gun show loophole rant
Quote: boymimbo
There are all kinds of programs that I can think of: youth sports and academic programs; better teachers in inner cities; rehabilitation programs for young offenders; higher welfare rates for single parents with children; child support enforcement so that money flows to the custodial parent; cheap/free daycare based on income so that a parent can work in a job and afford to put their kid through daycare instead of receiving welfare and staying at home; subsidized college education; police enforcement against gangs and these are off the top of my head.
If I spend $20K to prevent $100K of costs due to incarceration what is the better deal? The programs that I suggest all are cheaper than the cost of jail.
Every program you suggest we already do in one form or another. What would be better is fewer regatiobs that raise the cost of labor and tell the "problem yutes" work is expected in life and not optional. We don't need to keep spending money on this feel good stuff. There are churches and other charities who do it better and at no taxpayer cost.
Get them to put more effort into work and less into trying to get handouts and magic happen.
Quote: boymimboNow, Face, had that been you with the gun in that restaurant, I am sure it might have taken you one shot to disable the shooter, and good on you. But you having the gun didn't deter that criminal from committing that crime, nor did the liberal carry laws in that state (in Florida, $70 for a seven year license and completion of a firearms course as well as normal background checks allow you to conceal-carry).
That is flawed logic.
The criminal may have thought about robbing 50,000 stores but didn't because of potential CCW licensees. To say it did not deter him is not a fact, it is really not even an opinion, just a bunch of words. To say "The potential of a CCW licensee did not prevent the criminal from robbing the store" would be an fact if you assume the guy had the brain power to think that far ahead, and it would be a valid opinion.
If I were to "s2dbaker" it (ie play "what if"), What if the victim had not shot at the criminal he may have went on to murder his mother, steal her guns, murder kids in an elementary school, and then have me be told the gun he commited the murders with was "legal." Don't want that to happen do we?
Quote: boymimboBut that gun didn't prevent a crime from happening. The robber had already committed the crime and the victim of the crime then pursued the robber with a gun, jeopardizing the safety of anyone in the area. How would have the victim of the robbery felt if a ricochet bullet hit an innocent bystander, or if the folks in the truck decided to fire back, or if the driver was hit and he swerved into traffic and kill someone else. We'd be having a different conversation right now. Inotherwords, the actions of the victim, at best, was risky.
Now, Face, had that been you with the gun in that restaurant, I am sure it might have taken you one shot to disable the shooter, and good on you. But you having the gun didn't deter that criminal from committing that crime, nor did the liberal carry laws in that state (in Florida, $70 for a seven year license and completion of a firearms course as well as normal background checks allow you to conceal-carry).
Now, if it's your home, it's a different story. Defend your property.
I don’t think guns are some sort of panacea for all crime. I just think they have an effect. There are, of course, robbers that are gonna rob, burglars that are gonna burgle, etc. There are those who will crime it up whether every gun is outlawed or dual wielding MA-Deuces is allowed. But, I have had a gun pulled on me for “committing a crime”. Granted, my crime was trespass, and him covering me with his firearm was a much greater crime than me wandering onto his property, but I tell you what… I don’t trespass anymore lol.
And if a crime is being committed, I think those affected should have recourse. If you should be the target of a wronging, you should have the tools to prevent or terminate it. That’s all.
In my opinion, the “hero” is retarded, and here I’m using “retarded” to denote severe insult as well as a valid judgment of his person. A gun is for prevention and protection. From what little I read, it seems the incident was over when the gun was put into play (unless I’m mistaken). What I’m picking up is people’s lives were in danger during the robbery (you can/should use deadly force), then it was over (use of force terminates), and this whack job runs after him, firing into the middle of town. Based on the picture painted in my head, our “hero” should have charges filed against him.
The big question is “what danger was he in at the time force was used?” It doesn’t even look like he suffered loss of property based on the info provided.
