Skip to content
 
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.

(WHTM)   Pennsylvania judge rules that a woman can carry her gun to her son's soccer match   (whtm.com) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

8997 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2008 at 3:06 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



410 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-10-15 1:17:46 PM  

nonamejoe: Where I live, we don't need to carry guns everywhere you go. I'm sorry for those of you that do, or feel you do. Because that farkin sucks.


I know of no one who "needs" a firearm at all places that they travel. Were I to know in advance that I would have "need" of a firearm at any location other than a shooting range, I would avoid that venue entirely. As I have no means of knowing such a thing in advance in most circumstances, however, I carry a firearm -- so long as possession of a firearm is legally permitted -- as preparation for the hopefully unlikely event that it may be needed.
 
2008-10-15 1:18:28 PM  
If I can stop GlockEthusiast and Dimensio for a moment, I would like to try and keep this discussion from falling into partisan politics. I will understand if you both continue with this, but I foresee this turning from an interesting discussion of gun control and rights to a mindless mudsling match (as most threads which start down this path end up doing).
 
B A
2008-10-15 1:19:00 PM  

Palfas: BoobySnacks: I hear a lot of scared Farkers here bleating about how irresponsible/attention whorish it is to carry a gun to a kids' soccer game. Bad things happen everywhere - just because it is highly improbable does not mean that it is not going to happen. Toughen up and be responsible for your families and loved ones. Keep a cell phone and a gun on you. Both are great tools to keep some wackjob from harming you. Cops are great, but they take a bit of time to get to your location. As they say: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

Look... People who are licensed to carry firearms do not suddenly become more dangerous just because kids are around. Personally, I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone doing so. I carry on a daily basis and have two young children. If legal, I will carry to my kids' games because:

1) Leaving it in the car is leaving it unattended and able to be stolen
2) Leaving it in the car... It might as well be 10 miles away. If something happens, I'm not running to the car to grab my gun; I'm running to try to get my kid out of harm's way (with nothing to help me b/c my gun is in the car.)
3)I always carry my gun just like I always fasten my seatbelt, keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, and carry insurance.

There is nothing attention whorish about carrying a gun openly or concealed. It really shouldn't have to be concealed anyway. That's a dumb law. Open carry is much more practical.

Honestly, I have nothing but scorn for people who refuse to get educated about firearms and cling to whining about those who keep the means of protecting themselves and their families at hand. You may not have what it takes to protect your family from violence and depend on others to do the job for you. Fine. I hope you never ever have to be tested. But, stop trying to set up obstacles to my means of protecting myself and loved ones.

Look, just because your a gun toting red neck doesn't mean that the rest of us are. It's not a black and white issue, there are lots of grey areas, like open carrying at a kids soccer game. Most people ITT are not challenging her right to carry, but her judgement to open carry at a kids soccer game. If you can't see that there is a difference between carrying while walking your dog and open carrying to a crowded children's event, then you shouldn't be allowed to do either.


If you can't see that in BOTH places you can be assaulted & injured/killed you've been ignoring the news or are in denial.
 
2008-10-15 1:26:34 PM  

Dimensio: nonamejoe: Where I live, we don't need to carry guns everywhere you go. I'm sorry for those of you that do, or feel you do. Because that farkin sucks.

I know of no one who "needs" a firearm at all places that they travel. Were I to know in advance that I would have "need" of a firearm at any location other than a shooting range, I would avoid that venue entirely. As I have no means of knowing such a thing in advance in most circumstances, however, I carry a firearm -- so long as possession of a firearm is legally permitted -- as preparation for the hopefully unlikely event that it may be needed.


Agreed. While I deplore guns, and (as you may have read) had more than my fair share of them, I cannot deny that if any of those I lost were armed they might have made it through their attacks.

None of us needed firearms. Our city is relatively quiet. All three were extraordinary events. A gun in the right hands might have saved a life or two.

That said, I still don't own a gun, and I never will no matter how paranoid I might get in the future. Most of my family and friends have bought weapons to protect themselves. I won't based upon personal distaste. Setting that aside, I don't expect anyone to follow my belief, nor do I resent those who choose to own guns to protect themselves.
 
