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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Remember the crazy guy who said he'd start shooting people if his second amendment rights were infringed? Yeah, the state of Tennessee just suspended his handgun carry permit   ( livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Tenn, Department of Safety, James Yeager, handguns, handgun carry  
•       •       •

11703 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:11 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-11 07:27:08 PM  
I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.
 
2013-01-11 07:32:05 PM  
SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!
 
2013-01-11 08:35:06 PM  
Good.
 
2013-01-11 08:38:59 PM  

ambassador_ahab: I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.


Since when are lawyers the only people who give legal advice?

Actually, since when are those useless bastards ever the ones giving free advice at all?
 
2013-01-11 08:41:59 PM  
Does this count as the "one more inch" that will start his killing spree?

If I were his mailman (you know, evil federal employee), I think I'd skip his street.
 
2013-01-11 08:46:07 PM  
Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
 
2013-01-11 08:46:31 PM  
Patriots, please don't stop recording your thoughts and posting it on youtube.
 
2013-01-11 08:48:13 PM  
It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
 
2013-01-11 08:50:46 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.


99% of gun owners are making the other 1% look bad!

/I'm kidding...old joke, originally about lawyers
 
2013-01-11 08:55:50 PM  
I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-11 08:58:17 PM  
Well, they're after your guns, dawg, just like you predicted.

Better start that war with the government, needle dick!  Just try and make it last long enough for me to microwave some popcorn.  100 to ` says you don't make it.
 
2013-01-11 08:58:18 PM  
Good.

 
2013-01-11 09:00:32 PM  

Blues_X: Good.


This.
 
2013-01-11 09:02:18 PM  
But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:12 PM  
Quit shooting up the place, you jackhats.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:49 PM  
I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:51 PM  

Indubitably: Quit shooting up the place, you jackhats.


Enough!~
 
2013-01-11 09:15:04 PM  

edmo: Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.


I've gotta go with this one.
 
2013-01-11 09:15:06 PM  
$144K, yup only the rich will have guns in the future.
 
2013-01-11 09:15:40 PM  
There's only one of those people in Tennessee?
 
2013-01-11 09:15:53 PM  
Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.
 
2013-01-11 09:16:04 PM  
The state of Tennessee took his guns out of his sweaty warm hands...
 
2013-01-11 09:16:06 PM  
Oops wrong thread.
 
2013-01-11 09:16:47 PM  
That is... predictable
 
2013-01-11 09:17:15 PM  
This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.
 
2013-01-11 09:17:25 PM  

violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.


If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.
 
2013-01-11 09:18:01 PM  
haha-nelson.gif
 
2013-01-11 09:18:20 PM  
Typical statism.
 
2013-01-11 09:18:44 PM  
Nothing warms my heart more than watching an Internet Toughguy turn into a whiny biatch when they learn that their words have consequences.
 
2013-01-11 09:20:47 PM  
So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.
 
2013-01-11 09:20:48 PM  
And all it took was his youtube video getting on every major news broadcast and cable news twenty times a day.

I'm just glad there aren't any more out there like this guy.
 
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


But... But... ALEX JONES!
 
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM  
Surprise! You threaten to shoot people, you get in trouble!
 
2013-01-11 09:21:28 PM  
So a man who is allowed to not only own a firearm, but to carry a concealed one as well, is concerned about his second amendment rights?

community.spiceworks.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:22:06 PM  
Got my popcorn and a Republican tears spritzer. This should be good.
 
2013-01-11 09:22:27 PM  
This guy's a "firearm instructor" who let his license to instruct lapse. That guy who patrolled his kid's school in uniform wasn't in the military anymore OR the rank he said he was. Joe "The Plumber" was a licensed plumber. What the hell is wrong with these kinda of people that they think attention whoring won't lead people to find out they're frauds?
 
2013-01-11 09:23:27 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.
 
2013-01-11 09:23:47 PM  
Holy blap, being a raging, reactionary jackinape has consequences? Damn, that makes me feel better about the world on a not insignificant level.
 
2013-01-11 09:23:56 PM  

Summoner101: This guy's a "firearm instructor" who let his license to instruct lapse. That guy who patrolled his kid's school in uniform wasn't in the military anymore OR the rank he said he was. Joe "The Plumber" was a licensed plumber. What the hell is wrong with these kinda of people that they think attention whoring won't lead people to find out they're frauds?


WASN'T a licenses plumber

/good think I didn't claim I was a good with the words and such and furthermore
 
2013-01-11 09:24:07 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


No, they let him keep the guns, he just can't carry them. Not that he'll listen, of course.
 
2013-01-11 09:24:22 PM  
I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.
 
2013-01-11 09:24:33 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Oh I have no doubt that much of the "gun community" considers him irresponsible. The problem is, none of them are willing to support a law that would take his guns away.
 
2013-01-11 09:25:42 PM  
What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.
 
2013-01-11 09:25:48 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


Not yet. They just suspended his concealed weapons permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:26:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


Oops, his "handgun carry" permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:26:19 PM  
hee
 
2013-01-11 09:26:21 PM  
Has his mother ever had him tested?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:05 PM  
Will they have to pry it from his cold dead fingers?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:25 PM  

Heraclitus: Has his mother ever had him tested?


For rabies?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


Yeah, but his right to bear arms has been infringed.  Killin' time!!
 
2013-01-11 09:27:37 PM  
And they only started 'reviling' him after he publicly made them look bad. You are supposed to be a nutter quietly like the rest of them, not show it to the rest of the world.
 
2013-01-11 09:27:40 PM  
i471.photobucket.comView Full Size


"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety," wrote Commissioner Bill Gibbons.
 
2013-01-11 09:28:32 PM  
Good call.
 
2013-01-11 09:28:52 PM  

Heraclitus: Has his mother ever had him tested?


Yes, and promptly put him up for adoption.
 
2013-01-11 09:29:42 PM  

propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.


