Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11972 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 8:12 PM (44 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
 
2014-04-28 12:52:29 AM  
Typical responsible Fark headline submitter.
 
2014-04-28 01:10:27 AM  
If you walk into a bar, you deserve everything you get, including that overpriced garbage you're drinking.

Same for your useless coffee shops!
 
2014-04-28 01:18:02 AM  

Terrible Old Man: If you walk into a bar, you deserve everything you get, including that overpriced garbage you're drinking.

Same for your useless coffee shops!


Hey, some people are trying to pick up drunk sluts.
 
2014-04-28 01:30:10 AM  
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.

It seems your education skipped over the Bonus Army, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and at least dozen other instances of people who were just positive that their interpretation of the Constitution and their cause would rally the public and the military to their cause and that the government would fall like a house of cards.  Many of them died and all of them failed.
 
2014-04-28 01:32:43 AM  

lewismarktwo: Terrible Old Man: If you walk into a bar, you deserve everything you get, including that overpriced garbage you're drinking.

Same for your useless coffee shops!

Hey, some people are trying to pick up drunk sluts.


Which is what you deserve. We went over this.
 
2014-04-28 01:35:50 AM  

stan unusual: 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.

It seems your education skipped over the Bonus Army, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and at least dozen other instances of people who were just positive that their interpretation of the Constitution and their cause would rally the public and the military to their cause and that the government would fall like a house of cards.  Many of them died and all of them failed.


Sure, all of the ones you listed. That's why you listed them. There has been successful armed resistance against (even democratically elected) governments on American soil and many others throughout history. It's happening all the time. Obama even sends guns to people in other countries to fend off the despot du jour. Do you think he does that because it doesn't work?
 
2014-04-28 01:37:46 AM  

fnordest: 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.


A gun show with camouflage over the entrance?
 
2014-04-28 01:46:38 AM  
Wangiss:  Sure, all of the ones you listed. That's why you listed them. There has been successful armed resistance against (even democratically elected) governments on American soil and many others throughout history. It's happening all the time. Obama even sends guns to people in other countries to fend off the despot du jour. Do you think he does that because it doesn't work?

None of the listed rebellions were successful unless you count more deaths among the rebels than the military and a failure to generate the anticipated revolt within the military and the public as "success."   The closest any rebellion has come to that was the Confederacy and newsflash from 1865, they lost.
 
2014-04-28 02:25:20 AM  

ronaprhys: The new laws have nothing to do with this shooting.


And yet, instead of just saying that, OnlyM3 has to be a dick about it - which I suppose really should come as no surprise from a guy who has claimed in previous threads that the KKK & Nazis were "liberal."
 
2014-04-28 02:30:28 AM  
If concealed-carry is what requires the strong background checks (in some jurisdictions), why isn't open carry more legal?

I'm weird, since I'm in favor of relaxed gun laws in some ways and tighter laws in other ways. Needing a license to own a gun seems like mostly a good idea to me, but other laws like allowing guns in bars is just dumb.
 
2014-04-28 03:11:06 AM  

ronaprhys: 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.


It's not just the loss of the value of the gun...if some asswipe stole one of my guns and shot somebody with it I'd feel at least partially responsible.

It's deadly shiat, you can't just leave guns lying around. Or in easy view through your driver's side window.
 
2014-04-28 03:23:56 AM  

ultraholland: this entire thread is dildos


Fark gun threads usually are.
 
2014-04-28 05:50:45 AM  

PainInTheASP: So the moral of the story is always be home by ten?


Yep. Except for Bert. Bert be home Blyleven.
 
2014-04-28 06:02:07 AM  
LOL.  Was it an AK47?

img577.imageshack.us

Just in case someone forgot to post this.

Please continue.
 
2014-04-28 06:42:53 AM  

wedun: The "everyone is safe if everyone is armed" argument loses its appeal when you hear stories about people shooting each other of trivial arguments.


20X as many shootings occur by criminals in Chicago every week.  Millions of legal gun owners go their entire lives without shooting anyone for any reason.

The statistics do not support your position.
 
2014-04-28 07:09:21 AM  
EvilEgg:

My solution is they have to wear their permits like badges.
Make them wear special clothes, so other people will know they have a gun.
And a cool hat.

4.bp.blogspot.com

And they only get 1 bullet.


news.kjosy.com
 
2014-04-28 07:56:33 AM  

roc6783: @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?


Fair enough, so long as we also establish that what you tell me has no inherent truth or necessity. It is nothing but words, same as any others.

Of course not, for several reasons.

1. It is not only the Federal Constitution which enumerates the right to arms. Most states also have provisions, many with no mention of a free state or similar. There are further statutory guarantees as well.