2008-10-15 1:30:02 PM  

JollyMagistrate: If I can stop GlockEthusiast and Dimensio for a moment, I would like to try and keep this discussion from falling into partisan politics. I will understand if you both continue with this, but I foresee this turning from an interesting discussion of gun control and rights to a mindless mudsling match (as most threads which start down this path end up doing).


img147.imageshack.usView Full Size


Oh, c'mon a little midless mudslinging might be nice.
 
2008-10-15 1:35:13 PM  
The Icelander
Cars would be just as useful in an armed rebellion as guns. Perhaps even more useful. But you still need to get a license to drive one.

Excellent point!! This would mean that guns kept on private property don't have to be registered and can be used on private property without a license. My concealed carry permit would be good for all the states in the US and not just the one I live in. Good to have you on the pro-gun side!!
 
2008-10-15 1:39:23 PM  

AnyName: The Icelander
Cars would be just as useful in an armed rebellion as guns. Perhaps even more useful. But you still need to get a license to drive one.


The difference is that driving is a priviledge. The right to self defense (which in practical terms means the right to own a firearm) is a right. You don't license rights.
 
2008-10-15 1:42:24 PM  
take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.
 
2008-10-15 1:44:38 PM  
A lot of you seem to think that just because part of an excursion involves a kid's sporting event people don't have the right (or a reason?) to arm and defend themselves in public. It's not that different from carrying a gun at any other time and the reason remains the same. Some crazy motherfarkers out there have weapons and you may well run into one, and not just in dark alleys and crack houses either.

It probably sounds paranoid to say you could be attacked at any time in any place, but you could. Especially places where large groups of people are rarely armed, apparently. Or have you forgotten already? The whole reason for carrying a gun around at all is that if somebody shows up starting crazy shiat with a weapon you can put a hole in them before they put one in you if you can't GTFO. In an immediate danger type situation guns do you no good in a trunk or glove box several hundred feet away or sitting in a cabinet back at your house.

Case in point: What could possibly happen at a restaurant in broad daylight? (new window)

And it's not like guns shoot themselves, simply being in the presence of a gun isn't actually dangerous. I know it's convenient for anti-gun folks to assume everyone that owns and carries a weapon (or wants to) is just an untrained psychopath with a boner for murder and destruction, but I've rarely run across anyone that would fit that description.

I grew up in East Texas, where practically everyone had guns, and things were generally fine. Yeah, people got shot from time to time over personal disputes or because some drunken redneck dipshiat took a sound shot while hunting, but people also got stabbed and hit by cars and other such crap. If you piss somebody off enough to kill you, them not having a gun likely isn't going to stop them.
 
2008-10-15 1:47:03 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.


Yeah, those stupid arguments of ours, based on things like "facts" and "laws". Clearly, we should instead base our arguments on emotion and insults. Thank you for enlightening us.
 
2008-10-15 1:47:22 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.


Great argument. That's just the kind of attitude we need to get our country back on track.
 
2008-10-15 1:47:28 PM  
O.K. who was the person who told the "Asshat" in the posting from "Hitler was a hardcore Liberal" that he looked good.
Put some clothes on you ugly ass bastard. YOU DON"T DO THAT WELL.
 
2008-10-15 1:51:21 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.fark your right to say this out loud.

[deleted]fark your right to not quarter soldiers in home against your will.fark your right to not be the victim of illegal search and seizure.fark your right to not be forced to bear witness against yourself and have your property taken without due process.fark your right to a speedy trial and your right to confront your accusersfark your right to a jury trialfark your right to not be saddled with excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishmentsfark you.

 
B A
2008-10-15 1:51:33 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.


At the risk of feeding a vindictive troll. The problem with your argument is simple. A piece of water pipe, a pipe cap, some metal strapping, a piece of wood, a drill, some ball bearings, home made combustible propellant & lighter/match. These items, used properly, make a fairly easily constructed & deadly gun. Gun control as a safety issue is a myth. 'most anything can be a weapon.
 
2008-10-15 1:52:19 PM  
Well fark my formatting
 
2008-10-15 1:53:38 PM  

spickus: Punkindrublic: chairborne:
My only beef is that the ACLU has that whole "second amendment is only for militias" bullshiat on their site and refuses to defend the 2nd amendment like they've defended all of the other, pretty shiatty to be so selective.

