even much like them.

The RIGHT to them, however, IS my identity. As an American citizen, and a free man.

This solves a lot of logistical problems

[www.gumcreekcustoms.com image 850x637]


Illegal in this state, but pretty darn cool.
 
2014-04-27 10:49:36 PM
www.zinzins.net

This sucks. The founding fathers did not intend for our rights to limited like this. Screw this anti-nuclear-weapon legislation.

Everyone should have nuclear weapons. We would all be safer.
 
2014-04-27 10:51:59 PM

OnlyM3: fusillade762 [TotalFark]

Has the law even gone into effect yet?
Subby is a typical ignorant. you can already legally carry in a bar in GA. Has been legal to do so for years.

The headline should be "Years after GA allows guns in bars, 1 person out of the hundreds libtards predicted got shot."

Same bullshiat as claiming 1 record high temp "proves" global warming.


A monkey jetting out ABC magnets through its ass onto a Frigidaire door would create a more cogent argument. I mean, "libtard?" That usage pretty much defines one as a knuckle-breathing mouth-dragger at this point. Try harder.
 
2014-04-27 10:58:01 PM
I was going to ask why the hell anyone would need to walk around carrying a gun, not including cops and other professionals, but theprinceofwands answered it just fine. Dude, how often have you actually need to have "readiness for defense"? You don't think the phrase "never disarm until absolutely required by law" makes you sound the slightest bit unhinged? I have no problem with CCW or other gun ownership issues, but you sound like the potheads who say there is no ill effects from smoking weed. That may be true, but you are not helping.
 
2014-04-27 10:58:03 PM
Adolf Oliver Nipples: I had to give fingerprints, photographs, and references (which they check), and undergo a NICS check. Someone who gives the police everything they need to identify them in the event of a crime isn't likely to commit any.

Like road rage and DUIs. Only people without licenses are ever involved in those kinds of things.
 
2014-04-27 11:02:14 PM

EvilEgg: My solution is they have to wear their permits like badges.


Heinlein had something like that in an early novel, Beyond this Horizon.  At one point a bartender says, "If you want me to serve you again, I'll have to ask for your badge."  The main character decides that in that case, it's probably time he headed home.
 
2014-04-27 11:07:53 PM

TwistedFark: I'm 100% against concealed carry. They should be visible. After all, isn't the wet dream wank fantasy that you'll use the gun to save the day instead of shoot yourself in the ass? Might as well make it visible so everyone knows you're a total badass, amirite????


Not even close, dipstick. I do not have a CCW permit, and about the only time any of my guns leave the house is if I'm going to the range. And it has nothing to do with being a badass, you little troll. I've never pointed any kind of a gun (outside of a paintball gun as a teen) at anything living. And I hope I never have reason to. But keep on spewing your crap, Trolly McTroll.
 
2014-04-27 11:18:12 PM
Responsible gun owner #58,203
 
2014-04-27 11:19:45 PM

roc6783: I was going to ask why the hell anyone would need to walk around carrying a gun, not including cops and other professionals, but theprinceofwands answered it just fine. Dude, how often have you actually need to have "readiness for defense"? You don't think the phrase "never disarm until absolutely required by law" makes you sound the slightest bit unhinged? I have no problem with CCW or other gun ownership issues, but you sound like the potheads who say there is no ill effects from smoking weed. That may be true, but you are not helping.


Obama could be coming to knock down his door AT ANY MOMENT and force him to gay marry someone.
Got to be ready.
 
2014-04-27 11:29:20 PM

flondrix: EvilEgg: My solution is they have to wear their permits like badges.

Heinlein had something like that in an early novel, Beyond this Horizon.  At one point a bartender says, "If you want me to serve you again, I'll have to ask for your badge."  The main character decides that in that case, it's probably time he headed home.


The opposite, the unarmed wore the "Brassard of Peace", meaning they were pussies, thus unarmed.  One of the few really dumb things in his early works.
 
2014-04-27 11:31:55 PM
The "everyone is safe if everyone is armed" argument loses its appeal when you hear stories about people shooting each other of trivial arguments.
 
2014-04-27 11:34:21 PM

roc6783: I was going to ask why the hell anyone would need to walk around carrying a gun, not including cops and other professionals, but theprinceofwands answered it just fine. Dude, how often have you actually need to have "readiness for defense"? You don't think the phrase "never disarm until absolutely required by law" makes you sound the slightest bit unhinged? I have no problem with CCW or other gun ownership issues, but you sound like the potheads who say there is no ill effects from smoking weed. That may be true, but you are not helping.


Outside of work reasons I've only had to draw a couple times...once to stop a mugging, and once due to an animal attack on girlfriend's dog. There was also one incident when I was younger that could have used a firearm, but I was too young to carry and made do with a sword I was lucky enough to have there. Not bad over 42 years of life. Fortunately I've always lived in fairly good areas.

However it's not just about the actual need, it's about knowing I'm prepared just in case. While crime & violence are fairly rare, they DO occur, and knowing I'm prepared to deal with it allows me to go about my business without worry. When I hear a sound at night I can investigate without fear. When things go crazy around me I never have to think 'oh no, what am I going to do if this gets bad'. It's already been taken care of by being responsible enough to prepare ahead of time.

Now, you're free to feel differently. You're simply not free to tell me how I 'should' feel, nor to keep me from taking these reasonable and perfectly safe precautions.
 
2014-04-27 11:41:29 PM

HawgWild: theprinceofwands: Freedom to not be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine.
Freedom to speak and/or assemble peacefully (without undue burden at least).
Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure.
Freedom from unjust detention without speedy trial.

That's a tax. Supreme Court says so. And I think we still have the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well as habeas corpus.

So ... yeah, no.


4th amendment died about 10 years ago broham
 
2014-04-27 11:57:24 PM

HawgWild: theprinceofwands: Freedom to not be forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine.
Freedom to speak and/or assemble peacefully (without undue burden at least).
Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure.
Freedom from unjust detention without speedy trial.

That's a tax. Supreme Court says so. And I think we still have the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well as habeas corpus.

So ... yeah, no.



Oh and habeus corpus -> guantanamo bay? Seriously are you posting from 1995?
 
2014-04-28 12:00:53 AM
Haven't read the comments, but I just want to say Rome, GA represent!

Glad we could make Fark.

/wish it wasn't for a shooting
 
2014-04-28 12:10:33 AM

tjfly: Chicago.

That is all.


Absolutely, I lived there for 10 years, crime is practically nil.   right off  26th and wallace, very pleasant neighborhood.
 
2014-04-28 12:12:37 AM
this entire thread is dildos
 
2014-04-28 12:43:07 AM
Dimensio:

Do you expect reasoned and educated individuals to believe that a person who is prohibited for one of those reasons could not simply obtain a permit without a background check through the concealed gun show loophole?

I would expect that a reasoned and educated individual would know that Carry Permits are issued by the State, after they conduct a background check.

They are not issued at gun shows.

/I don't even know what a concealed gun show is.
 
2014-04-28 12:48:09 AM
@princeofwands (sorry can't quote on phone) first, I am free to tell you how you should feel, just not free from the consequences of that speech. Second, if arms are determined to no longer be necessary to the security of the state, then would you agree that you no longer have a right to them as described in the 2nd Amendment? Especially if said determination was made through a national ratification process?
 
2014-04-28 12:48:12 AM
Because nobody has ever been shot in a bar in Georgia, ever before, not once in over two centuries, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 355 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