2. The initial suggestion for the Amendment was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. "

Notice the lack of dependency? Further, the basis of the Amendment is the English Bill of Rights upon which Blackstone comments:

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. "

3. US v. Cruikshank points out that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to arms, and that right is not dependent upon that document. It merely enumerates an already existing and unassailable right.

4. As previously noted, just because some body says something is to be allowed or perceived as ______, doesn't mean that is the correct or moral interpretation. It is incumbent upon every individual to become learned enough to reach reasonable decision of his own with regards to matters which may affect him, and to abide only his/her conscious as final arbiter in all things.
 
2014-04-28 08:01:35 AM  

Sgt Otter: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

It depends on the state.  Some states have unrestricted carry (no permit or application required).  The Shall-Issue states have some sort of licensing requirement.  It can be as simple as filling out a form, up to a minimum number of hours of a certified gun safety course.  There was a stink where some people were getting reciprocity CCW permits in one state, where it was something like you only had to watch an online safety video (which could be fast-forwarded) and that was it.

May-Issue states you have to demonstrate to your local local enforcement agency why you need a permit (hazardous job, crazy stalker ex, Politically connected, big party donor, friend of county supervisor, etc.)


FTFY
 
2014-04-28 08:04:18 AM  

OnlyM3: Mugato [TotalFark]

Yeah, giving $50 to some guy at a gun show makes you a responsible gun owner.
Why is it not at all surprising that the guy that supports the government restricting the First also hates the Second.

// Also not surprised you lie about the facts. A carry permit has nothing to do with gun-shows.


WTF are you going on about?
 
2014-04-28 08:05:49 AM  

stan unusual: 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.

It seems your education skipped over the Bonus Army, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and at least dozen other instances of people who were just positive that their interpretation of the Constitution and their cause would rally the public and the military to their cause and that the government would fall like a house of cards.  Many of them died and all of them failed.


You're talking about mostly fairly minor rebellions, not all-out revolutions, and nothing with the kind of popular support and centrality of culture firearm ownership enjoys in the US (we're talking 80-100 million owners at least, and ~85%+ support).

But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.
 
2014-04-28 08:20:26 AM  

moothemagiccow: Buy all the guns you want, just stop shooting people


I must not have got the memo, I never heard that I could start shooting people.

Not much information in that article, initially: we don't have anything to say, updated to : we'll make a statement later. then to: if you have any information please contact us. So stretching to attach the incident to a law that has been passed but doesn't go into effect for another couple of months sounds a lot like bed wetting. Chicago is now issuing CCW permits and we've just had a weekend, how many people got shot there? How many of the offenders were from Texas? How many were legally carrying a gun?
 
2014-04-28 08:21:16 AM  

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


so basically, December 15th
 
2014-04-28 08:36:23 AM  
well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.
 
2014-04-28 08:43:26 AM  
"First" subby? Hardly
 
2014-04-28 08:46:15 AM  

mrshowrules: well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.


c1.staticflickr.com

He doesn't use citations
He takes things out of context
He is easily confused by late 17th century sentence structure and syntax
He thinks a militia is the same thing as an army
He still doesn't understand what "regulated" means in this context
 
2014-04-28 08:51:00 AM  

Myria: If concealed-carry is what requires the strong background checks (in some jurisdictions), why isn't open carry more legal?

I'm weird, since I'm in favor of relaxed gun laws in some ways and tighter laws in other ways. Needing a license to own a gun seems like mostly a good idea to me, but other laws like allowing guns in bars is just dumb.


Some tittay bars here in Philly have metal detectors and permit or not don't allow guns in the place. Maybe it is not the booze but the women causing the problems?
 
2014-04-28 09:07:59 AM  

trekkiecougar: GORDON: Did the dude who got shot have it coming?  A lot of people in the world are figuratively begging to be shot, don't you think?

No! The shooter got kicked out of the club and was pissed off about it, so he got a gun (probably from his car) and went back in and started shooting randomly. The victim who died - who had just moved down here from PA a couple of weeks ago - was an innocent bystander, shot in the back of the head, fell with his hands still in his jeans pockets..........

/victim was my daughter's girlfriend's cousin.....the family is devastated.......


That was about 10 times more informative than the article. Sad but had nothing to do with the law subby would like to blame for it.
 
2014-04-28 09:08:22 AM  

Frank N Stein: mrshowrules: well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.

[c1.staticflickr.com image 640x496]

He doesn't use citations
He takes things out of context
He is easily confused by late 17th century sentence structure and syntax
He thinks a militia is the same thing as an army
He still doesn't understand what "regulated" means in this context


Which of my definitions would you challenge and request a citation for?  The post as a whole expresses an opinion (of common sense I believe) so your counterpoints don't really apply.
 
2014-04-28 09:31:26 AM  

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.


You mean like the estimated 300,000 in Connecticut? Or the 1,000,000 + in New York? Most of whom aren't really the "Cold Dead Hands" type, just normal people who are fed up with the Nanny State and the Transnational Progressive agenda.
 
2014-04-28 09:46:20 AM  

mrshowrules: well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.


Except that's not what the Supreme Court says anymore.  As of 2008, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense and any other lawful purpose.  It has nothing to do with a militia in any way shape or form.

Sorry.
 
2014-04-28 09:48:37 AM  

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.


This hasn't been a "nation of laws" for a long time. When the enforcement of "Laws" is totally arbitrary and having money or fame or political connections means you are immune from the law or laws are passed that only apply to select groups then the law is immoral. The Department of "Just Us" has done more to undermine "respect for the law" than either Obama or Bush. There was a time in this country when people mostly followed the law because it was the right thing to do but that was lots of years and thousands of Laws ago. Now it is merely a matter of people keeping their heads down and hoping not to be noticed and singled out as examples. In Nature animals that keep their heads down get eaten.
 
2014-04-28 09:53:32 AM  

ex-nuke: There was a time in this country when people mostly followed the law because it was the right thing to do


There's been unjust laws since the founding of the country.
 
2014-04-28 10:06:44 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: 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.

You mean like obamacare?
Yes...his BS is unconstitutional too.


I've got five people who disagree with you and I'm pretty sure they overrule you.
 
2014-04-28 10:06:52 AM  
Just because one crazy person shoots up a bar doesn't mean we should ban ALL crazy people from shooting up bars.
 
2014-04-28 10:10:39 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.


Not really. In Georgia, you go down to the courthouse and hand them $75, then go over to the police department and get fingerprinted. They check to make sure you have no felony record, and a couple months later you get your CCW. No training requirement.

Not that CCWs have anything to do with bar shootings; the kind of people who shoot other people in bars couldn't give a crap about the law on concealed carry.
 
2014-04-28 10:22:29 AM  

LazyMedia: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

Not really. In Georgia, you go down to the courthouse and hand them $75, then go over to the police department and get fingerprinted. They check to make sure you have no felony record, and a couple months later you get your CCW. No training requirement.

Not that CCWs have anything to do with bar shootings; the kind of people who shoot other people in bars couldn't give a crap about the law on concealed carry.


So in what way is a one-step no verification process even remotely close to the multiple step process you just laid out?
 
2014-04-28 10:30:12 AM  

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


There is never going to be "another" armed revolution in the United States. Never. No matter how much the gun nuts masturbate to the thought of some sort of an uprising against their own government, it is not going to happen, no matter what the government does.

Enjoy your guns, I enjoy mine. But don't pretend that you're preparing for some day when you and your buddies have to take up arms against the United States military. So have another Budweiser, go to the range and pray that someone breaks into your house so you get to legally shoot a real person like a good gun nut. Because the revolution isn't happening.
 
2014-04-28 11:22:54 AM  

stan unusual: 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.

It seems your education skipped over the Bonus Army, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and at least dozen other instances of people who were just positive that their interpretation of the Constitution and their cause would rally the public and the military to their cause and that the government would fall like a house of cards.  Many of them died and all of them failed.


There are literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of "holdouts" just in new york and Connecticut right now...    People are refusing to register their "assault" rifles....     

Do people actually think that everyone across the US is going to wimp out and just say "here you go uncle sam" when they can't even get the guns registered in the liberal bastions of NY and Conn?
 
2014-04-28 11:24:48 AM  

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.


Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?
 
2014-04-28 11:26:12 AM  

nhdjoseywales: 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.

Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?


No, I don't, sorry.
 
2014-04-28 11:27:09 AM  
Typical gun owner.
 
2014-04-28 11:31:42 AM  

mrshowrules: well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.


Wrong.

See also:
2.To adjust to a particular specification or requirement:  regulate temperature.
3.To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4.To put or maintain in order:  regulate one's eating habits.
 

Well regulated = well practiced.  Well adjusted.  Well maintained. 

Militia is made of the people..  for the people... by the people... not by the Govt. or for the Govt.

Also, watch this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KydSAKywdE
 
2014-04-28 11:36:30 AM  

Mugato: nhdjoseywales: 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.

Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?

No, I don't, sorry.



First off because anyone who thinks you can go pick up a gun for $50 is delusional.

The cheapest of cheap POS guns are going to set you back more than $50....    more like $200....  and most are more like $500.
 
2014-04-28 11:38:30 AM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Mugato: nhdjoseywales: 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.

Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?

No, I don't, sorry.


First off because anyone who thinks you can go pick up a gun for $50 is delusional.

The cheapest of cheap POS guns are going to set you back more than $50....    more like $200....  and most are more like $500.



Oh I see. You didn't read the thread.
 
2014-04-28 11:44:17 AM  

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

There is never going to be "another"armed revolution in the United States. Never. No matter how much the gun nuts masturbate to the thought of some sort of an uprising against their own government, it is not going to happen, no matter what the government does.


Did you watch the same Cliven Bundy shiat I did?

There won't be a coup or a revolutionary take over, that's for certain.  I won't discount the possibility of a regional armed insurrection, though.
 
2014-04-28 11:49:22 AM  

theprinceofwands: But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.


None of which had anything to do with the government taking away guns, which is the premise of your mythical revolution in modern America.
 
2014-04-28 12:07:01 PM  
Princeofwands:  You're talking about mostly fairly minor rebellions, not all-out revolutions, and nothing with the kind of popular support and centrality of culture firearm ownership enjoys in the US (we're talking 80-100 million owners at least, and ~85%+ support).

But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.


And all of the minor rebellions I mentioned were led by folks, who like you, were certain that they were the vanguard of a successful revolution, and all of them were wrong in their predictions.  Sorry to spoil your gun absolutist wankfest with a dose of reality but total disarmament isn't the goal of gun regulation supporters and even the most ardent Second Amendment jurist Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Second Amendment grants an unlimited personal right to carry or possess whatever firearms you want wherever you want.  Successful revolutions in the twenty-first century require either the tacit approval of or actual participation of the majority of the nation's military as well as widespread popular support (collapse of the Soviet Union and the failed counter coup there, the DDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the rest of the former Warsaw Pact nations,Tunisia) or military intervention from another country- (Libya, for example).  There is little to no chance of the bulk f the U.S. military to defect to your militia fantasy (see Australia's response to stricter gun regulation) and absolutely none of foreign military intervention in the U.S. for it.
 
2014-04-28 12:17:00 PM  

redmid17: LazyMedia: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

Not really. In Georgia, you go down to the courthouse and hand them $75, then go over to the police department and get fingerprinted. They check to make sure you have no felony record, and a couple months later you get your CCW. No training requirement.

Not that CCWs have anything to do with bar shootings; the kind of people who shoot other people in bars couldn't give a crap about the law on concealed carry.

So in what way is a one-step no verification process even remotely close to the multiple step process you just laid out?


Well, your scenario is basically a fantasy. No unlicensed collector is selling $50 handguns at a gun show. If you're a licensed gun dealer (as 90+ percent of the tables at gun shows are), you have to do the same background check at a gun show that you do at your store. The few collectors that are there with tables are generally selling expensive vintage guns, because renting a table isn't cheap. About the only $50 guns out there are garbage derringers made out of pot metal, and those are mostly sold by pawn shops. Which do background checks.

Getting a CCW in Georgia is slightly more onerous than just buying a gun, but it's not like getting a handgun permit in somewhere like New York. And the more people have them, the more irresponsible tools are going to have them.
 
2014-04-28 12:24:19 PM  

LazyMedia: redmid17: LazyMedia: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

Not really. In Georgia, you go down to the courthouse and hand them $75, then go over to the police department and get fingerprinted. They check to make sure you have no felony record, and a couple months later you get your CCW. No training requirement.

Not that CCWs have anything to do with bar shootings; the kind of people who shoot other people in bars couldn't give a crap about the law on concealed carry.

So in what way is a one-step no verification process even remotely close to the multiple step process you just laid out?

Well, your scenario is basically a fantasy. No unlicensed collector is selling $50 handguns at a gun show. If you're a licensed gun dealer (as 90+ percent of the tables at gun shows are), you have to do the same background check at a gun show that you do at your store. The few collectors that are there with tables are generally selling expensive vintage guns, because renting a table isn't cheap. About the only $50 guns out there are garbage derringers made out of pot metal, and those are mostly sold by pawn shops. Which do background checks.

Getting a CCW in Georgia is slightly more onerous than just buying a gun, but it's not like getting a handgun permit in somewhere like New York. And the more people have them, the more irresponsible tools are going to have them.


That's not my scenario hoss, and you didn't answer my question at all.
 
2014-04-28 12:27:58 PM  

LazyMedia: No unlicensed collector is selling $50 handguns at a gun show


No one said anything about $50 handguns.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report