Not since the recent supreme court ruling.

Have they defended the 2nd since the ruling?

/Honest question, no snark.


Sorry, I was referring to the way the amendment is now viewed legally. Not how the ACLU chooses to turn a blind eye to some of the amendments while protecting others.
 
2008-10-15 1:54:53 PM  
GlockEnthusiast:
The difference is that driving is a priviledge. The right to self defense (which in practical terms means the right to own a firearm) is a right. You don't license rights.


I really need to start adding "/sarcasm" to most of my posts. My point was that cars really aren't that regulated and a car on private property doesn't have to be registered. Driving on private property doesn't require a license.

Also, if I could get a CC permit that was good for the US (like a drivers license) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

You can drive off the lot with a car in about five minutes if you show up with a tellers check. Not so easy with a handgun.
 
2008-10-15 1:56:59 PM  

dallashockey: Luthiel-

Nothing can fail as miserably as the war on drugs. And just because you feel guns are ok doesn't make it so. Nothing in my post was full of fail. Why does anyone need more than one handgun if you are using it for protection? Do you usually confront a burgler with guns in both hands? And why does anyone need an assault rifle? And how can you argue that the right to bear arms meant anything other than for people to be able to protect themselves against invading forces? It's documented. If the founding fathers knew we would end up running around shooting each other I think they probably would have worded that a little differently.


static1.videosift.com Here. Penn and Teller explain this better then I ever could. (new window)
 
2008-10-15 1:58:21 PM  

AnyName: GlockEnthusiast:
The difference is that driving is a priviledge. The right to self defense (which in practical terms means the right to own a firearm) is a right. You don't license rights.

I really need to start adding "/sarcasm" to most of my posts. My point was that cars really aren't that regulated and a car on private property doesn't have to be registered. Driving on private property doesn't require a license.

Also, if I could get a CC permit that was good for the US (like a drivers license) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

You can drive off the lot with a car in about five minutes if you show up with a tellers check. Not so easy with a handgun.


Sorry, my post was directed towards Icelander's original comment. I understand your point.

And yes, national CCW would be great. I hate disarming when I go to the People's Republik of Kalifornia. I take my German Shepherd instead, but she is a alot harder to carry.
 
2008-10-15 1:58:29 PM  

Luthiel:
Some Dems are pretty pro-gun. Bill Richardson (New Mexico's governor) is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but there are others.


The Southern Dandy is another.
 
2008-10-15 1:58:40 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.


So you want me to dump my guns in Alaska during the winter?

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The woman FTFA was technically on the right side of the law. Was it good judgement? Maybe not, but she was completely legal. Of course if she can't conceal a firearm in "summer-time" garb, she's not trying hard enough/using the wrong type of holster/dressing wrong/needs a smaller gun for carry.

Admittedly carrying openly at a soccer game is not the greatest idea, if only because of reactionary nimrods who are afraid of the big bad self-aware gun. As a CCW holder she is by definition law abiding. "Johnny Gang-banger" isn't going to get a license. He's going to buy a gun illegally and then carry it illegally on his person. Who do you think is more likely to rob/kill/attack you? A scary soccer mom or someone that already shows de facto contempt for the law by carrying an illegally purchased firearm?
 
2008-10-15 2:03:22 PM  

GlockEnthusiast: hate disarming when I go to the People's Republik of Kalifornia. I take my German Shepherd instead, but she is a alot harder to carry.


Doesn't that chafe your waist and piss off the dog?
 
2008-10-15 2:04:48 PM  
Palfas,

Yes, I am gun toting. A redneck? Not in the pejorative manner in which you speak - though my mother's side of the family originates from South Carolina. I'm an RN with a BS and pursuing a masters degree to specialize in my field. I've also travelled all over the world and speak two languages (other than my native english) with functional fluency.

I just love it when people like you stoop to ad hominem attacks when you suddenly find yourself deprived of a logical argument for your opinion. In point of fact, it IS a black and white issue. The Constitution says it is. Attempts to infringe on that right is a deprivation of my civil rights and contrary to the highest law of the land.

Now, I do agree with you that the probability of some lunatic showing up at my child's soccer game with intent to cause harm is infinitesimally small. However, the chance is there. It is far better to have and not need than to need and not have. I'm quite certain that there are never any major car accidents on the street right in front of your house or in your neighborhood. Do you wait until you are on the highway before you fasten your seatbelt?