No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.
 
2013-01-11 09:30:07 PM  
Yes, asking the internet to stop sending you unwanted emails will certainly work. Keep it up.
 
2013-01-11 09:31:45 PM  
Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x
 
2013-01-11 09:32:38 PM  
Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.
 
2013-01-11 09:32:44 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:33:00 PM  

NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.


Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.
 
2013-01-11 09:33:46 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.


suuuuuuure there buddy is it sunny in LaLa land today? any post-society pulp fics making the rounds i should read under the oomla tree while I'm here?
 
2013-01-11 09:33:49 PM  

llachlan: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

No, they let him keep the guns, he just can't carry them. Not that he'll listen, of course.


He can carry them. Just not concealed. And revoking his CCW permit is pretty much the same thing as a UN letter.
 
2013-01-11 09:34:18 PM  
Today I learned that there is such a thing as the "Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security"

/Feels safer now.
 
2013-01-11 09:34:44 PM  
James Yeager in 10 years


stagevu.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:35:58 PM  

Blues_X: Good.

Careful

. You don't want to sound too emphatic, making you look like a gun-grabber.
 
2013-01-11 09:36:30 PM  

Old enough to know better: Nothing warms my heart more than watching an Internet Toughguy turn into a whiny biatch when they learn that their words have consequences.


So you are saying he should start complaining about his First Amendment rights being violates.

You all know that's the next step.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:10 PM  
Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:21 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Last I checked a threat on the life of another person or to society as a whole is a fairly reasonable area to legislate in regards to an individual's right to free speech.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:22 PM  

NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.


Hi,

I'm not sure what to offer, but I will listen if that will help. I'm more than a little concerned about you.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:56 PM  

Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.


Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)
 
2013-01-11 09:39:06 PM  
If they really cared about public safety, officials would have seized his Prozac.
 
2013-01-11 09:39:12 PM  

EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.


I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.
 
2013-01-11 09:39:21 PM  

Indubitably: Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.

Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)


JK. Please stand down with the violence against self, for that is not what violence is all about, man.
 
2013-01-11 09:40:03 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.

Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)

JK. Please stand down with the violence against self, for that is not what violence is all about, man.


P.S. Deviolence, please. Thank you.
 
2013-01-11 09:40:44 PM  

ObamaTheOmnipotent: James Yeager in 10 years


More like:

zuguide.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:41:19 PM  
there is not a [Nelson_Muntz.jpg] big enough to express my elation.
 
2013-01-11 09:41:22 PM  

edmo: Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.


This. If you're a semiliterate whack job with anger issues you shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed or otherwise.
 
2013-01-11 09:41:42 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


You don't have the right to make threats of violence.

Rights are not absolute, they do have limits and those limits can be revised.

This includes the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-11 09:42:35 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)
 
2013-01-11 09:43:37 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-11 09:45:31 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Portraying him as such better fits their agenda and preconceived notions about gun owners. They can say, "See? That's a gun owner! That's who doesn't agree with us, that's your opposition!" If they reduced the entire gun rights crowd to a 2 dimensional caricature of a whack shiat hillbilly, they make it easier for themselves to dismiss out of hand any dialogue coming out of that corner. You don't debate people like that, you tell them what's best because they're too ignorant to see it for themselves. If they weren't, they'd already agree with you wouldn't they?
 
2013-01-11 09:46:21 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


This. This with cheese on top.

/Fark the ACLU
//Former ACLU cardholder (Emphasis on "Former")
 
2013-01-11 09:47:03 PM  
i309.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:47:36 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size

Gunfarking-tastic!
 
2013-01-11 09:48:09 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)


Oh, I understand that - but it does strike me as odd when I listen to the gun control debate rage around me, that curbs to the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th are accepted as reasonable (by and large) but the reactions to curbing the 2nd are almost hysterical in their tone. Or maybe it's just me.
 
zeg
2013-01-11 09:48:56 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: You don't have the right to make threats of violence.

Rights are not absolute, they do have limits and those limits can be revised.

This includes the 2nd Amendment.


Exactly. Making a video where you say, "It is unconscionable and I will stand up to defend my unfettered right to possess firearms, and I urge other citizens to do the same," should not have any legal consequences. Making a video where you say, "I will kill people if..." is entirely different.
 
2013-01-11 09:49:16 PM  
I have to admit, this is a case where gun laws worked.
 
2013-01-11 09:50:09 PM  
Koodz: I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.

He's a rich white guy.  Why would they care?
 
2013-01-11 09:52:22 PM  
So they took away his right to carry a firearm in public but he still has them? Yea this will end well, dude needs 10 days of observation in a psych ward.
 
2013-01-11 09:52:34 PM  
roguecity.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:54:09 PM  

ReaverZ: Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence.


In Canada you aren't allowed to sell ice to Eskimos either.

/Btw, selling fire must be like a Zen koan for the Wall St. crowd. That's gotta blow their minds.
 
2013-01-11 09:54:40 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:55:18 PM  

ReaverZ: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.


You so missed what I was getting at. I totally understand why we limit the 1st. What I am having trouble with is understanding why the reaction to applying the same logic to the 2nd is so vociferous. Btw, even in Canada, where we have no 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theatre.

I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way. I live and work in the US, and while I thought I had a good grasp of the culture as compared to back home, I have recently realized that I actually truly understand very little of it - I'm not culturally equipped for it, I guess. As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).
 
2013-01-11 09:55:28 PM  

FormlessOne: Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.


I used to have a sort of casual view of gun owners. I sort of didn't know who in my life was a gun owner. never came up.

Now.... I'm starting to think that gun owners are not as rational as they think they are. I've listened to people that I had assumed were pretty with it say some awfully dumb things in the last few months.

These aren't the way-out-there nutcases. These are regular gun owners from a casual inspection. I'm not sure I trust their judgment.