If you had read the Washington Times version, you'd be giving that clown a medal.Quote: FaceI don’t think guns are some sort of panacea for all crime. I just think they have an effect. There are, of course, robbers that are gonna rob, burglars that are gonna burgle, etc. There are those who will crime it up whether every gun is outlawed or dual wielding MA-Deuces is allowed. But, I have had a gun pulled on me for “committing a crime”. Granted, my crime was trespass, and him covering me with his firearm was a much greater crime than me wandering onto his property, but I tell you what… I don’t trespass anymore lol.
And if a crime is being committed, I think those affected should have recourse. If you should be the target of a wronging, you should have the tools to prevent or terminate it. That’s all.
In my opinion, the “hero” is retarded, and here I’m using “retarded” to denote severe insult as well as a valid judgment of his person. A gun is for prevention and protection. From what little I read, it seems the incident was over when the gun was put into play (unless I’m mistaken). What I’m picking up is people’s lives were in danger during the robbery (you can/should use deadly force), then it was over (use of force terminates), and this whack job runs after him, firing into the middle of town. Based on the picture painted in my head, our “hero” should have charges filed against him.
The big question is “what danger was he in at the time force was used?” It doesn’t even look like he suffered loss of property based on the info provided.
Quote: Maverick17http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/09/at-least-5-reportedly-stabbed-on-lone-star-college-campus/
MASS STABBING ALERT!!!
studebaker, should you start the "knife control loophole rant" thread, or should I?
Everybody needs to start eating their steaks with spoons, damnit. This is going too far, don't all you "Pro 2nd Amendment" types want to strip everyone's right to sharp objects? I think this is just common sense.
If the guy had an AR15 we would be hearing about deaths and lots of them. This story, though gruesome is a far better result.Quote: USA TodayAt least 14 people at a Houston-area community college were injured -- two critically -- when a student ran from building to building cutting people with a knife or other sharp object, authorities said Tuesday.The unidentified suspect was arrested after a student tackled him on the Lone Star College-CyFair campus, Harris County Deputy Thomas Gilliland said.
Please read the facts here. Liberals need to pay careful attention to this line:
Quote:The woman told police the would-be robber said to her at gunpoint, "No disrespect, but I have to take those from you," as he grabbed the family's cell phones. Unbeknownst to the robber, the woman's husband was standing nearby, and he had a gun. The suspect pointed his gun at the husband, who then discharged his own gun, striking the robber in the leg. "The husband, who was right there, took his gun and shot," the witness said.
As I said before, the armed citizen should be commended for protecting himself and his family.
Quote: s2dbakerIf you had read the Washington Times version, you'd be giving that clown a medal.
That’s the only one I read.
Quote: Washington TimesA father who was trying to eat with his family at Burger King was able to defeat an armed robber by pulling his own weapon and shooting at him, Miami police said.
It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.
Granted, there’s a lot of supposition and Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on in my head, but based on the very little info to accurately paint a proper picture, it seems to me the danger had peaked and passed. About the only way my brain would justify shooting at this point is if the crim was backing out the door still waving his pistol about the dining room.
You add in the bullet hole proof that our hero followed the crim out and peppered his truck in the middle of the bleeding town, and all I see is an asshole, plain and simple.
Quote: AZDuffmanEvery program you suggest we already do in one form or another. What would be better is fewer regatiobs that raise the cost of labor and tell the "problem yutes" work is expected in life and not optional. We don't need to keep spending money on this feel good stuff. There are churches and other charities who do it better and at no taxpayer cost.
Get them to put more effort into work and less into trying to get handouts and magic happen.
Fair enough. When minimum wage at $7 / hour is a significant departure from welfare you might get people looking for work again. If your choice is to find a job at $7/hour and put your kid in day care at $500/month (cheap) vs stay at home and raise your kid on your own, what are you going to do.
The goal of programs for children is to break a cycle of poverty. Single mothers have a poverty rate of 34.2%, so it would fairly easy to target programs towards single parents in order to at least give the children the chance to recover and do well. The % of poverty for male led families or couples: 8.2%.
