Armed men with masks and tactical vests walk into a police station. Anyone here not think the police were perfectly justified in their reaction?
Hell, even Michigan Open Carry agrees that was doing it wrong.
It sounds like these guys were prepared to stop the Russkies and any Muslims slipping in from Canada:
Why not? Libtard police chief doesn’t like the 47-round rifle magazine? Why does he hate America?
Not just a Libtard; look his last name. What sort of real American goes by Haddad?
I was interested in the response by the spokesperson for Michigan Open Carry:
But isn’t this a slippery slope for the gun rights folks?
After all, the guns were legal, and as far as i know, there’s no law prohibiting the wearing of masks, dark glasses, or body armor. Also, as far as i know, there’s no law prohibiting a person from walking into a police station. If i’m wrong about this stuff, i’m happy to be corrected. But if i’m not, then why are these guys different from any other open-carry advocates?
In describing their outfits, MOC says that this sort of thing “instills a very specific image that cannot be ignored.” I wonder if they realize or care that, for many Americans, the sight of a person on the street or in a mall or in a restaurant, with nothing more than a handgun on his hip, also “instills a very specific image that cannot be ignored.” If they believe that anti-gun folks are unreasonable for not wanting to see guns all over the place, why aren’t they unreasonable for not wanting to see guns and body armor?
After all, guns are for protection, right? And if a gun helps to make you safe in a dangerous world, wouldn’t body armor make you even more safe? Police departments certainly seem to think so.
Let Damuri Ajashi explain hoplophobia and exposure therapy to you. He does it *so *well. :rolleyes:
Another story for the ‘Guns are very wonderful’ thread. Where would we all be without our precious God-given Second Amendment?
A ho in Houston ran a yellow light, apparently colliding with a car that was running the red light perpendicular. Rather than wasting the taxpayers’ dime on a police investigation, a 3rd car dispensed immediate justice, shooting at and killing 8-year-old De’Maree Adkins.
The mother may have learned her lesson and will stop running yellow lights in future; thus the shooter showed admirable discretion and mercy by killing only the child rather than both mother and child. (Killing only the mother would have been imprudent: De’Maree, who’d probably inherited the running-yellow-light gene, was too young to learn a lesson and would have grown up to run a yellow light of its own.)
What the fucking fuck are they doing down there in Texas? My nieces live in Sugarland, and the youngest, my goddaughter just got her first car a month ago. Fuck.
This story from Iowa really belongs in the ‘Guns are so very wonderful’ thread. 76-year old husband was understandably unhappy that his 62-year old wife didn’t want to have sex with him — he claims the marriage was never consummated. A warning shot seemed like just the right thing, no? Better than resorting to actual fisticuffs.
The bullet traveled in an unexpected direction and hit wife in hip and butt. But that’s not hubby’s fault — he was aiming for the mattress. Anyway, she’s still alive and may think twice about saying No to her wifely duty next time.
Will Lumpy show up to complain about this post? Don’t just be grumpy, Lumpy — explain the wonderful nature of guns to us. Is America a better place because the libtards were unable to grab this hubby’s gun?
No Septicemias, I’m going to complain about you.
Please feel free to do so!
But answer the question:
Yes it is actually, if by “grab this hubby’s gun” you mean forbid people to own guns just in case of what they might do. Because the people who legitimately needed a gun to deter or defend against violence had them.
So, should have taken hubby’s gun, and given it to his wife? She had far more need to deter or defend against violence.
I’d be down for that.
Serious question at this point.
Are you down with taking hubby’s gun now?
Seventy six year old with a raging hardon, a young-but-frigid bride, an attitude (as per booking photo), and a gun.
I’m disappointed by the relatively bland ending.
Of course; that’s perfectly in accordance with due process of law: punishing people for what they do, not what they might do.
Not that it changes anything, but she’s 62.
Right. And he’s 76, which in comparison makes her “young”.
Samuel Clemens was born in the town of Florida, Missouri, but I kind of think the town of Lehigh Acres, Florida is not in Iowa. The rules of sanity, reason and decorum are wildly different in Florida compared to most of the rest of the universe.
Oops! My error. If it happened in Florida then just move along folks; nothing to see here.
Why is it that people think that gun violence by one person justifies banning guns across society?
Show me a study that tells us how many incidents of gun violence are committed by lawful gun owners. Then compare that to how many similar acts of violence would occur without the presence of guns. Take the difference if any and compare that to the incidents of violence avoided because of private ownership of guns. ISTM that THAT is the right way to weigh the impact of guns in our society.
In the end that may not end up changing anyone’s minds but at least we can then conclude that people just want their guns and they are willing to bear the cost of guns in our society for other reasons (that are frankly a bit more difficult to defend in a functional democracy) or they just want to get rid of guns and they want to get rid of guns for other reasons that probably boil down to perceived safety and peace of mind over actual safety.
Agree with you but two things: “lawful gun owners” gets mocked by the antis because they always say “everyone was a lawful gun owner until they shot someone”. A clumsier but more accurate phrase might be “non-career criminals”. Second, because it’s hard to measure what didn’t happen, estimates of defensive gun use vary widely, with the antis dismissing most reports as apocryphal or existing only in the gun owner’s head. As you said, that may not end up changing anyone’s minds.
I’m not sure who you’re talking about, but it isn’t me. I just asked Lumpy a rhetorical question. My own personal opinion is that, at his point, we should petition government to give guns to everyone free of charge. Presumably this would increase gun deaths, but would also speed up beneficial Darwinian selection.
To get a driver’s license, one must demonstrate some behind-the-wheel competence. I don’t know about U.S.A. but where I live a doctor’s note is also required, certifying that the driving applicant is not insane. Some might advocate that a gunner’s license be required for reasons similar to the driver’s license. (I don’t know what the criteria should be, or whether the Floridan hubby would be excluded — gun control is not a topic which interests me.)