In short, even the run-of-the-mill gun owners are not impressing me all that much. Some are family and I'll just have to suck it up, others I probably will be just seeing less of. The group is self-selecting, so that is probably part of it, but I also think artifact itself influences how people think.
 
2013-01-11 09:55:55 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


x=42, or beer. Or 42 beer. Which ever comes last.
 
2013-01-11 09:56:01 PM  

EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.


This
 
2013-01-11 09:56:10 PM  

Ow My Balls: [i471.photobucket.com image 236x357]

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety," wrote Commissioner Bill Gibbons.


Thanks - I've got LaGrange earworm now.
 
2013-01-11 09:57:46 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 09:57:59 PM  
These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.
 
2013-01-11 10:00:02 PM  

fnordfocus: Koodz: I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.

He's a rich white guy.  Why would they care?


I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.
 
2013-01-11 10:00:23 PM  
does someone actually get sent around to take his guns away now?  how does this work?
 
2013-01-11 10:00:30 PM  

pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

To gun

 
2013-01-11 10:00:43 PM  

llachlan: ReaverZ: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

You so missed what I was getting at. I totally understand why we limit the 1st. What I am having trouble with is understanding why the reaction to applying the same logic to the 2nd is so vociferous. Btw, even in Canada, where we have no 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theatre.

I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way. I live and work in the US, and while I thought I had a good grasp of the culture as compared to back home, I have recently realized that I actually truly understand very little of it - I'm not culturally equipped for it, I guess. As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).


Ah ,okay. It depends on what you care about. Also who has money to spend on ads and politicians.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:14 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.

This


I'm not so sure this guy is a psychopath. If the persona he portrayed on the videos was his normal regular self, he'd likely be behind bars already for some kind of violent crime.

If he's one of the more self-aware variety, he'd probably be more measured and likely wouldn't have posted the first video. He definitely wouldn't have posted the 2nd. He would make sure to come across as reasonable and normal.

He's likely got some other snappy combo of mental illness... perhaps he's a manic depressive, maybe narcissistic, and likely a combo of more than one.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:23 PM  
I love it when stupid people get what they deserve.
 
2013-01-11 10:02:00 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


Guntasmagorical!
 
2013-01-11 10:03:01 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 10:03:14 PM  
For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:03:47 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!


Cute.

To frak
 
2013-01-11 10:04:42 PM  

Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak


I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid
 
2013-01-11 10:07:44 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak

I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid


When my consciousness ceases, so does our world, so choose your poison...

We build our worlds and end them with consciousness...

No?
 
2013-01-11 10:08:35 PM  
This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.
 
2013-01-11 10:10:28 PM  
img818.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 10:13:41 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


GUNBELIEVABLEZ

 
2013-01-11 10:13:47 PM  
Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.
 
2013-01-11 10:15:49 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


He still has his weapons. Only now he'll be violating the law when he carries them - and he will. Jebus help any cop who stops him for any reason.
 
2013-01-11 10:16:28 PM  
just some back ground on Yeager. This chickenshiat was a PMC back in Iraq who basically abandoned his principal when their convoy came under attack. His comrades are doing their job but when danger reared its ugly head brave sir yeager...well you get idea.
 
2013-01-11 10:17:36 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Here's my suggestion how to lower gun violence. Ban all Republicans from owning guns. Period. Check voting records, any R votes, you lose your hobby.
 
2013-01-11 10:18:24 PM  
Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:12 PM  

leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.


Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:46 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


FIRE!
 
2013-01-11 10:20:58 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


If we could well-regulate without the NRA and the other gun groups (and apparently the NRA is less crazy than some of them) having an explosive diarrhea tantrum every time, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
 
2013-01-11 10:21:05 PM  
But isn't he going to protect us from invisible Hitler?
 
2013-01-11 10:21:40 PM  

kombat_unit: Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.


Which is why we shouldn't bother banning land mines, tanks, grenades, anthrax.... what's the point?
 
2013-01-11 10:22:45 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.
 
2013-01-11 10:24:51 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.
 
2013-01-11 10:25:29 PM  
pjmedia.comView Full Size


Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:27 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.


When you declare war on the government, the government declares war on you.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:33 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


As far a massacres are concerned, I have no good ideas outside of easier access to mental health care. Concerning gun violence in general, or any violence really, that's going to take a major cultural shift and how do we affect that? As long as you have desperate, miserable people that don't see any way out of their situation, we'll see that kind of thing. Wage disparity, poverty, despair, anger and resentment boiling over, etc etc. Banning handguns hasn't made the hood any safer that I can tell, certainly hasn't stopped kids from joining gangs. I think we need to spend more time highlighting the root causes of violence rather than focusing on one of the means and hoping that solves the problem.
 
2013-01-11 10:29:10 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.


Please keep the volume down, I'm trying to get some sleep, dammit!
 
2013-01-11 10:29:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


And all he has to do is get a Utah CCW. Tennessee reciprocally recognizes them.


Also, subby. He said he would start killing people if Obummer uses executive order on gun control not infringe his second amendment rights. An executive order is directed at government employees not citizens. We a have a chief at the top of the executive branch who can give directives to it much like a CEO can give directives to the people under him. What we don't have is a king, queen, dictator, or somebody else that can just dream up some command that you have to follow. Any executive order he gives would be to direct his agencies to do something. What that is exactly we don't know, but from what they have been hinting at is more enforcement of the laws. THAT is exactly what we anti-gun grabbers have been advocating all along. I welcome that POS to actually start enforcing the GD laws for a change.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:12 PM  

Meanniss: dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.

I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.


Lib here. That would be enough for me. Thanks.

All I want is a little more sanity and a little less synthetic testosterone.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:17 PM  

joness0154: Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


42 + 345789 x 4566789 - 2 = ass banana

ok i see your math there...
 
2013-01-11 10:30:52 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.


No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?
 
2013-01-11 10:30:53 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that until innocent individuals get involved.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:10 PM  

joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:30 PM  
HA HA! If you're going to be a dumbass... we should treat you like the dumbass you are. :D
 
2013-01-11 10:33:43 PM  

GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.


Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.
 
2013-01-11 10:33:59 PM  
The funny thing?

Tennessee is almost overwhelmingly filled with Republicans, so even then, there was a problem with this guy. It has nothing to do with politics once you start saying you'll kill people.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:13 PM  

leadmetal: Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.

No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?


Clearly it's time to rise up, patriot.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:22 PM  

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


The point must've gone completely over your head.

The only limitation on the 1st amendment is that there are consequences for misuse.

The same can be currently said about the 2nd.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:23 PM  

joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that


And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:32 PM  

TommyymmoT: What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.


NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY!
 
2013-01-11 10:37:47 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.


Too bad he's still got'em.
 
2013-01-11 10:39:02 PM  
I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'
 
2013-01-11 10:41:07 PM  
ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)

 
2013-01-11 10:41:46 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.


Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.
 
2013-01-11 10:41:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


Got'em?

Younmean, Got'all...

*)
 
2013-01-11 10:43:09 PM  

ThisIsntMe: I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'


I don't. This paranoid, delusional farkwit now has more reason to believe the evil gub'mint is taking away his rights - and he still has his guns. This makes it more likely that he will kill innocent people who are only interested in protecting society from his insanity.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:29 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:31 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


Yeah, true. I have a friend in CA that got divorced, his ex talked a lot of shiat about him in court, and he was required to surrender all his firearms. Of course, he's not a reactionary nut, but something along those lines might work better.

/You go get his guns. I'll uh - stay back here in the office and do the necessary paperwork.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:49 PM  

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


Apparently speech can cause death or why would yelling fire in a crowded theatre be something punishable? Because it would anoy the other patrons or because a massacre would happen as people got trampled on? Whether 26 kids get shot to death or 26 kids get trampled to death makes no difference.
 
2013-01-11 10:44:05 PM  

Indubitably: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.

Got'em?

Younmean, Got'all...

*)


However, if love, peace, and words are crimes, then I want to be wrong...
 
2013-01-11 10:45:28 PM  

joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....


Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.
 
2013-01-11 10:49:18 PM  

joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.


Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.
 
2013-01-11 10:49:54 PM  

BronyMedic: ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)


Seconded - You can include Gainsboro, TN to that list.
 
2013-01-11 10:51:07 PM  

balloot: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.


The USSC, in their Miller decision, disagrees with your last line.


"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[139]"

According to the USSC, many items (such as those you listed) aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment to begin with. They're not limits....
 
2013-01-11 10:55:19 PM  

Malivon: BronyMedic: ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)

Seconded - You can include Gainsboro, TN to that list.


Dude I went to high school in Celina.
 
2013-01-11 10:55:20 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.


I think the fact that Australia's history does not include a deep rooted gun culture is another contributor. And I think they had less than a million guns, where we're likely approaching 400 times that.

But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.
 
2013-01-11 10:56:19 PM  

dookdookdook: SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!


Bullshiat. They mean 1861. I'm all for 2nd amendment rights, but half of these a$$holes are just looking for an excuse.

If you make threats like that, you have no business owning a gun.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:18 PM  
So much for the First Amendment.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:18 PM  
Call me crazy, but it seems like researching the candidates before casting your ballot would be a lot more effective in preventing Imaginary Hitler than keeping a weapons bunker in the basement.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:33 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.

Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.


It doesn't preclude me one bit. Many of my ideas for reducing gun violence are rational and based on facts and statistics, not raw emotion like we're seeing now. You're free to ignore me if you like, I don't give a damn about that either.
 
2013-01-11 11:01:40 PM  

joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.

Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.

It doesn't preclude me one bit. Many of my ideas for reducing gun violence are rational and based on facts and statistics, not raw emotion like we're seeing now. You're free to ignore me if you like, I don't give a damn about that either.


Present them. Your ideas, that is.
 
2013-01-11 11:02:14 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


That was a silly thing to post and you are a silly poster for having posted it.
 
2013-01-11 11:04:00 PM  
So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?
 
2013-01-11 11:04:37 PM  
well darn, i guess it's up to the other million right?
 
2013-01-11 11:05:01 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Well, currently we have about 20,000 "curbs" to the 2nd amendment. It's actually quite tough to keep track of them all (just ask your local firearms shop owner.)

Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".
 
2013-01-11 11:05:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?


Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.
 
2013-01-11 11:06:19 PM  

cuzsis: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Well, currently we have about 20,000 "curbs" to the 2nd amendment. It's actually quite tough to keep track of them all (just ask your local firearms shop owner.)

Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".


I forgot to add that my response to this is also "Good."

Actually I would like to see him arrested (or whatever the procedure is) for making threats of bodily harm. But maybe they can't because he didn't specify who he would shoot.
 
2013-01-11 11:09:27 PM  
I love a story with a happy ending.
 
2013-01-11 11:10:09 PM  
Koodz:
I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.


Indeed, I may have read too much into the articles on CEO salaries and I assumed if this guy was getting attention, he must be important.  That seems incorrect.
 
2013-01-11 11:10:42 PM  
Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.
 
2013-01-11 11:11:23 PM  

joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.


Smells like bullshiat.
 
2013-01-11 11:11:31 PM  

cuzsis: Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".



so, what does that tell you about the kind of gun laws we have? or the kind of enforcement we are using?
 
2013-01-11 11:11:37 PM  

ambassador_ahab: I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.


are you kidding? after that fark ups mistakes i bet they're lined up outside his door.

/vulture and all
 
2013-01-11 11:12:01 PM  
Serves him right for leaving the TACT out of Tactical Response.
 
2013-01-11 11:12:10 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.


He's a Clown With A Gun And No Carry Permit.
 
2013-01-11 11:13:52 PM  

Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.


That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html
 
2013-01-11 11:15:59 PM  

joness0154: Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.


