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.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15205 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1161 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest

 
2014-08-04 11:33:38 AM  

whatshisname: One day he might grow up


Let's be realistic. now.
 
2014-08-04 11:33:40 AM  

BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.

You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?

/Drunk driving is against the law.  Walking down the street in this city / state with a firearm is not.  Your argument is moot.

You have never called 911, been involved in a crime, or threatened with a firearm or weapon of any sort, have you?


/I was a police officer for years, retired now, so yes, i have had some experience in that area.  You?
 
2014-08-04 11:33:40 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: If the cops suspected he might not be 18, which is a completely reasonable assumption, then not showing them ID is obstruction, hence the citation.


Once again:

China White Tea: Uh... legal age to what? AFAICT from a bit of cursory Googling, there are neither federal nor Colorado state laws restricting the possession of a long gun to those over the age of 18.

http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-or-possess-firearms-i n -colorado/

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-minimum-age-to-purchase-posses s /


Can someone kindly cite whatever statute it is they're referring to when making a point of the subject's age?
 
2014-08-04 11:33:42 AM  

BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.


Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing. And certainly, firing a gun, particularly in public, is a crime. In many jurisdictions, concealing your face while carrying a gun may be a crime, too. And that's all fine. My complaint is solely with the police stopping people who have done nothing but legal activities, even if there's a possibility that they may, at some point in the future, do something illegal.
 
2014-08-04 11:33:59 AM  

70Ford: [i.imgur.com image 245x179]
[i.imgur.com image 245x179]
[i.imgur.com image 277x166]
[media.giphy.com image 300x198]


That's the greatest post ever for a gun thread.
 
2014-08-04 11:34:22 AM  

Jackpot777: whatshisname: One day he might grow up

Let's be realistic,now.


FTFM

/yes, the comma is in bold.
 
2014-08-04 11:35:25 AM  

Jackpot777: Five bucks says he posts on a Red Pill forum. Because, let's face it, he's not carrying the gun because he wants to impress women. He knows THAT ship has sailed.


Not really. Four years of a better diet, an exercise regimen, and training in a career with earning potential would do wonders for his ability to impress a woman. He might even gain enough confidence and self esteem that he doesn't have to attention whore. The problem is that diet, exercise, and career take hard work and commitment which are probably like Kryptonite to this kid.
 
2014-08-04 11:36:09 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


In order to vote today I had to provide my state issued ID.
 
2014-08-04 11:36:21 AM  

serpent_sky: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

I would like to see you all defending a local weird dude who likes to sit in the park and look at kids all day the same way you're defending this guy.  Mind you, local weird dude does nothing but sit there, on public land that his taxes even fund, but man does he freak out the parents and locals.

Half of the people defending this "rights crusader" would want this "creepy pervert" strung up by his nuts, even if he never so much as spoke a word to anyone and just sat there, as is his right to do. Because there's no "park rights" movement.


I'd defend him. Same reason as above - it's a legal activity, so he shouldn't be hassled by the police.
 
2014-08-04 11:36:56 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.

You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?

/Drunk driving is against the law.  Walking down the street in this city / state with a firearm is not.  Your argument is moot.

You have never called 911, been involved in a crime, or threatened with a firearm or weapon of any sort, have you?

/I was a police officer for years, retired now, so yes, i have had some experience in that area.  You?


Plenty.  Now explain to me how a person driving behind me, claiming I'm driving drunk, has any more information to support his claim as someone claiming this kid is about to rob someone.
 
2014-08-04 11:37:00 AM  

70Ford: [i.imgur.com image 245x179]
[i.imgur.com image 245x179]
[i.imgur.com image 277x166]
[media.giphy.com image 300x198]


That.Is.Awesome.
 
2014-08-04 11:37:31 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I would have said, "first of all, I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you. I have committed no crime, and exercising my state and constitutional rights is not a crime the last i heard. Do you often harass citizens who are just walking down the street doing nothing and ask them for their papers? The public's ignorance of the laws and unfounded panic does not vitiate my rights. Why do YOU carry a gun?" Ah..for the defense of yourself and others...hmmm...


i58.tinypic.com
/suuuuuuuuuurrrrrre you would
 
2014-08-04 11:37:52 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-08-04 11:38:16 AM  

Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.



For anyone that actually thinks this: you sweet innocent thing, you.

ohioccw.org
 
2014-08-04 11:39:03 AM  

Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing. And certainly, firing a gun, particularly in public, is a crime. In many jurisdictions, concealing your face while carrying a gun may be a crime, too. And that's all fine. My complaint is solely with the police stopping people who have done nothing but legal activities, even if there's a possibility that they may, at some point in the future, do something illegal.