So you provide programs to the single mothers, such as income support, work programs that include free or subsidized daycare, and an enhanced SNAP program. Give them free and cheap access to mental health services as well so that they can combat problems with addictions (alcohol, drug) and become strong role models for their children. The end result of this is that yeah, some single moms will milk the system and stay at home with their kids. But the kids have the foundation they need to succeed. And of course, collect child support punish the fathers who don't pay. Add to this after school programs for kids through athletic programs and the Y.
We have all of this in Canada, and it affects me very directly.
Yeah all of this costs money, government money and tax money. But our incarceration rate is 3 times lower, so instead of paying $1,000 in taxes for incarceration for this year, I pay $333 and live in a much safer place than my counterparts 6 miles to the east of me. I may pay $667 in additional money for programs for youth, but it's money well spent.
I know, read the source you want to believe.
Quote: boymimboI know, read the source you want to believe.
When there are conflicting reports, I believe the account that makes the most sense (unless additional facts are uncovered, of course). So what makes more sense to you: A guy runs outside and follows the criminal's truck shooting randomly in public like a maniac? Or a guy shoots a criminal after the criminal's gun is pointed in his direction?
I know, pick the one you want to believe.
Quote: boymimboThen how did the bulletholes get into the side of the truck.
Quote: boymimboI think the video that shows the truck with the bullet holes in them from the SAME frickin' link tells more of the same story...unless the gunshots were just planted there by the liberal media (from the same website).
As I said before, the armed citizen was probably just trying to stop the truck so that the useless criminal wouldn't get away. That's what I would do, too.
I agree with Face.
The truck was obviously moving, and nobody knows what the guy's target was (except him, of course). You say he was targeting the passenger but hit the door, yet somebody else could come back and say that he was targeting the tire and instead hit the door. Remember, this was a moving truck driven by people who were desperately trying to flee. The rest is all speculation. I just don't understand why you're so willing to assume that the armed citizen had the worst of all possible motives.
Quote: boymimboAnd how critical is the passenger side door in the operation of the truck? It's not like he targeted the warp drive or shields (or even the tires, which is what a cop might do). He was targeting the passenger.
I agree with Face.
Most modern firearms of an SD caliber should be able to punch through a typical vehicle door and maintain enough power to disable the driver. Hell, I used to shoot up cars all the time in my youth; even #4 shot out of a 20g, which is below the FBI’s penetration criteria, would still enter the cab of a 60s era field truck (steel doors) from 20 yds.
But I can almost never condone doing it. About the only time I’d even consider it is if I knew with much certainty he was on his way to harm my family, his vehicle was the weapon, or he had kidnapped someone dear to me (even then, my damn people are in that car).
Real life ain’t Hollywood. The amount of things that could go right are almost nil, the amount of things that could go wrong are too many to list.
It's fine that the victim wanted to disable the robber with his gun. And if the robber happened to die, well then, he knew that risk. I see that side of the argument... engage in risky behaviour and suffer the consequences.
The problem is that there's alot of risk involved in doing what the victim did, because there were many other outcomes possible. The passenger could have fired back. The truck driver could have turned back towards the shooter. An innocent's life may have been taken through the escalation of the incident.
If at least five bulletholes were in the passenger door of the truck (which the video clearly shows), and the gun owner has an accurate shot, then clearly, the victim was targeting the passenger.
This is why I wouldn't carry (even if I could). If I was the victim, I would be tempted to do exactly what that man did, and roll the dice and come up with a different result.
Quote: boymimboWhat is the worst possible motive?
That the armed citizen was trying to kill the driver and/or passenger.
Quote: boymimboThe problem is that there's alot of risk involved in doing what the victim did, because there were many other outcomes possible.
I totally with you here. That's why I admire the man's bravery.
Quote: boymimboIf at least five bulletholes were in the passenger door of the truck (which the video clearly shows), and the gun owner has an accurate shot, then clearly, the victim was targeting the passenger.
Again, totally jumping to conclusions. Like I said earlier, this was a moving target. It's challenging enough trying to hit a stationary target at the range, yet this target was moving unpredictably and being manned by a criminal who was trying to escape at all costs. For example, one moment you may be pointing your gun at a tire, but a split second later the car could turn, and now you find that your gun is pointed at the door. (Not saying this is what happened, but just pointing out that it is just as plausible as claiming that the gun was aimed at the driver/passenger.)