I agree with all of these, although I'd go a bit further with some of them. It's odd, though, since most of these proposals would work to limit the exact types of gun violence you claim to not care about. Seems you actually do care.
 
2013-01-11 11:16:58 PM  
Dude, the first rule of Second Amendment remedies is you don't talk about Second Amendment remedies. Especially on the Internet.

You think about your convictions and your beliefs, really hard. This isn't playing around or macho-man time. This is you thinking about what is so important to you that you'll break the biggest of human social taboos.

You decide what your line in the sand is. You decide where to put your effort to try to keep that line from being crossed by every legal method you have.

You make concrete plans for the day that your line is crossed. You don't talk about it. Not to anyone, not even to your best friend, who just happens to be the guy the FBI has assigned to watch over you your whole life and egg you on. (There is no downside in this situation to being that paranoid.)

You can blab about it if you're not actually going to do it, if you're that guy, if you're the farking jerk.

Yeager, you're that farking jerk.
 
2013-01-11 11:17:04 PM  

Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence

violent crime has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.



UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.
 
2013-01-11 11:17:06 PM  
To play
 
2013-01-11 11:18:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.
 
2013-01-11 11:18:19 PM  
One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.
 
2013-01-11 11:18:58 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Why does it have to involve guns? Why can't they reduce gun massacres and lower the rate of gun violence by a different way?

By adding a completely unnecessary stipulation to your definition of "sane" you aren't coming across as very sane yourself....

Personally, I want the reduce *violence* in general (I'm not particular if someone kills someone with a gun or a knife, I don't want them to do it period.) as much as possible, while at the same time infringing on *everyone else* as little as possible. And then if we can't get a good result with zero infringement, try to find that happy medium that reduces it substantially in exchange for some minor costs for the rest of us. I realize violence will never be zero, but there will be a "value point" somewhere in there where the costs are worth the benefits.
 
2013-01-11 11:20:30 PM  
Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.
 
2013-01-11 11:20:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.



What should (s)he imagine it to be?
 
2013-01-11 11:21:00 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: And all he has to do is get a Utah CCW. Tennessee reciprocally recognizes them.


He can do that, and Utah can chose to accept or deny his permit. He would be an absolute moron to even attempt this, so he probably will given his recent life choices. If Utah gives him such a permit then it WILL make national news, probably a day or two of CNN at least. And things will then get even worse for him. Utah as a whole is probably alot smarter than this poorly raised schmuck. and would not likely grant his request.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


For now, soon maybe not as many. He is a "security contractor" and just lost his CCW. He likely also has tax stamps for multiple class 3 weapons as well and those can be yanked at any time for any reason, like running your mouth like an idiot threatening the nation. If he were to lose his rights to his SOT weapons and implements the most expensive aspects of his entire collection would suddenly become illegal, which could be confiscated, legally. If such items were "lost" suddenly, then he would be in violation of his NFA paperwork. Then we get to have a huge schadenfreude (holyshiatispelledthatcorrectly) moment.

His great crime in all this, to himself, ins mouthing off and being a huge douche, its being a (very small) online celebrity with a (very small) following and making these threats publicly. If I said something this stupid to a huge group of people in a room then im just a (drunk probably) moron. If however lets say I run a armed business and tell it to my thousand or so twitter followers who all yank it to gun porn........well im this guy.

This guy needs to shut up and hide for a few months and it might all blow over enough to save his business...eventually. I dont think the roids will let him keep his cool that long.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:07 PM  
Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:11 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.

I think the fact that Australia's history does not include a deep rooted gun culture is another contributor. And I think they had less than a million guns, where we're likely approaching 400 times that.

But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.


Yes, let's not forget a completely made-up and false statement.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:27 PM  

whatshisname: Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.



This calls for an amendment!

Sounds like you have work to do.

Off you go, then!
 
2013-01-11 11:22:48 PM  

joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html



while a VERY popular Daily Mail link amongst gun advocates, it is a bit dated, no? Perhaps you want to update your references. There WAS a run up in gang violence in that period. most likely having nothing to do with brand new gun regulations. The problem with new regulations is they don't fix things in the short term. Enforcement is a much trickier problem than legislation.
 
2013-01-11 11:23:29 PM  
Haven't read all the responses, but it has been said it bears repeating. Not only should his CC permit be revoked, every firearm in his possession should be confiscated. And perhaps a psych eval is in order.

And if the NRA should also have at him.

Of course liberals love guys like him. Support your local nutjob guys.
 
2013-01-11 11:24:21 PM  

SomeoneDumb: I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.


An alcoholic's bottle comes to mind.
The level of cognitive dissonance is similar.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:00 PM  
Idiots like Yeager love to scream about their rights, but they really don't get the whole responsibility thing that goes along with that.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:07 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Sure you have freedom of speech. You can say almost anything you want, but there can be consequences when you make death threats.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:15 PM  

Amos Quito: UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.


oh goody, another reference from 2009.

often roses don't smell so sweet after several years past their sell-by date.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:42 PM  

SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.


Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:42 PM  

Amos Quito: whatshisname: Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.


This calls for an amendment!

Sounds like you have work to do.

Off you go, then!



I spoke too soon.

These days we cowardly accept an Executive Odor from the Oblong Office as "law".


Don't we, Citizens?
 
2013-01-11 11:27:05 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment


How did this action impact any of his constitutional rights, oh expert scholar?
 
2013-01-11 11:27:33 PM  
patentspostgrant.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 11:28:44 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.


Not anymore, apparently.
 
2013-01-11 11:28:44 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html


while a VERY popular Daily Mail link amongst gun advocates, it is a bit dated, no? Perhaps you want to update your references. There WAS a run up in gang violence in that period. most likely having nothing to do with brand new gun regulations. The problem with new regulations is they don't fix things in the short term. Enforcement is a much trickier problem than legislation.


Not only that, but gun crime != gun violence. Catching someone illegally carrying constitutes an instance of gun crime but does not mean there was violence involved.
 