NightOwl225

While you make an excellent argument, the question is, where do you draw the line? The chances of needing a firearm to protect you at a soccer game are so remote as to be incalculable. The chance of getting hurt in a car accident on the way to the game is much higher. Do you and your kids wear fulling body padding and a helmet at all time while in the car? Of course not. I look at carrying a gun (which I totally agree you have the complete legal right to do) as kind of the same thing. There are times in which carrying a gun makes sense, and times it doesn't.

Where do I draw the line? Wherever I deem it necessary. Not where you deem it necessary. As for riding in the car, a helmet probably would be a smart thing for people to wear, but we just don't. For now I stick to seatbelts.

The time to be carrying a gun makes sense ultimately if you know you are going to need it. As I am quite good at many things, prescience not being one of them, I'll stick to carrying at all times wherever it is legal for me to do so. If you do unlock the secret to foresight, please shoot me an email (pun intended). I want to put your number on my cell phone.
 
2008-10-15 2:06:03 PM  
That first paragraph of the second section was supposed to be a quote from NightOwl225.
 
2008-10-15 2:09:06 PM  
dallashockey

"Fark the Constitution" eh?


Well, now at least you have openly declared your disdain for the civil rights of your fellow Americans. Your true colors are showing.
 
KIA
2008-10-15 2:12:46 PM  
You "civilized" types are gonna be in for one hell of a shock when uncivilized criminals decide that they want what you have. Sure, it would have been nice for them to call ahead and schedule a time, but then again, they're not really all that polite, are they?
 
2008-10-15 2:13:56 PM  

dallashockey: take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid.


I've found most of the arguments presented today to be rather well thought out, especially those supported by evidence. While I don't agree with many of them, I can at least concede most folk haven't resorted to blatant insults.

if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period.

This actually varies state to state. In most places its fairly difficult to get a gun quickly. Many of the more exotic weapons require proof of responsible training. This isn't true everywhere, so I'll agree with you there. Gun control could be tighter, though that would violate our constitutional rights.

fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.

Like Spickus put so wonderfully, this would imply you don't value any of your rights. Editing or changing one of them makes editing or changing all of them possible. Is gun control so important to risk that?
 
2008-10-15 2:18:49 PM  
Something we all need to remember before we start down the road of parsing the Constitution and our right...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is there to safeguard 2 things in times of peace and strife:

1. The unpopular rights of Americans
2. The rights of unpopular Americans
 
2008-10-15 2:22:23 PM  

BoobySnacks: Something we all need to remember before we start down the road of parsing the Constitution and our right...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is there to safeguard 2 things in times of peace and strife:

1. The unpopular rights of Americans
2. The rights of unpopular Americans


*selct, copy, paste* - stolen
 
2008-10-15 2:23:05 PM  

BoobySnacks: Something we all need to remember before we start down the road of parsing the Constitution and our right...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is there to safeguard 2 things in times of peace and strife:

1. The unpopular rights of Americans
2. The rights of unpopular Americans


Well done! This is delightful. Is this a BoobySnacks original or do I just not know where it is being quoted from?
 
2008-10-15 2:32:31 PM  
Thank you. I wish they were my words.

There was a very intelligent guy on one of the political boards that I frequented who originally said it. All I have done is paraphrased him. He was much more eloquent than I.

I believe he is deceased.
 
2008-10-15 2:38:58 PM  
Thanks to the kneejerk retoric seen here, I have decided to start the process of getting my CCW license.

Unfortunately, it has been more than 8 years since I took a Law Enforcement Firearms training class, but when I did, I was shooting the FBI double action course (ranges of 2meters to 25meters, left hand, right hand firing, and timed firing, total 50 rounds, max of 5 points per round) and firing a 249 out of 250. I was instructed to NEVER, EVER shoot a 250.

In high school I shot with the rifle team (not the varsity, though - I wasn't good enough) and could shoot 100 out of a possible 100 in the prone position. The bullseye was about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. At fifty feet, you could not see the bullseye, you centered the entire target and if you centered it correctly you hit the bullseye. I miss those Anschutz rifles.

By the way, I vote libertarian.
 
2008-10-15 2:40:41 PM  
Oh yeah, just what I want. A bunch of asshole soccer moms shooting each other instead of yelling at each other.

Soon referees are going to have to wear kevlar under their shirts.
 
2008-10-15 2:42:06 PM  

sabertoothrabbit: I was instructed to NEVER, EVER shoot a 250.


Plausible deniability?
 
2008-10-15 2:45:03 PM  

jake3988: Oh yeah, just what I want. A bunch of asshole soccer moms shooting each other instead of yelling at each other.

Soon referees are going to have to wear kevlar under their shirts.


Nothing has changed, it was always legal in PA just like it is legal in your state of OH. Do you think people will suddenly start shooting one another now that you've found out it's legal to openly carry a sidearm?
 
2008-10-15 2:46:05 PM  
jake3988

Project much?
 
2008-10-15 2:52:13 PM  

jake3988: Oh yeah, just what I want. A bunch of asshole soccer moms shooting each other instead of yelling at each other.

Soon referees are going to have to wear kevlar under their shirts.


Easy, Jake3988. Most people aren't as insane as that.
 
2008-10-15 2:52:52 PM  
my poke at saying fark the constitution was a bit of humor pointing out that a majority of gun owners tend to be a little on the conservative side and a good majority voted for bush/cheney. who obviously pissed all over the constitution. so why can't we liberals do the same and abolish the right to bear arms? not a literal question. just something to think about since everyone seems to be about protecting constitutional rights.
 
2008-10-15 2:56:44 PM  
dallashockey69

Keep looking over your shoulder as you backpedal. You don't want to fall and hurt yourself.
 
2008-10-15 3:03:48 PM  

dallashockey69: my poke at saying fark the constitution was a bit of humor pointing out that a majority of gun owners tend to be a little on the conservative side and a good majority voted for bush/cheney. who obviously pissed all over the constitution. so why can't we liberals do the same and abolish the right to bear arms? not a literal question. just something to think about since everyone seems to be about protecting constitutional rights.


Well, to start I think we've done a good job at staying away from partisan discussion here. I know plenty of Democrats who own guns, just as I know plenty of conservatives who would like to abolish them. The downside to thinking along partisan lines is that not everyone fits to one side of another. Most folks like some of the views of each side, and dislike a good deal of some of them as well.

If the actions Bush and Cheney serve any purpose, it should be to warn us about the dangers of allowing the constitution tampered with.

Along the same line as your non-literal question, the point could be raised that if one stole something, why shouldn't you do the same? (Despite the fact it is illegal and you disagree with it). It definitely is a good point though. This line of reasoning is what leads to the problems of gun control and gun violence. The belief that you can transcend the law because it is convenient for you, or because someone else has done so, is a serious problem at the roots of many of the flaws in our society.
 
2008-10-15 3:05:25 PM  

spickus: jake3988: Oh yeah, just what I want. A bunch of asshole soccer moms shooting each other instead of yelling at each other.

Soon referees are going to have to wear kevlar under their shirts.

Nothing has changed, it was always legal in PA just like it is legal in your state of OH. Do you think people will suddenly start shooting one another now that you've found out it's legal to openly carry a sidearm?


Legal in OH? Yes.

Likely to be waaaay more trouble than it's worth? Yes.

Most of the LEOs, at least in SW OH, aren't that up on the law. I find myself coming down on the side of "If you want to carry, get your CCW." It saves a lot of explanation and random stops.

Oh and that was a delightful post BoobySnacks, you just summed up what usually takes me 15 minutes to explain in two lines.
 
2008-10-15 3:14:12 PM  

JollyMagistrate: dallashockey69: my poke at saying fark the constitution was a bit of humor pointing out that a majority of gun owners tend to be a little on the conservative side and a good majority voted for bush/cheney. who obviously pissed all over the constitution. so why can't we liberals do the same and abolish the right to bear arms? not a literal question. just something to think about since everyone seems to be about protecting constitutional rights.

Well, to start I think we've done a good job at staying away from partisan discussion here. I know plenty of Democrats who own guns, just as I know plenty of conservatives who would like to abolish them. The downside to thinking along partisan lines is that not everyone fits to one side of another. Most folks like some of the views of each side, and dislike a good deal of some of them as well.

If the actions Bush and Cheney serve any purpose, it should be to warn us about the dangers of allowing the constitution tampered with.

Along the same line as your non-literal question, the point could be raised that if one stole something, why shouldn't you do the same? (Despite the fact it is illegal and you disagree with it). It definitely is a good point though. This line of reasoning is what leads to the problems of gun control and gun violence. The belief that you can transcend the law because it is convenient for you, or because someone else has done so, is a serious problem at the roots of many of the flaws in our society.


Thanks for the wrapup Professor. Can I get a copy of your lecture slides?
 
2008-10-15 3:17:31 PM  
FTA:

Judge Robert Eby says even though the law required him to give her the permit back, he questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents' safety concerns.

Hain says she's satisfied with the result and expects she'll be back on the sidelines with her gun in the future.


The judge is as big of a moron as this woman. She is carrying a concealed weapon in a public place at a public event. What is the judge going to rule next week when she is hauled in? States don't just give ccw permits to anyone, you have to apply and show good judgment.
 
2008-10-15 3:20:51 PM  

soj4life: FTA:

Judge Robert Eby says even though the law required him to give her the permit back, he questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents' safety concerns.

Hain says she's satisfied with the result and expects she'll be back on the sidelines with her gun in the future.

The judge is as big of a moron as this woman. She is carrying a concealed weapon in a public place at a public event. What is the judge going to rule next week when she is hauled in? States don't just give ccw permits to anyone, you have to apply and show good judgment.


Excepting the part where she was legally open carrying? If she'd properly concealed the firearm it wouldn't be an issue as most of the reactionary parents would never have known.

Is that the butt of a pistol printing or a cell phone? Without lifting my shirt you can't really tell.
 
2008-10-15 3:21:26 PM  

dallashockey69: my poke at saying fark the constitution was a bit of humor

I am not going to get all detailed and spout out a bunch of crap about whether you are stupid enough to think the constitution means we still have the right to bear arms. Everyone knows (whether they admit it or not) that the founding fathers meant that with the absence of a solidified national army our citizens needed to be able to somehow try and defend themselves against invasion by the English. Why the hell does a dumbass soccer mom who can probably barely handle her SUV need a gun around a bunch of kids? Conceal Carry laws are insane. It's time to quit acting like barbarians and be responsible with our gun laws. There is no need for assault rifles. There is no need for anyone to own more than one handgun. Rifles and shotguns can be exceptions because I do respect a person's right to hunt. But do you really need a gun big enough to bring down an elephant? Hell no. Let's drop our war on drugs and work on a war against guns.

Nothing can fail as miserably as the war on drugs. And just because you feel guns are ok doesn't make it so. Nothing in my post was full of fail. Why does anyone need more than one handgun if you are using it for protection? Do you usually confront a burgler with guns in both hands? And why does anyone need an assault rifle? And how can you argue that the right to bear arms meant anything other than for people to be able to protect themselves against invading forces? It's documented. If the founding fathers knew we would end up running around shooting each other I think they probably would have worded that a little differently.

Who said anything about disarming Americans? Not me. I simply say why do we need so many guns? Whats wrong with one handguun per person? And why do we need assault rifles? Do you really think citizens would be able to take an invading army? Or our army if they declared some sort of martial law? Pipe dreams my friend. And those quotes were from 200-225 years ago. The miltary and government situation has changed worldwide in case you didn't notice. You can quote people all you want. Just because someone said something 200 years ago doesn't make it true or right today. Quit living on other peoples words and think for yourself.


you people are so full of shiat. you somehow take what people said 200 years ago and apply it to today. take your guns and shove them up your arses. really. it's impossible to debate a subject when you use other peoples quotes. use your own brain and figure it out. the end.

i am not trying to argue the constitution. i am saying its time to change. NO ONE needs an assault rifle. a weapon you can fire multiple rounds without reloading. are you really that intent on killing animals with that thing? and why is there a need for more than one handgun per person? really?

take your guns and shove'em where the sun don't shine. all your arguments are pretty farking stupid. if we had better gun control and focused on getting guns out of unwanted hands i wouldn't give a shiat. but we are not a resposible society when it comes to gun control. period. fark the constitution. if bush can stick his nose up to it, so can i.

my poke at saying fark the constitution was a bit of humor pointing out that a majority of gun owners tend to be a little on the conservative side and a good majority voted for bush/cheney. who obviously pissed all over the constitution. so why can't we liberals do the same and abolish the right to bear arms? not a literal question. just something to think about since everyone seems to be about protecting constitutional rights.