Quote: boymimboThis is why I wouldn't carry (even if I could). If I was the victim, I would be tempted to do exactly what that man did, and roll the dice and come up with a different result.
Then you have every right to not carry, and I applaud you for that because if one is not comfortable around guns, then that is absolutely the right thing to do.
Quote: boymimboFair enough. When minimum wage at $7 / hour is a significant departure from welfare you might get people looking for work again. If your choice is to find a job at $7/hour and put your kid in day care at $500/month (cheap) vs stay at home and raise your kid on your own, what are you going to do.
Simple answer here is cut welfare. Raising mw will not help as mw will always be at the bottom and other prices will rise with the forced increase in labor costs. But mw jobs will still decline as businesses increase use of labor saving devices (eg: self-checkout.) So the single mother builds no job skills nor credibility for the next job up the ladder.
Quote:The goal of programs for children is to break a cycle of poverty. Single mothers have a poverty rate of 34.2%, so it would fairly easy to target programs towards single parents in order to at least give the children the chance to recover and do well. The % of poverty for male led families or couples: 8.2%.
Simple answer here too, re-gear current programs to cut illegitimate births. Show the girls in 8th grade what a living hell life in poverty will be if they have a kid before they get married. It has been said many times, finish high school and wait until you get married to have kids and your chances of living in poverty fall by 90% for your lifetime! I would envision a "scared straight" kind of program where single mothers living in poverty tell young girls "don't let him in your bed" and show life is a struggle and not some TV show where it all works out.
And yes, asking them to practice abstinence is hard, life is hard. Give the message that good things are hard.
Quote:So you provide programs to the single mothers, such as income support, work programs that include free or subsidized daycare, and an enhanced SNAP program. Give them free and cheap access to mental health services as well so that they can combat problems with addictions (alcohol, drug) and become strong role models for their children. The end result of this is that yeah, some single moms will milk the system and stay at home with their kids. But the kids have the foundation they need to succeed. And of course, collect child support punish the fathers who don't pay. Add to this after school programs for kids through athletic programs and the Y.
Again we have all that now. It doesn't work. Illegitimacy is the problem, and it is easily solved by those who want to.
Quote: Beethoven9thAgain, totally jumping to conclusions. Like I said earlier, this was a moving target. It's challenging enough trying to hit a stationary target at the range, yet this target was moving unpredictably and being manned by a criminal who was trying to escape at all costs. One moment you may be pointing your gun at a tire, but a split second later the car could turn, and now you find that your gun is pointed at the door. (Not saying this is what happened, but just pointing out that it's just as plausible as claiming that the gun was aimed at the driver/passenger.)
This to me is the very reason he shouldn’t have done what he did. Perhaps, as you said, he was aiming “here”, something happened, now he’s aiming “there”. Luckily “there” was the perps door and not a neighboring business, passing car, person walking the street, etc and so on.
We gunners are not trained LEOs nor super heroes. My gun protects me and mine first and foremost. Perhaps, if in a situation where I am the immediate and only source of protection, then my neighboring citizens may fall under my protection, but even that is unlikely. Once the guy is gone, he’s not my problem. Perhaps another gunner gets him, maybe the LEOs nab him, or maybe he gets away. But even him getting away and criming it up more is not my problem, nor will I have any problems sleeping if it happened. Killing an innocent because I went all “Bad Boys II” in the middle of town, now that will cause a sleepless night, and probably in a jail cell.
Quote: FaceThis to me is the very reason he shouldn’t have done what he did. Perhaps, as you said, he was aiming “here”, something happened, now he’s aiming “there”. Luckily “there” was the perps door and not a neighboring business, passing car, person walking the street, etc and so on.
Fair point. I assume that he made sure (as LEO's do) that the "coast was clear" before firing, but I agree, if there were innocent bystanders walking around, then he absolutely should have held fire. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the specifics of this case.
Quote: AZDuffmanSimple answer here is cut welfare. Raising mw will not help as mw will always be at the bottom and other prices will rise with the forced increase in labor costs. But mw jobs will still decline as businesses increase use of labor saving devices (eg: self-checkout.) So the single mother builds no job skills nor credibility for the next job up the ladder.
Simple answer here too, re-gear current programs to cut illegitimate births. Show the girls in 8th grade what a living hell life in poverty will be if they have a kid before they get married. It has been said many times, finish high school and wait until you get married to have kids and your chances of living in poverty fall by 90% for your lifetime! I would envision a "scared straight" kind of program where single mothers living in poverty tell young girls "don't let him in your bed" and show life is a struggle and not some TV show where it all works out.
And yes, asking them to practice abstinence is hard, life is hard. Give the message that good things are hard.
Again we have all that now. It doesn't work. Illegitimacy is the problem, and it is easily solved by those who want to.
I'm going to go with "we agree to disagree" and leave it at that. We've discussed this before on other threads and we're off topic. I say we lock this thread and talk about Soopoo's dice control challenge.
Quote: boymimboThe problem is that there's alot of risk involved in doing what the victim did, because there were many other outcomes possible. The passenger could have fired back. The truck driver could have turned back towards the shooter. An innocent's life may have been taken through the escalation of the incident.
Vegas/pimp result las vegas blvd: truck continues to move and wrecks kills other people.
Quote: boymimboI'm going to go with "we agree to disagree" and leave it at that. We've discussed this before on other threads and we're off topic. I say we lock this thread and talk about Soopoo's dice control challenge.
I am more than willing to let the admin lock it. It has degenerated to S2 posting links about gun accidents every few days to troll up responses.
Screw that! Some four year old girl is going to die in a gun related accident this week and I need to be able to post the gory details here.Quote: boymimboI say we lock this thread and talk about Soopoo's dice control challenge.
Edit: I wasn't aware of this one when I posted that. Technically, the kid was 6 and male but the shooter at least was a 4 year old.
Wonder how it would control gun sales in gun show parking lots?
make ALL gun sales illegal if it doesnt go thru a background check?
Quote: 100xOddsWonder how it would control gun sales in gun show parking lots?
make ALL gun sales illegal if it doesnt go thru a background check?
I don't understand liberals. They want to get rid of a black market for marijuana, yet they want to create a black market for guns. Make up your mind already, guys. *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't understand liberals. They want to get rid of a black market for marijuana, yet they want to create a black market for guns. Make up your mind already, guys. *facepalm*
Uh huh. How many people have died from marijuana overdose? Apples and oranges.
Quote: boymimboUh huh. How many people have died from marijuana overdose?
So you do like black markets in some cases?
Quote: boymimboUh huh. How many people have died from marijuana overdose? Apples and oranges.
Marihuana causes plenty of health problems. But the real reason it is aples and oranges is in the USA you have a direct right to have a gun. Not the case for weed.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut the real reason it is aples and oranges is in the USA you have a direct right to have a gun. Not the case for weed.
+1.5
No, that's incorrect.Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, that is why liberals sue to stop voter id laws and voter purges.
And there already is a black market for guns. It's called straw purchases, gunshows, and illicit private sales.
Or do you support gun ownership for the mentally unstable and the criminal? Come on, Toomey's one of your guys.
Quote: boymimboOr do you support gun ownership for the mentally unstable and the criminal? Come on, Toomey's one of your guys.
"...the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --Hubert Humphrey
"Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." --Walter Mondale
...and Humphrey & Mondale are your guys.
Quote: nyfirearmsJohn Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation.
The confiscation has begun. Per the "odiusgambit Research Assurance model", I have verified this story with many more sources than the obvious biased p.o.v. this link gives. You can go right to WGRZ (the local news here) and find it for yourself.
A man who is non-violent, non-suicidal, and non criminal gets some medical attention and has not only his permit revoked, but is forced to turn in his weapons. This. Is. Horse. Shit.
You know, a member here once called me a prophet. Well here's my prophecy. And I'm not even gonna qualify it as "paranoid", no. You mark these words.
This is the start. A man is either A) anxious and liable to snap, or B) on Xanex and under the influence. Take his guns! Next will be the depressed. They're either A) suicidal and liable to snap, or B) on Zoloft and under the influence. Take their guns! Then it'll be guys like me, we're either A) in constant chronic pain and liable to snap, or B) on Vicodin and under the influence. Take our guns! One of these days, someone is going to say no. There will be a fight, men will die, and he who stood will be branded a criminal, a psychopath, a traitor. He will be the propagandist poster child for all that is wrong with we pro-gunners, and then the shit is going to get very real.
Mark Them.
First they came for the anxious,
and I didn't stand up because I wasn't anxious.
Then they came for the depressed,
and I didn't stand up because I wasn't depressed.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to stand.
*SOOPOO knows my real name and where I live. I'm also here everyday. If I should not sign in for a week/10 days, tell him to check the local paper. This is not a disguised threat of violence, but I have a very real fear for my future freedom. I Will Not Back Down*
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: FaceMy friend, It's Happening
Wow, that is scary stuff, man.
Another man had the exact same thing happen to him. Wanna know why? Wanna know what evil thing occurred to have his 2nd Amendment rights stripped from him? Wanna know the horrors that surrounded this man?
His 10 year old son talked of going after a bully with water, paintball, and BB guns. The principal heard him, called the police, and the man lost his permit, every hand and long gun he owned, and can only appeal to have them back after his kid, his 10 year old kid, has moved out of the house.
You think this is scary? This is just the beginning.
Quote: AZDuffmanNonsense. The way to stop voter fraud is before it happens because after it happens you have no record of who voted for who.
LOL. Then the best way to prevent guns going to the wrong people is check them EVERYWHERE before, not after a crime.
(yes, but you can still do investigations before and after on the voting process. You can google that.)
A nation of knives over guns, I can live with that. You actually considered that worthy as a retort.
edit - should be "can" not "can't"
Quote: boymimboFace, I'm sorry for New York's kneejerk reaction. The bar needs to be set higher. I would think that being institutionalized for mental health would be the borderline for gun ownership, and only, say, in the past 5 years.
Thanks, boymimbo. I can't even call it knee-jerk anymore. That ship has sailed. The amount of wrong present here... I can't even comprehend it. Even "tyrannical" doesn't seem right. At least a tyrant admits it. These piles of puke have the gall to pretend they're doing this for good, for US.
And I'm not even that extreme! Bar higher, yes, but I wouldn't even set it as high as you did! Jesus Christ, I don't care if you're as anti as s2dbaker and TheNightFly put together, if you don't feel outrage at what's going on... this is bigger than just the 2nd anymore. Due process? HIPPA? Pfft. At least there will be low design costs changing our motto from "The Empire State" to "The Emperor's State"
It's unreal. It's insane. And I can't even believe it's going to get worse.
But it will.
Quote: FaceAnother man had the exact same thing happen to him. Wanna know why? Wanna know what evil thing occurred to have his 2nd Amendment rights stripped from him? Wanna know the horrors that surrounded this man?
His 10 year old son talked of going after a bully with water, paintball, and BB guns. The principal heard him, called the police, and the man lost his permit, every hand and long gun he owned, and can only appeal to have them back after his kid, his 10 year old kid, has moved out of the house.
My god, that is just sheer insanity. What the heck is this country coming to?
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: FaceMy friend, It's Happening
Wow, that is scary stuff, man.
Confiscation of the peoples' weaponry must happen before they squeeze hard enough that the common man can pretend no longer that he is free.
The SS NY State Police are backtracking so fast some have actually entered their own rear ends. Within hours, the outrage grew to such fervor they recanted everything, returning the Xanex man's guns and saying "the man whom they pestered was the 'wrong man'".
The thing is, there was no "right man". They targeted exactly who they meant to, and only after outrage did they stop and think that, hey, maybe this isn't right. Maybe it's criminal. The Erie County Sheriffs, even the bleeding County Clerk, who's responsibility these pistol permits fall under, say "There is no other man. It seems the NYSP are trying to cover their tracks."
This state has reached such a level of clusterfuckicity I don't know where to go from here. To recap - law turned millions of citizens into criminals overnight, made criminals of every LEO in the state, raped the Constitution, and with every push back that weakens NYSAFE, to include every single upstate county save one voting against it, Supreme Leader Cuomo gets more and more batshit crazy.
"Forget the extremists! It's simple! No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!" - quote from Supreme Leader Cuomo's address.
How can someone this clueless be allowed to retain office? The 2nd isn't about goddamn deer hunting. It's to allow the American citizen the ability to protect themselves from tyranny. From tyrants, like you.
Quote: FaceUpdate on the madness of the People's Republic:
The SS NY State Police are backtracking so fast some have actually entered their own rear ends. Within hours, the outrage grew to such fervor they recanted everything, returning the Xanex man's guns and saying "the man whom they pestered was the 'wrong man'".
The thing is, there was no "right man". They targeted exactly who they meant to, and only after outrage did they stop and think that, hey, maybe this isn't right. Maybe it's criminal. The Erie County Sheriffs, even the bleeding County Clerk, who's responsibility these pistol permits fall under, say "There is no other man. It seems the NYSP are trying to cover their tracks."
This state has reached such a level of clusterfuckicity I don't know where to go from here. To recap - law turned millions of citizens into criminals overnight, made criminals of every LEO in the state, raped the Constitution, and with every push back that weakens NYSAFE, to include every single upstate county save one voting against it, Supreme Leader Cuomo gets more and more batshit crazy.
"Forget the extremists! It's simple! No one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!" - quote from Supreme Leader Cuomo's address.
How can someone this clueless be allowed to retain office? The 2nd isn't about goddamn deer hunting. It's to allow the American citizen the ability to protect themselves from tyranny. From tyrants, like you.
I am so glad I am out of that state. Not that PA is a bastion of freedom but compared to NY it is great. We can actually get a carry permit here and we have a natural gas boom whe ny takes away guns and prefers to freeze in the dark.
You should consider relocating.
Quote: treetopbuddyas the days warm so will the number of shootings.....
As long as they don't use a gun to kill you it's ok isn't it? If they use the courts and the law makers to practically make everything legal starting with indentured slavery(so sorry, student loans I mean), why can't we keep the guns and get rid of the banks and corporations as we know it? I think they are the biggest threat to life and liberty in the entire world. They both can't exist without the government's approval and have been doing it dry for too long. Funny money and laws made to keep them both in business when they should probably go extinct while everyone else is made into a criminal. Keep the guns and lets make 2+2=4 again and life is good.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: s2dbakerSo we've established through lack of any evidence that there is no voter fraud of any significance (except in Reactionaryland where everything is a liberal conspiracy that the liberals never seem to be away of) and therefor no need for disruptive and targeted voter disenfranchisement laws. I think we should get back on topic as well. This story doesn't tell us how old the future son-in-law is but if I were that lady, I'd reconsider marrying the schmuck's father.
Actually what we have established is voter fraud is a problem and everyone has an ID or can get one so there is no reason not to require it at the polls. But back to your topic, we need to ban lawn mowers!
Yeah, if guns only tore off legs we probably wouldn't ban them. At least the girl lived. Unlike this child. Sorry, s2dbaker.
In Michigan, home of the car, more people die from guns then from vehicle deaths, or from voter fraud.
Quote: boymimbo
In Michigan, home of the car, more people die from guns then from vehicle deaths, or from voter fraud.
Implying gun suicides would not happen at all if the gun was removed from the equation.
Quote: boymimboSuccess from gun related suicide attempts 95% - other forms of suicide attempts - 5%.
So?
This is a bad solution looking for a non-existing problem.Quote: AZDuffmanIt is if the registration was faked.
Just bring your ID. What's the big deal?
(MOD NOTE: Voter debate split and moved here. Please continue voter ID thread there as opposed to in the gun debate)