2013-01-11 11:28:54 PM  

joness0154: Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.



I don't think you get it. THE ATF is one of the cartels.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:03 PM  

The Name: One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.


Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.


If they installed a massive consumer transit system everywhere, and then outlawed all cars............we would start running out of people due to the backlash.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:28 PM  
What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:34 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.

oh goody, another reference from 2009.

often roses don't smell so sweet after several years past their sell-by date.



Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Off you go, then!

Cheerio!
 
2013-01-11 11:29:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?


It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:55 PM  

joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.


No, it's because I have done a little research, and I know that violence in general is much lower in the UK now than in the mid '90s, so I thought a dramatic increase in gun violence compared to before the ban was unlikely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html


And now I stand corrected, more or less.
 
2013-01-11 11:30:05 PM  

Amos Quito: I spoke too soon.

These days we cowardly accept an Executive Odor from the Oblong Office as "law".


Don't we, Citizens?



Where the hell did the Second Amendment come from? Was it written by Gods?

"essseee here, we screwed up the first time, so let's amend this thing with some vague language and see how the next 200 years plays out"
 
2013-01-11 11:30:07 PM  
theblaze.comView Full Size

Hoped it was this Human Turd.
 
2013-01-11 11:30:48 PM  
I have a suggestion. Increase spending in each and every "entitlement" program we have here in the US. More per family on welfare. More on medicare. More in every "hand out" program that you can think of. Pay people to sit home, live comfortably and with as much medication as they need even if they just need it recreationally. Decrease the desperation, increase the treatment. You'll see fewer people losing it and mowing down children or who feel like they need to make a point. Coincidentally, you'll probably see less crime in general.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.

Not anymore, apparently.


They didn't take away his guns, only his option of legally carrying them in public.

He still has his massive paranoia complex, his guns, and his reasons to carry them. As I've said in this thread, that could lead to disastrous results, especially given that he's willing to kill people to ensure that he can carry his precious guns.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:38 PM  

whatshisname: SomeoneDumb: I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

An alcoholic's bottle comes to mind.
The level of cognitive dissonance is similar.


You may be right. Even stranger that I didn't think of that considering, well, you know...
 
2013-01-11 11:32:53 PM  

Amos Quito: Executive Odor from the Oblong Office


Thanks for continuing to let us know what words crazy people are using to replace other words
 
2013-01-11 11:33:23 PM  

Amos Quito: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence violent crime has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.


UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.


Yeah, the other guy may have a point, but you're just a dumbass. You can't tell a trend from a single data point.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:13 PM  

orclover: The Name: One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.

Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


I was going by the NRA's self-reported membership numbers, but you're probably right.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:29 PM  

dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.


The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:38 PM  
So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:42 PM  

orclover: Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


I remember something like that being tried before:

intotheblu.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 11:34:48 PM  

Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.


Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:54 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


Nothing he said was 'free speech' as defined by the First Amendment. But then I suspect you were just looking to be fed.
 
2013-01-11 11:35:21 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Thanks for continuing to let us know what words crazy people are using to replace other words


For a person who doesn't believe in that nutcase Alex Jones,  Amos Quito sounds an awful lot like him right now, doesn't he?
 
2013-01-11 11:35:55 PM  

GoldSpider: [www.patentspostgrant.com image 480x360]

To help

 
2013-01-11 11:37:51 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.


Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.
 
2013-01-11 11:38:45 PM  
Gun control simply doesn't work. For example, look at all the classrooms full of kids and theaters full of people taken out en masse by the widely abundant hand grenades available to anyone. If we took hand grenades from law abiding citizens, the bad guys would still have hand grenades and we would be defenseless.
 
2013-01-11 11:41:20 PM  

joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that until innocent individuals get involved.


I'm not going to comment on any moral or ethical implications of that, but I will point out that, since I've observed in other threads that you claim to be a dispassionate, 'decide using facts', person that you should have a problem with it for purely fiduciary reasons.

It costs money to deal with the aftermath of every shooting, money is lost when neighbourhoods lose business, money is lost to treat and incarcerate those that survive, and so on.
 
2013-01-11 11:43:46 PM  

Farkomatic: Gun control simply doesn't work. For example, look at all the classrooms full of kids and theaters full of people taken out en masse by the widely abundant hand grenades available to anyone. If we took hand grenades from law abiding citizens, the bad guys would still have hand grenades and we would be defenseless.


I can't even attempt to point out the logical incompetence of your attempted analogy.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-01-11 11:44:16 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.

Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.


Wow, you found a whole 'nother shooting spree to take place in England since 1996. Just find a few hundred more and you'll have something resembling evidence that England's "failed" gun control can be used cogently as an argument against similar measures in the US.
 
2013-01-11 11:44:49 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.



OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.
 
2013-01-11 11:47:00 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?

It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.



Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I call bullshiat.


Now, given the current insane climate of mass submission to Centralized Authoritarianism, I will say that the chap was STOOPID for saying what he said.

Not that he was not within his Constitutionally defined rights to do so, but the fact is that AUTHORITAY draws its validity from POWER, and the fact is that the AUTHORITAYS have a LOT more guns than he does.


farm3.staticflickr.comView Full Size



Get used to it, Mandrake.
 
2013-01-11 11:47:44 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.


Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing. Try again.
And start in 1998, like I said, the year the ban was instituted. Look at the long term trend.
 
2013-01-11 11:49:09 PM  
img825.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 11:49:56 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.

Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing. Try again.
And start in 1998, like I said, the year the ban was instituted. Look at the long term trend.


We've had more mass shootings in the past 2 months than the UK has had in the past 14 years. That's a long-term trend.
 
2013-01-11 11:50:44 PM  

plausdeny: Dude, the first rule of Second Amendment remedies is you don't talk about Second Amendment remedies. Especially on the Internet.