Reasonable suspicion's a hell of a standard.
 
2014-08-04 11:39:44 AM  

trappedspirit: monoski: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

C.R.S. 16-3-103 (2013)

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

There has to be suspicion of criminal activity.


If you see somebody with a hammer it is reasonable to assume that they are going to hit a nail into some wood, if you see somebody with a screwdriver it is reasonable to assume they are trying to get drunk. If you see somebody with a shotgun, it is reasonable to assume they're going to shoot something with it and there's not too many things in the middle of a peaceful city that are legal to shoot.
 
2014-08-04 11:40:14 AM  

room at the top: zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

In order to vote today I had to provide my state issued ID.


:Crickets:
 
2014-08-04 11:40:15 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-08-04 11:41:46 AM  
It's not guns that need to be controlled, it's stupid... Unfortunately you can't fix stupid...
 
2014-08-04 11:41:55 AM  

Jackpot777: All the people saying Second Amendment ...so he's carrying this in case the Gubmint tries to take him down, he's part of a well-regulated militia, so he's carrying a shotgun? A shotgun, in case the powers-that-be want to take his rosy-cheeked corpulent ass down and he can fight back...?

[www.libertyroundtable.com image 640x480]

[i.imgur.com image 320x218]


Another aspect is how you have to live in order to avoid DBD.

The movie Flame and Citron and the movie The Army of Crime are both good examples of how hard urban resistance was even in those primitive technology days of WWII. Particularly when you were being turned in by family, friends and strangers.
 
2014-08-04 11:42:12 AM  

Jackpot777: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.

For anyone that actually thinks this: you sweet innocent thing, you.
[ohioccw.org image 474x634]


That sign has nothing to do with the portion of my post you quoted. It has to do with the portion of my post you clipped, which I reproduce here:
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing.

Helpful tip- when quoting someone's post to disagree with them, make sure that the rest of their post doesn't actually agree with you. Then you just look like a troll.
 
2014-08-04 11:42:31 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: If the cops suspected he might not be 18, which is a completely reasonable assumption, then not showing them ID is obstruction, hence the citation.


If he actually weren't 18, what are the odds he would have had ID to give?
 
2014-08-04 11:43:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: For voting you have to be 18 to even become registered to vote, so there's no need to show ID there.


How do you know the guy that shows up who says he is Jim Smith is really Jim Smith?
 
2014-08-04 11:43:26 AM  
For you Christian gun enthusiasts struggling with the concept of "should," here's a little something from the book you claim to revere.

"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)
 
2014-08-04 11:43:27 AM  
Kid, you aren't helping.

But I at least suggest that you maintain a brisk walk while holding the shotgun out away from your body with alternating arms while making circular motions.
 
2014-08-04 11:44:08 AM  
Curious as to what the outside the US farkers view on this is....
 
2014-08-04 11:44:16 AM  
www.earlytorise.com
- Don't be an asshole.  You have the right not to be an asshole.  That is your inalienable right.  Ben Franklin would tell you you were being an asshole no matter what the law says.  Don't be a dick kid.
 
2014-08-04 11:44:21 AM  

m00: bobothemagnificent: However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I keep hearing this, but what's the point of having a right that when you excersize it people say "well just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" as if rights weren't meant to be exercised.

If people don't like a law, or a constitutional right... then they should fight to get it repealed. Not create two arbitrary categories of rights -- those you should, and should not exercise, based on the whim of each person and what they like and don't like.


There are many things within ones rights that aren't generally practiced in a mature, responsible society.
 
2014-08-04 11:44:33 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: The same thing happens every day just for carrying a camera.

"Your camera is making some pants-wetter nervous."

"That's their problem"

"YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING OUR INVESTIGATION!"


As far as stupid analogies go, that was pretty stupid, but this a gun thread and competition for stupidest post is historically very stiff. You're going to have to work a lot harder to top "slip and fall shower deaths" for sheer idiocy.
 
2014-08-04 11:44:40 AM  

ScaryBottles: kim jong-un: fusillade762:
................

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
[www.memelets.com image 769x595]


So let me see if I understand you correctly.
Person #1 says something about how a gun works.
Person #2 says "No, the gun doesn't work that way, it works this way.  You don't know what you're talking about."\

That makes Person #2 a wannabe bad ass?  That's like posting Neil for a grammar nazi.
 
2014-08-04 11:44:47 AM  

BlindRaise: Hilter loved gun control.


More than anything Hitler loved white guys blindly listening to fear mongers broadcasting nationalistic messages across the country.
 
2014-08-04 11:45:24 AM  

BeesNuts: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing. And certainly, firing a gun, particularly in public, is a crime. In many jurisdictions, concealing your face while carrying a gun may be a crime, too. And that's all fine. My complaint is solely with the police stopping people who have done nothing but legal activities, even if there's a possibility that they may, at some point in the future, do something illegal.

Reasonable suspicion's a hell of a standard.


Sure, but simply having the gun in an open carry state is not enough to meet that standard. In this case, what met the standard was the fact that he looks like a kid, so they had reasonable suspicion that he was underage. If he was an old man, they wouldn't have had reasonable suspicion.
 
2014-08-04 11:45:43 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Until you realize he had to show his "papers" to buy the cigarettes he went to the store for. When you're argument is that it's OK for the flunky at the gas and sip to require your "papers", but that police aren't allowed to ask for them, that's where you lose most rational sane people. We'll that's were you would lose them, if you hadn't already lost them by suggesting that ID is "papers".

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on minorities having to show their "papers" in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote?
 
2014-08-04 11:45:46 AM  

rwdavis: If you see somebody with a hammer it is reasonable to assume that they are going to hit a nail into some wood, if you see somebody with a screwdriver it is reasonable to assume they are trying to get drunk. If you see somebody with a shotgun, it is reasonable to assume they're going to shoot something with it and there's not too many things in the middle of a peaceful city that are legal to shoot.


So police officers are just there to shoot people and we should all citizen's arrest them before the carnage starts?
Or do you mean, the police officer carry's one, just in case he needs it?
 
2014-08-04 11:46:31 AM  

cryinoutloud: xria: Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.

That would never have worked, because half of the "toys" would have shot each other while he was gone. Would have wrecked the story line.

LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.
total number of farks given by everyone else: 0

I bet it was in a case. Did you ever ask her that? Because most sensible people would put a gun in a case if they're taking it on public transportation somewhere.

How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

I guess it's because their point isn't really that they just want to be allowed to open carry--their point is more that they just like to be huge dicks and try to intimidate people.



It was in a sleeve, but a gun sleeve is still very obvious. Have a pair of unaccompanied minors in brooklyn with a gun sleeve and it would be national news today.
 
2014-08-04 11:46:35 AM  

China White Tea: airsupport: Hey there, Chubby, you're only 18, so right now, you still think your voice matters. Mommy and daddy made you feel that way, that you were special, that you were important, that you had valid opinions on things.

But this is the real world. You've gone from being 1/3 of a household to 1/500,000,000th of a population. Your opinions and preferences have gone from High Priority to Completely Irrelevant.

Life will beat this truth into you. You can fight it as long as you want, maybe clench those doughy fists into balls and cry about it, but you will lose.

You are nothing special. You are not a crusader. You are a dumb kid with a latent sense of parentally-granted importance and an idealist's rainbow goggles.

I can't wait to watch you fall.

...he shouted, futilely, into the internet.


He replied hypocritically, as though he had something important to add.
 
2014-08-04 11:46:45 AM  
carry's wtf
 
2014-08-04 11:46:52 AM  
Well I know that I, for one, feel a lot safer knowing that some teenage asshat with hero delusions is wandering around town with a loaded shotgun.
 
2014-08-04 11:47:04 AM  

Free Radical: I wonder exactly how much bullying this kid went through in High School...


All of it.
 
m00
2014-08-04 11:48:01 AM  

whatshisname: m00: bobothemagnificent: However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I keep hearing this, but what's the point of having a right that when you excersize it people say "well just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" as if rights weren't meant to be exercised.

If people don't like a law, or a constitutional right... then they should fight to get it repealed. Not create two arbitrary categories of rights -- those you should, and should not exercise, based on the whim of each person and what they like and don't like.

There are many things within ones rights that aren't generally practiced in a mature, responsible society.


Do you have an example, other than presumably carrying a gun in public?
 
2014-08-04 11:48:13 AM  

LemSkroob: Mrs.Sharpier: LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.

total number of farks given by everyone else: 0

I doubt that

and you would be wrong. This was in the late 50s


Tell me, did she have it in a case, or wrapped in some way? Or was she carrying it Annie Oakley style on a shoulder sling with a belt full of rounds draped fetchingly across her hips?
 
2014-08-04 11:48:35 AM  

cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.


How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?
 
2014-08-04 11:48:48 AM  
I actually feel bad for most cops these days.  Between the 'open carry' idiots, the 'gun rights/2nd Amendment' types and the increase of the Sovereign Citizen movement around the country, coupled with the fact that none of the groups mentioned think the law pertains to THEM, means that cop has a higher than average chance of either being wounded in the line of duty now, or not returning home at all.

Makes one wonder why anyone would want to be a cop these days, knowing that you may get shot just for doing your job by an everyday citizen who sees you as the threat.
 