Oh, it's a joke! I get it haha.
Why do you alternate between logins?
Stop back pedaling.
I want to outlaw your rights outlined in the bill of rights. I'm sure you won't mind.
 
2008-10-15 3:22:05 PM  

fugue2005: She said her husband's line of work, which was not disclosed, made her a "greater target" than the average person.

I'm not disputing her right to bring the gun, just confused about her being a greater target. Target for what? Kidnapping? Murder? Ninjas? If she is likely to draw violence or enough danger that she needs to carry a firearm to her kid's soccer, isn't she putting everyone else there at risk as well? Not because of the gun, but if a pack of rabid ninjas come to kidnap her and murder her child and all that stands in their way is this mom and her gun...what about everyone else there? Tough cookies, bring a gun too? At what point does she become accountable for her presence? What happens to the dumb saps that don't bring a gun but get caught in the incident?

It just bothers me that she's saying "I need it cause it is very likely that something is going to happen at anytime to me that will require me to use my firearm." To me she's saying she has increased the likelihood of violence occurring at the soccer game by her very presence. If she really is, just bringing a firearm is not enough. She needs to warn the parents, the soccer league and the police. Nothing special has to be done, but if parents at the game are alerted to the situation as well the refs, then that suspicious man in black pajamas with a katana skulking in the shadows suddenly becomes something worthy of notice and the situation could be prevented. Just seems extremely selfish of her to act like just having the gun is gonna make all her problems go away, never mind everyone else she's putting at risk.

If it's a history of confrontation and near violence with another parent she needs to tell the league and the police. If the problem has gotten so bad she feels she needs the gun with her, she needs to get a restraining order. It can't physically do anything to them, but combined with her gun it says "Violate the order and make me fear for my safety, my child's safety, our lives and I will not hesitate to use this gun". Without it, it seems like crazy gun nut soccer parent violence.

/Please think about more then yourself
//Firm believer in the right to bear arms....like a grizzly's.
 
2008-10-15 3:25:16 PM  

soj4life: The judge is as big of a moron as this woman. She is carrying a concealed weapon in a public place at a public event.


Which is legal in PA but not what happened. She was openly carrying at a public event which is also legal in PA. Now why is the judge a moron?
 
2008-10-15 3:26:59 PM  

GlockEnthusiast:
Thanks for the wrapup Professor. Can I get a copy of your lecture slides?


I can't tell if I am being insulted or complemented. On one hand, the comment seems to be seeped with sarcasm, on the other I do attempt to stay academic in my posts.

In either case, for my classes I usually email an Excel version of the day's discussion points to my students... perhaps Drew will add that option to Fark someday.
 
2008-10-15 3:27:10 PM  

BoobySnacks: I hear a lot of scared Farkers here bleating about how irresponsible/attention whorish it is to carry a gun to a kids' soccer game. Bad things happen everywhere - just because it is highly improbable does not mean that it is not going to happen.


For most people you will be more likely to get shot somewhere where you would not expect it to happen. Why? Because if I know I'm going to need a gun to go somewhere, I won't go there. Step 1 in not getting shot. So if something happens, it will be where I didn't expect to need a weapon. Like at a school or shopping mall.
 
2008-10-15 3:27:12 PM  

invaderkong: If it's a history of confrontation and near violence with another parent she needs to tell the league and the police. If the problem has gotten so bad she feels she needs the gun with her, she needs to get a restraining order. It can't physically do anything to them, but combined with her gun it says "Violate the order and make me fear for my safety, my child's safety, our lives and I will not hesitate to use this gun". Without it, it seems like crazy gun nut soccer parent violence.


If the police aren't right there, what good is a restraining order? There's also the detail that the police are intended to investigate/solve crimes and "enforce" laws. They aren't intended to prevent crimes.

Anyhow, a ninja would judge the police to be no threat. He'd just dodge the bullets or deflect them with his sword.
 
Displayed 50 of 410 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.