Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

As I understand it, Roof got the gun as a gift from his father- illegally, since Roof was awaiting trial on felony drug charges. So yes they’re probably going to throw the book at Dad. But registration, storage and theft report laws would all have been irrelevant.

ETA: Gray Ghost, as a gun carrier I agree with you. I was playing devil’s advocate by pointing out that little in the way of “keeping guns out of the hands” would have made much of a difference, short of banning the possession of handguns.

Pussification? Now that’s funny. The pussy is the frail bitch who grabs his gun every time he gets scared. Do you wet your little girl panties too?

How many people in these threads are advocating banning guns, anyway? Everyone knows that we’re stuck with the ill-considered second amendment, probably forever. The challenge has always been keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. But every time anyone even points out that there is a problem, the gun lovers flip their shit with the usual garbage about the guvmint and seizures and blah blah fucking blah. Then they start babbling lies about how Democraps want just the criminals to have guns. I have no idea how to put an end to all the shootings, but if there is a solution, I know who won’t be a part of it.

BTW, if stroking it gets you off, you should try shoving it up your ass and pulling the trigger. You’ll come so hard.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a sane, calm and reasonable responsible gun owner. Finally, someone with whom we can open a dialogue without all those nasty stereotypes getting in the way. :rolleyes:

Cite? I’ve admittedly been out of the loop on this one, but Wikipedia cites a CNN articlethat says Roof bought the gun himself at a gun store using birthday money. This has supplanted the narrative that Roof’s dad bought him the gun.

I’m also not seeing anything about felony drug charges; again according to wiki, he had 2 prior arrests, one for drug possession (in March) and one shortly thereafter for trespassing, but I doubt his first arrest resulted in a felony charge since it was his first offense and a small amount.

In short, it seems like he was legally allowed to purchase a gun and then did so. I may have missed something, though.

But ultimately this just means you’re even more right; nothing short of a total ban would have prevented this. Even mandatory licensing and registration, which I support, wouldn’t have helped.

Is this a threat? Are you going to bring Miller Light or something?

I agree with this sentiment. I believe ending the media sensationization of these mass shooting would go further to ending them then more ineffective legislation. These crazies know they will have their forum in the media coverage.

Gov. Rick Perry said that the Charleston shooting was an accident.

Not surprisingly, after leaving the interview he said he misspoke. Funny how that happens…

I’m always sane, calm, and reasonable regarding firearms. My internetting doesn’t represent how I handle firearms. I just like getting a rise out of you guys. It’s fun, the TV has been out. Storms I suppose. Seriously, I’m always open to rational dialogue. Thanks for noticing though. Kisses!

Bud Light. Come on man, nobody drinks Miller Light. :wink:

I wasn’t completely sure if you were a mere troll after this:

But Bud Light? That seals the deal.

It is not “a second Prohibition in terms of effectiveness” in Britain or Australia – why would it be so here? Are our LEOs so inferior to theirs? To say it has anything to do with “American gun culture” is to say Prohibition can be effective but only in countries where people don’t drink.

Realistically I can’t see how a handgun ban could take place without a revolutionary change in American society. There’s the Second Amendment which would require another amendment to overturn; there’s Heller which specifically mentioned handguns as the peoples’ preferred instrument of self-defense; there are the millions of Americans who want guns and are politically mobilized to keep them. But for the sake of argument let’s say it happens:

The hardcore paranoid gun proponents have been planning for decades what they would do if the evil ZOG :rolleyes: banned guns. Assuming a handgun ban was on the horizon, millions of handguns would disappear in what gun owners call “a tragic boating accident”. Meanwhile there are I-don’t-know-how-many thousands of gunsmiths and hobbyists who already own the machine tools necessary to make a complete gun and how-to plans available on the web for making guns with varying degrees of sophistication; and it will only get easier as 3D printing advances. It is to be presumed that an entire illegal industry of gun production would develop- it’s already the case in many countries. To say nothing of guns joining narcotics as a profitable item to smuggle in from sources abroad. Assuming that a ban could come to pass at all, there would probably still be anywhere from 10%- 30% of the population that didn’t want it and wouldn’t cooperate with it. It wouldn’t be a handful of scattered criminals breaking the law, it would be an entire underground, which is another matter entirely.

I thought that was pretty much the case.

Well, if that post is to be followed then he is already being hanged.

Rolling his book into a tube, sticking it up his rear and lighting it on fire just before he dances might be seen as cruel or unusual.

What the fuck? Do we have a three day waiting period before we can post about this gun fuckery?

Yeah, yeah, flaming liberal website, but watch the video of the police chief. Gotta confer with the city attorneys before we arrest them good ole boys.

And to be fair, I’ll note that even pro-gun folks think these guys are dumb-asses.

It’s not good guy with a gun vs bad guy with a gun. It’s dipshits with guns.

YES. And of course the dipshits all think they’re “good guys with guns”.

So how does that make the word any less valid. This is stupid. You are objecting to a word that accurately describes attitudes towards guns just as well as homophobia describes attitudes towards homosexuality. The fact that it isn’t used as frequently as homophobia is a stupid way of trying to distinguish between “real words” and words that have no meaning beyond insulting people who have an unreasonable fear of guns.

Or a pick up truck? Or a couple of backpacks full of pressure cooker bombs? None of these things require a background check, guns do.

Yes, he believes that people who own guns are all a little bit crazy to begin with and anyone who defends the right to keep and bear arms must be some sort of psycho killer just waiting for the right trigger words to go on a rampage. He knows this because he can read our minds and knows what we believe “deep down inside”:rolleyes:

I have found this to be a common attitude among hoplophobes. They don’t think any of the gun owners that they personally know are like this but the ones they don’t know are like this. Its kinda of like Japanese tourists with black people. They aren’t afraid of the ones they get to know but the rest of them are rapists and murderers.

Face it-Nobody outside of your small circle has heard of your made-up word, no one outside of your small circle is ever going to use your made-up word, and those few of us that don’t use it but are subjected to it recognize it for what it actually is-a clumsy insult.