2014-08-04 11:49:22 AM  

airsupport: China White Tea: airsupport: Hey there, Chubby, you're only 18, so right now, you still think your voice matters. Mommy and daddy made you feel that way, that you were special, that you were important, that you had valid opinions on things.

But this is the real world. You've gone from being 1/3 of a household to 1/500,000,000th of a population. Your opinions and preferences have gone from High Priority to Completely Irrelevant.

Life will beat this truth into you. You can fight it as long as you want, maybe clench those doughy fists into balls and cry about it, but you will lose.

You are nothing special. You are not a crusader. You are a dumb kid with a latent sense of parentally-granted importance and an idealist's rainbow goggles.

I can't wait to watch you fall.

...he shouted, futilely, into the internet.

He replied hypocritically, as though he had something important to add.


I'm pretty sure merely pointing out your hypocrisy isn't hypocritical in and of itself, but I can understand why you wish it were.
 
2014-08-04 11:49:43 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Jackpot777: Five bucks says he posts on a Red Pill forum. Because, let's face it, he's not carrying the gun because he wants to impress women. He knows THAT ship has sailed.

Not really. Four years of a better diet, an exercise regimen, and training in a career with earning potential would do wonders for his ability to impress a woman. He might even gain enough confidence and self esteem that he doesn't have to attention whore. The problem is that diet, exercise, and career take hard work and commitment which are probably like Kryptonite to this kid.


I like cutting to the chase. When the success for people on Weight Watchers is 0.2%; and advertising for weight loss plans online treats the people like such idiots, they don't think people will notice this person lost weight AND blackness...

i.crackedcdn.com

...yeah, he's in for a chunky life.

In a completely unrelated note, most gun deaths are suicides.
 
2014-08-04 11:51:01 AM  

bgilmore5: More than anything Hitler loved white guys blindly listening to fear mongers broadcasting nationalistic messages across the country.


He's also wrong.  Hitler loved gun control ONLY if you were not a 'pure' German citizen.  That means, gays, Communists, Jews, and any other people that  would have been rounded up and sent off to the camps as time went on.  Otherwise, gun ownership was lauded for the common German citizen.
 
2014-08-04 11:51:43 AM  

Chummer45: Well I know that I, for one, feel a lot safer knowing that some teenage asshat with hero delusions is wandering around town with a loaded shotgun.


It brings a tear of pride to my eye to think of how many people this glorious hero is going to inspire.
 
2014-08-04 11:52:01 AM  

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: ScaryBottles: kim jong-un: fusillade762:
................

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
[www.memelets.com image 769x595]

So let me see if I understand you correctly.
Person #1 says something about how a gun works.
Person #2 says "No, the gun doesn't work that way, it works this way.  You don't know what you're talking about."\

That makes Person #2 a wannabe bad ass?  That's like posting Neil for a grammar nazi.


This is a common tactic by the NRA crowd -- for a while their favorite was to slam anybody who said 'clip' instead of 'magazine'.  It was their way of claiming high ground and winning unrelated arguments for themselves, when gun users have been using the word clip for years (with copious documentation).

They believe that comprehensive and detailed knowledge of gun variations is the same as understanding what the 2nd Amendment is, or what civil discourse or civil behavior are.  Again, this crowd is heavily into fetishizing objects instead of actual freedom or liberty.  They literally believe that guns are freedom and if you don't love guns as much as they do, you don't love freedom, or understand it.
 
2014-08-04 11:52:01 AM  

skozlaw: Lenny_da_Hog: The same thing happens every day just for carrying a camera.

"Your camera is making some pants-wetter nervous."

"That's their problem"

"YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING OUR INVESTIGATION!"

As far as stupid analogies go, that was pretty stupid, but this a gun thread and competition for stupidest post is historically very stiff. You're going to have to work a lot harder to top "slip and fall shower deaths" for sheer idiocy.


You're apparently pretty ignorant.

It's exactly the same thing, and it's happening all over the country, even after lawsuits.

There's nothing suspicious about possessing a camera. There's nothing suspicious about taking pictures of public areas from public areas. It's all protected by the Constitution, yet police in areas all over the country stop people with cameras because "it makes them nervous" about what you're doing.

If you refuse to stop recording, you'll often be arrested for interfering with the investigation that they have no reason to be part of, because they had no *reasonable* suspicion of anything in the first place. Idle curiosity and paranoia aren't reasonable suspicion.

It's exactly the same. Simply possessing a legal firearm isn't a suspicious behavior. He's been arrested for obstructing an investigation based on idle curiosity and pants-wetting.
 
2014-08-04 11:52:07 AM  
Yet another doughy pantload compensating for losing his penis in his pubes.
 
Displayed 50 of 1161 comments


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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