You think about your convictions and your beliefs, really hard. This isn't playing around or macho-man time. This is you thinking about what is so important to you that you'll break the biggest of human social taboos.

You decide what your line in the sand is. You decide where to put your effort to try to keep that line from being crossed by every legal method you have.

You make concrete plans for the day that your line is crossed. You don't talk about it. Not to anyone, not even to your best friend, who just happens to be the guy the FBI has assigned to watch over you your whole life and egg you on. (There is no downside in this situation to being that paranoid.)

You can blab about it if you're not actually going to do it, if you're that guy, if you're the farking jerk.

Yeager, you're that farking jerk.


So planning to start killing people if Obama passes new gun laws is OK, it's just talking openly about it that's bad?
 
2013-01-11 11:51:03 PM  

Slutter McGee: I can't even attempt to point out the logical incompetence of your attempted analogy.


I think that was sarcasm. Hard to tell these days with all the trolls around, but I'm pretty sure it was.
 
2013-01-11 11:52:05 PM  
Sock Ruh Tease:
i.imgur.comView Full Size


Jesus christ, does any of these people have any farking clue what Fight Club was ACTUALLY about?!

CSB:

I was once in an English class and we were talking about movies and Fight Club came up. The professor declared his disdain for the flick cause he thought it was all about tough guys beating the shiat out of each other. I calmly tried to explain it was actually about the loss of the male identity due to modern cultural changes compared to previous generations, as well as a social commentary on our consumption-based behavior and a rebuke of corporations and advertising.

"Yeah, but it was just so violent!"

*FACEPALM*

/How in the fark someone like that got a doctorate and tenure is beyond me.
 
2013-01-11 11:52:48 PM  
I forgot Derrik Bird. That is true. They DID have another massacre in 2010
 
2013-01-11 11:53:42 PM  

The Name: joness0154: dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.

Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.

Wow, you found a whole 'nother shooting spree to take place in England since 1996. Just find a few hundred more and you'll have something resembling evidence that England's "failed" gun control can be used cogently as an argument against similar measures in the US.


I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.
 
2013-01-11 11:53:45 PM  
I still say we shouldn't go overboard with banning guns. The answer doesn't lie there. We need to focus more on our mental healthcare system, as well as enforcement of background checks and such. And ultimately, we must accept that, no matter what we do, tragedies will happen. All we can do is try to reduce the amount.
 
2013-01-11 11:53:59 PM  

Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.


Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.
 
2013-01-11 11:54:12 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.


Okay. From my previous link:

"
A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,
 
2013-01-11 11:54:34 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.


Hold on a minute, the last thread we were in together you said at least half of gun owners were perfectly fine, upstanding, nice people. With such a lowball number here it leads me to believe you were just placating me despite your true feelings about gun owners.

You wouldn't lie to me, would you NHA?
 
2013-01-11 11:55:13 PM  

joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.


I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.
 
2013-01-11 11:55:29 PM  

llachlan: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hi,

I'm not sure what to offer, but I will listen if that will help. I'm more than a little concerned about you.


No, I gotta go with NotSoFunky on this one. If this douche bag wants to prove his point by shooting me, so be it. I won't shoot back - not because of religion just because violence isn't really the answer in this question. What will happen, though, is he won't prove his point, he'll prove the opposition's point by being a gun slinging asswipe. I'll be dead, but that's ok. It's been a funky ride and I don't have a wife or kids... so shoot my ass, looney-tunes!
 
2013-01-11 11:55:45 PM  

ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.


Well, now I'm picturing this guy smoking and shooting people with his cooter. Thanks for that.
 
2013-01-11 11:55:51 PM  

Amos Quito: Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


The second amendment is subject to "reasonable limitations" which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. (Jurisprudence established by DC v. Heller, 2008.) The state of Tennessee established that they wish to regulate the practice of concealed carry, and the voters of the State agreed with that sentiment. Regulation of handgun concealed carry is constitutional. (Upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). One of those reasonable limitations is that the person who has that permit does not pose an immediate danger to himself, or others, that he is of sound mental state, and is not a felon or under suspicion of a felony.

This man not only committed a videotaped terroristic threat against the President of the United States, but stated he would start murdering people if a law were passed. Both are not forms of protected speech.

Amos Quito: In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Terroristic Threats are not protected speech under the first amendment. (Virginia V. Black, 2003)

Amos Quito: And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


None of his rights were denied. His privileged to conceal and carry a handgun according to the State of Tennessee laws, which was a power delegated to the states by the Federal Government, was revoked because he broke the rules which allowed him to have that privileged

Amos Quito: Now, given the current insane climate of mass submission to Centralized Authoritarianism, I will say that the chap was STOOPID for saying what he said.

Not that he was not within his Constitutionally defined rights to do so, but the fact is that AUTHORITAY draws its validity from POWER, and the fact is that the AUTHORITAYS have a LOT more guns than he does.


.
static.guim.co.ukView Full Size
 
2013-01-11 11:56:24 PM  

joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.


And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:26 PM  
Looks like he just can't conceal carry. Unless he's convicted of a felony, he can still own one.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:51 PM  

Amos Quito: So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.


Look at the criteria for "violent crime" in each country.

Hint - in the UK, it's spitting on someone.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:56 PM  

Amos Quito: So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,



you didn't counter my assertion at all. right in your quote you state your data ENDS in 2009. just like gunpolicy.org.
 
2013-01-11 11:57:10 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.
 
2013-01-11 11:57:22 PM  

ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.


Congratulations. You've added nothing to this conversation.
 
2013-01-11 11:58:05 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.


I hate to say it, but the ball is not completely out of your court. The Daily Mail article cites numbers for '98 compared to '08, but the gun ban was instituted in 1997. What was the number of offences in '96?
The numbers seem to have dropped in the last 2 or 3 years, so you can't really say that gun crime has doubled since the ban.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-end i ng-june-2012/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-june-2012.htm l#tab-Offences-involving-firearms
 
2013-01-11 11:59:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.



Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?
 
2013-01-12 12:00:08 AM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolutely have the right to tell another private person to STFU in a private situation; you HAVE NO RIGHTS that are enforceable between you and me as regards your right to "free speech". So if we want to applaud his idiot remarks landing him in hot water, well, that's not a restraint of his freedom of speech, nor is it our "acceptance of curbs on free speech." It's just our acknowledgement that actions have consequences, which apparently he didn't realize.
 
2013-01-12 12:00:22 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.

Oh I have no doubt that much of the "gun community" considers him irresponsible. The problem is, none of them are willing to support a law that would take his guns away.


Try coming up with a law which would take his guns away for a logical reason and not mine at the same time, because I've done nothing of the sort and we'll talk.
 
2013-01-12 12:00:43 AM  

dbaggins: I forgot Derrik Bird. That is true. They DID have another massacre in 2010


That wasn't actually a massacre - that was a spree.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:01 AM  
also keep in mind there were a bunch of riots in the UK in this time, with hundreds of violence charges laid per day for several periods.

of which, nobody was shot, and almost nobody died.

unlike when we have riots. the LA riots for instance. 52 dead by firearms.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:14 AM  
To endquote
 
2013-01-12 12:01:29 AM  

dbaggins: joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.

I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.


Seriously?

Homicide by firearm does not take into account non-lethal shootings, muggings, armed robbery, assault, or the myriad of other crimes committed with a firearm that would be just as deadly had the perpetrator pulled the trigger.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:30 AM  

BSABSVR: Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.

Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.


He might stop being coy about it, shave his head, and get a swastika tattoo'd on his chest.
 
2013-01-12 12:02:43 AM  

The Name: joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.

And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.


Whereas your comment contributed nothing to the discussion.

Come play along with us, provide something useful.
 
2013-01-12 12:03:41 AM  

Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,


img.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-12 12:03:46 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-12 12:04:54 AM  

joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.


I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."
 
2013-01-12 12:04:57 AM  

joness0154: The Name: joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.

And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.

Whereas your comment contributed nothing to the discussion.

Come play along with us, provide something useful.


Well, I did point out that one shooting spree since 1996 is not evidence that gun control doesn't work, which is what I took you as implying, so there's that.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:00 AM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.

I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.

Seriously?

Homicide by firearm does not take into account non-lethal shootings, muggings, armed robbery, assault, or the myriad of other crimes committed with a firearm that would be just as deadly had the perpetrator pulled the trigger.


yes, seriously. do you not know what it means for an indicator to track another indicator?
 
2013-01-12 12:05:00 AM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?


The guy had a privileged suspended because he abused it.  Like losing a license for driving like a dick.

The "context" of your post was pure bullshiat.

Take your persecution/victim/paranoia/ignorance complex elsewhere...I've exceeded my limits of tolerating stupidity for the day.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolute ...


Some of what you said, is what I meant when I indicated that most of you didn't actually understand what free speech is. You seem to, though, so I'm going to ask you to touch on my actual question: why all the butthurt when people discuss the 2nd, and no where near the same reaction to discussing the 1st?

Also, they didn't take away his right to use the guns - just to cary them.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:54 AM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?


At least you're standing up for your right to protect your precious bodily fluids.

/That's right, I'm reading trollin'
 
2013-01-12 12:06:07 AM  

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The second amendment is subject to "reasonable limitations" which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. (Jurisprudence established by DC v. Heller, 2008.) The state of Tennessee established that they wish to regulate the practice of concealed carry, and the voters of the State agreed with that sentiment. Regulation of handgun concealed carry is constitutional. (Upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). One of those reasonable limitations is that the person who has that permit does not pose an immediate danger to himself, or others, that he is of sound mental state, and is not a felon or under suspicion of a felony.

This man not only committed a videotaped terroristic threat against the President of the United States, but stated he would start murdering people if a law were passed. Both are not forms of protected speech.

Amos Quito: In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Terroristic Threats are not protected speech under the first amendment. (Virginia V. Black, 2003)

Amos Quito: And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

None of his rights were denied. His privileged to conceal and carry a handgun according to the State of Tennessee laws, which was a power delegated to the states by the Federal Government, was revoked because he broke the rules which allowed him to have that privileged

Amos Quito: Now, given the current insane climate of mass s ...



You have a bad habit of inane internet blabbermouthing, BM, so forgive me if I don't bother to waste my time on your unsubstantiated bullshiat.

Go back and provide cites WITH LINKS to all of the bolded above.

Then we'll talk.

Maybe.
 
2013-01-12 12:08:18 AM  
Concealed carry is not an absolute right.
 
2013-01-12 12:09:51 AM  

BSABSVR: Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.

Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.


Yes but his views on gay marriage would likely change tremendously!
 
2013-01-12 12:10:48 AM  
Suggestion:

All persons purchasing a firearm are required to upload a 3-minute video to YouTube explaining their personal beliefs in the Second Amendment while holding their weapon. If they can get through 180-seconds without scaring the ever-loving buh-jesus out of the public they can be deemed 'well-regulated' and allowed to possess their weapon in perpetuity.
 
2013-01-12 12:10:57 AM  

WordyGrrl: joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.

I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."


I was mistaken about households - replace that with adults.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest - 1993.aspx
 
2013-01-12 12:12:17 AM  

Indubitably: To endquote


I used to find your posting incredibly annoying but now it's damn near sublime.
/If I wasn't poor I'd give you tf for a month.
 
2013-01-12 12:13:55 AM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.



Speaking of First Amendment rights, next time you're in an airport getting patted down by those nice TSA folks, go right ahead and joke about how they'll never find that bomb you've hidden in your carry-on luggage. They love hearing that one, betcha they'll be rolling on the floor laughing, like always.

It's your right, exercise it! Yay, First Amendment!
 
2013-01-12 12:13:59 AM  

Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK