Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[James Caruthers]

the only problem I have with guys walking around with guns is that no, they are not all immensely capable individuals:

http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/man ... r/24504004

Shoots himself and a bystander by accident.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/ ... ome-depot/

Authorities say a Livingston County man accidentally shot himself while shopping at a home improvement store with the gun he was legally carrying.

The police in big cities have a problem with it too. That's why some cities have special laws to curtail open carry in city centers. Even if you are within your legal rights, you may still be taken to the station and sweated until you can prove you know those rights and are behaving responsibly.

[decius]

Large dogs have the potential to attack and kill people. Therefore, we should ban people from owning large dogs. Sure, I am a responsible dog owner and my dog has never attacked anyone, but why should the majority of people's responsible behaviors make up for the actions of a minority of gang members and psychos who train their big dogs to kill? We should just ban all big dogs. Potential danger is the same as real danger.

Who are you going to believe: People who cite extremely rare violent crimes in support of blanket bans, or your lying eyes?

http://www.northjersey.com/news/dog-att ... s-1.732829

Ban all large dogs. Large dog culture is disgusting, all you large dog owners who feed your dog crazy pills and train it to murder kids. Any person who owns a large dog is threatening my life just by having one, because look at this news article.

As a large-dog owner, if large dogs were the cause of a social problem of epidemic proportions I would certainly put the welfare of the community ahead of my passion for canines.

But an individualist wouldn't. And thereby lies the problem with Murka.

[welch]

Now, let 200-300 brothers/mexicans/middle-eastern looking fuckers show up armed like that, and watch the different response from the nice conservative white folks and the local PD.

That thick layer of hypocrisy and double standards is another great point. But I guess you've never been to the States, so we can dismiss it.

Given that i grew up in miami and live in FL, some folks would say that is a correct statement.

[katamari Damassi]

Your kids are more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident. Often with the juxtaposition of alcohol or texting.

You may extrapolate public policy from that as you will.

And we attempt to mitigate that through licensing, laws, etc...
I'm not for banning guns. I would just like some serious regulation, registration and tracking.

Like background checks? Sounds like a good idea. I support background checks. Let me just see now... Do we do background checks in the US... Hmmm... Yes we do.

Or maybe limiting what types of shops are allowed to sell what types of guns? Sounds good. Do we do that in Muricaland.... Hmm... Turns out we do that as well.

Or maybe banning most types of weapons in cities with high crime rates? Do we do that in Murica.... Yes, yes we do that as well.

Mandatory training and safety courses would probably be a good idea.

Let's see, do we require private dealers such as at gun shows to do background checks? Hmm... No we don't.

Can a criminal in a city with strict gun control laws like Washington, DC, take the metro to Virginia where they practically sell guns out of vending machines and buy a gun there? Yes they can.

There are all sorts of problems enacting and enforcing comprehensive gun laws thanks to the NRA and its teatard minions who think they're going to have to shoot down drones when Obama makes the US a sultanate.

[real horrorshow]

[youtube]qxsQ7jJJcEA[/youtube]

The European Elections are coming up. So far, through my letterbox, I have received three leaflets:

One from the BNP. Basically, they hate everyone who is foreign and/or not white, not much in the way of policies beyond everything is the fault of 'them'.

One from UKIP. They want a referendum on leaving the EU, but a seat in the European Parliament is the only elected office they've won so they want to hang onto it, and the 'no receipts required' allowances that come with it. They deny being racists, except for the steady stream of their members who get caught being racist, who they then have to make a show of chucking out.

One from an Independent. He is ex-UKIP because he thinks they're too soft on Europe i.e he doesn't want to have a referendum, he just wants to leave the EU.

There's plenty wrong with the EU, it needs reform. However, I'm not holding my breath for any leaflets from anyone who doesn't just want to blame Johnny Foreigner for everything. Because I'm not going to vote.

[free thoughtpolice]

I live out in the woods and have had bears 2 feet from my window, eating clover. The lazy little lady had to *sit down* to eat! When bears come into the yard I run out with pots and pans and that usually scares the shit out of them. My cherry tree is pretty much dead because of fatasses climbing up to the top and then falling down because they are frightened of a patio door opening. I have also had a small herd of elk walking around my house in the middle of winter. I had one eating the grass right outside my living room window. They are so heavy that the entire house *shook* from their presence. I can only imagine what it must be like to be next to a herd of bigass ungulates.

Never had a cougar up here, though, interestingly enough, cougars have been spotted downtown in the suburbs. In fact, the suburbs get more bears and cougars than I do out here in bumfuck nowhere. It's because I don't have anything, other than clover and grass, that will attract wild animals. They all flock downtown to raid the garbage cans. My stupid neighbours haven't learned a thing, however, and they still keep their garbage outside + BBQ's on the deck. Smart bitches! That way you will keep getting bears, year after year.

BBQs on the front deck are a great way of getting bears to hang around the house.
re. Elk: I took a videographer out to get some footage of elk once. We drove around prime elk habitat for most of the day, he got some good bear footage but no elk. Later in the afternoon we drove into the local village and I had to stop the vehicle to let a small herd of elk cross the road in front of us as they came out of the parking lot of the local bar.
A friend took a great photo of a 1000 lb bull Roosevelt Elk with a bra and panties hanging off his antlers. He had just come through someone's yard and apparently snagged them off the clothesline.

[Guest]

Because the impact of a social problem can be evaluated only through reactions of those in the immediate vicinity.
And since they do not appear in the picture, they must be assumed at ease.

That's some stunning piece of logic, right there.

Considering how it's a response to your baseless argument against open carry in a culture you're entirely ignorant of, I'd say it's as solid as a counterpoint could possibly get.

[James Caruthers]

Let's see, do we require private dealers such as at gun shows to do background checks? Hmm... No we don't.

Can a criminal in a city with strict gun control laws like Washington, DC, take the metro to Virginia where they practically sell guns out of vending machines and buy a gun there? Yes they can.

There are all sorts of problems enacting and enforcing comprehensive gun laws thanks to the NRA and its teatard minions who think they're going to have to shoot down drones when Obama makes the US a sultanate.

I support background checks at gun shows. Of course any criminal (felon) who tries to buy a gun is already breaking the law.

I doubt you support the drone program, so that snipe at conservatives seems kind of pointless. If shooting down drones costs the government money and makes them rethink their drone program in the US, I would support doing so. I don't think it will make a difference though.

[welch]

Right, because you wankers would totally enjoying dining out in this distinguished company.

This is normalcy only to a delusional mind.

http://thefirearmreport.com/wp-content/ ... 499177.jpg

You need to drop the paranoia. This is NOT an everyday happening, you fucking idiot. And the cops, even knowing his Open Carry rights, would be very likely to ask this guy to place his weapon in his car or at least remove any magazine, which he should do anyway. His gun is probably unloaded, because that is what a responsible adult would do when transporting or carrying a firearm, but if it is not, I am sure the safety is on and there is no round in the chamber.

These images show up on the internet because they are abnormal. In the city, most responsible gun owners store their guns in their homes or their vehicle, locked of course. You simply do not know shit and are trolling. It's a shame some people think your points are genuine.

Actually, no, it's not rare anymore. It used to be, but with the constant news feed of 2nd amendment idiocy, it is in fact becoming commonplace as tea party wankers do it to troll cops. They walk around with all sorts of fun weapons in the open, daring cops to do shit about it. Like that charming asshole a few days ago who walked around a little league game saying "yeah, i'm carrying a gun, and there isn't anything you can do about it."

Way to fucking go wanker. Yeah, open carry is allowed, but when you have a gun around kids and you're walking up to strangers and telling them this, uninvited, they are going to in fact freak the fuck out, and I understand why.

Also, minor point, you are not "sure" about the status of that gun. You are "assuming" it is in a safe status. but no, you're not "sure".

[decius]

Considering how it's a response to your baseless argument against open carry in a culture you're entirely ignorant of, I'd say it's as solid as a counterpoint could possibly get.

Please, illustrate the benefits that open carry brings to your enlightened culture, other than some smug satisfaction to a group of manchildren suffering from stunted intellectual development.

[real horrorshow]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Automatic or semi?

I find the prospect of a bear with an automatic almost as scary as the prospect of a bear with a semi.

Category error.

The proper weapon for hunting Bears is an AMRAAM.

Since the AA in AMRAAM standa for air-to-air, these would be flying bears?

[Clarence]

Right, because you wankers would totally enjoying dining out in this distinguished company.

This is normalcy only to a delusional mind.

http://thefirearmreport.com/wp-content/ ... 499177.jpg

Don't be silly. Those are honkies, of course it's okay.

Now, let 200-300 brothers/mexicans/middle-eastern looking fuckers show up armed like that, and watch the different response from the nice conservative white folks and the local PD.

How fucking disingenuous.
Rate and type of firearms ownership varies among races in the US.
Your normal black street 'homie' is more likely to be carrying a handgun or shotgun.
Most hispanic illegals aren't very 'pro gun' so the one you see with a rifle is likely working for a cartel or a smuggling operation.

You might wanna compare the amount of GUN CRIME PER CAPITA between the white people you seem to despise -mostly in rural or suburban areas - with that of your typical inner-city black or brown 'gang bang' culture.

I should know. I LIVE in a 'vibrant' place.

By the way here's the stats of gun homicides in Baltimore:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-0 ... gun-crimes

Gosh dang o'mighty I wonder what group is VASTLY OVER REPRESENTED in terms of their share of the population?

[welch]

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Automatic or semi?

I find the prospect of a bear with an automatic almost as scary as the prospect of a bear with a semi.

Category error.

The proper weapon for hunting Bears is an AMRAAM.

Since the AA in AMRAAM standa for air-to-air, these would be flying bears?

You don't use radar guided weapons against organics. For that, you need heat-seeking or visually guided weaponry. Something from the AIM-9 series would be more appropriate.

Or just carpet bomb the fucker.

[KiwiInOz]

...

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

I didn't realise that you could still buy ice cream in Mogadishu.

[real horrorshow]

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

Oh no a condition four weapon EVERYBODY PANIC

Hey, if a bunch of peccaries come after his mate's ice cream he's ready.

[real horrorshow]

decius, why don't you just admit you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's obvious you don't know the slightest bit about the subject you're claiming some kind of knowledge on and you're doing so in the face of ex-military "gun nuts" who know this subject 1,000 times better than you.

That's truly some humbling piece of wisdom. I suppose that is why all armed forces involved in urban warfare carry shotguns around.

Dunno about all of them, but the US ground forces have a rather nice selection of shotguns to work with. one advantage is that buckshot tends to not have the "what's behind the target and the wall behind the target" worry of rifles, big handguns and assault rifles.

Too shy to say "over penetration"?

[Guest]

Please, illustrate the benefits that open carry brings to your enlightened culture, other than some smug satisfaction to a group of manchildren suffering from stunted intellectual development.

And here folks we have a textbook example of the burden-of-proof fallacy, where decius -- who made the original claim about how dangerous and insane open carry is -- is now trying to throw said burden onto his critics.

Your premises: checked
Intellectual checkmate: achieved
My smug satisfaction status: oh yes indeedy

[welch]

Right, because you wankers would totally enjoying dining out in this distinguished company.

This is normalcy only to a delusional mind.

http://thefirearmreport.com/wp-content/ ... 499177.jpg

Don't be silly. Those are honkies, of course it's okay.

Now, let 200-300 brothers/mexicans/middle-eastern looking fuckers show up armed like that, and watch the different response from the nice conservative white folks and the local PD.

How fucking disingenuous.
Rate and type of firearms ownership varies among races in the US.
Your normal black street 'homie' is more likely to be carrying a handgun or shotgun.
Most hispanic illegals aren't very 'pro gun' so the one you see with a rifle is likely working for a cartel or a smuggling operation.

You might wanna compare the amount of GUN CRIME PER CAPITA between the white people you seem to despise -mostly in rural or suburban areas - with that of your typical inner-city black or brown 'gang bang' culture.

I should know. I LIVE in a 'vibrant' place.

By the way here's the stats of gun homicides in Baltimore:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-0 ... gun-crimes

Gosh dang o'mighty I wonder what group is VASTLY OVER REPRESENTED in terms of their share of the population?

Oh bless your heart. You completely ignored what I said and then attempted to refute something I didn't say.

Again, because you are rather simple in the head, and prone to not listening:

Let 200-300 non-honkies, i.e. black people, mooslim-lookin' fuckers, mexicans show up in the SAME PUBLIC PLACE, at the SAME TIME, all of them packing AR-15s and similar, carried out in the open with signs daring the cops to do fuck all about it, and the reaction from the local whiteys and the local LE will be vastly, vastly different.

If you want an actual example of "privilege", this is a great one. As a group a bunch of white people with guns, even when they are loaded and the people carrying them are openly threatening to shoot anyone who is a representative of Federal Law Enforcement, i.e. The Current Shit In Nevada, are going to be handled with a lot more patience and understanding and care than if those same numbers with the same gear are a bunch of black panthers or similar threatening to bust a cap in the first honkie pig who fucks with them.

THAT is an actual working example of privilege, because anyone with a brain knows if that fuckstick in Nevada was not lily fucking white along with all his friends, that shit would have gone down VERY differently.

[katamari Damassi]

I support background checks at gun shows. Of course any criminal (felon) who tries to buy a gun is already breaking the law.

I doubt you support the drone program, so that snipe at conservatives seems kind of pointless. If shooting down drones costs the government money and makes them rethink their drone program in the US, I would support doing so. I don't think it will make a difference though.

Honestly I don't have a problem with drones when used abroad. They keep soldiers out of harms way and the collateral damage is much less than conventional bombing.

[katamari Damassi]

:lol:

...

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

I didn't realise that you could still buy ice cream in Mogadishu.

:lol:

[James Caruthers]

Ms Elyse MoFo Andery @dELYSEious · Apr 29

The people who showed the most support for me today is a man I met a few weeks ago & @justinvacula. I can't even tell you how dirty that is.

[katamari Damassi]

Ms Elyse MoFo Andery @dELYSEious · Apr 29

The people who showed the most support for me today is a man I met a few weeks ago & @justinvacula. I can't even tell you how dirty that is.

I thought Elyse UndertheVolcano Anders liked getting dirty.

[real horrorshow]

Swoonsocket - another sex advice call-in show with the JizzMaster, a smooth Black-voiced operator who leaves ribbons of spunk wherever he goes. Rebecca is his mom.
....

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN209.mp3

Holy fuck. Who wrote that "Swoonsocket" bit... OGVORBIS?!


The black dude has chicken wings just laying around his home,
and he pronounces Margerine like “Margereen”... (one of those wacky “black” names, get-it?!!)

[snip]

Then at about 14 minutes... Rebecca Watson as “Missus Althea Jackson” aka ““HotMamaMilk656@gmail.com” ...who breast feeds her adult son...

Are any of the purveyors of this apparent catalogue of racist crap actually black? Maybe someone needs to (wait for it)... check her privilege.

[welch]

Ms Elyse MoFo Andery @dELYSEious · Apr 29

The people who showed the most support for me today is a man I met a few weeks ago & @justinvacula. I can't even tell you how dirty that is.

That may be the most evil thing Justin has ever done: being kind to someone who shat on him.

Well-played Sir 'Stache. Well-played.

[decius]

And here folks we have a textbook example of the burden-of-proof fallacy, where decius -- who made the original claim about how dangerous and insane open carry is -- is now trying to throw said burden onto his critics.

Your premises: checked
Intellectual checkmate: achieved
My smug satisfaction status: oh yes indeedy

I did list a couple of reasons, apparent to anyone who wasn't raised in Somalia or Georgia, why it's insane.

Now tell me your pros.

[James Caruthers]

I support background checks at gun shows. Of course any criminal (felon) who tries to buy a gun is already breaking the law.

I doubt you support the drone program, so that snipe at conservatives seems kind of pointless. If shooting down drones costs the government money and makes them rethink their drone program in the US, I would support doing so. I don't think it will make a difference though.

Honestly I don't have a problem with drones when used abroad. They keep soldiers out of harms way and the collateral damage is much less than conventional bombing.

I have a problem with how drones are being used, both at home and abroad. I don't think any pitters are going to exactly line up to explain to me why double-taps on first responders is an awesome strategy.

I agree gun shows need more regulation. If I want to buy a gun from my dad (private seller,) I don't think I should need a background check for that. It would be trivial for the police to trace a gun registered to my dad to me. But when you take so many private sellers and put them all in one place and advertize GET YOUR GUN HERE WITH NO PAPERWORK, more oversight is needed.

[Sarlug]

If you haven't had a good hard cringe in a while, here's something for you - the comedy stylings of Rebecca Watson. She and her pals Adam, Brian Thompson, and Carrie Poppy do improv sketches and the results are weird and nasty. A couple of samples:

Playa Report - PUA call-in show, guest starring Jamie Kilstein. Non-stop riffs on conning, raping, beating, and killing women (and little girls), because just saying that stuff out loud is funny:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN004.mp3

Swoonsocket - another sex advice call-in show with the JizzMaster, a smooth Black-voiced operator who leaves ribbons of spunk wherever he goes. Rebecca is his mom. She's been fucking him since childhood and still fortifies him with fresh servings of mother's milk:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN209.mp3

Her Playa Report announcement on Reddit SRS:

http://imgur.com/lEqxxAs.png

"Progressive angry comedian".

Three words that really don't belong together.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Despite the fact that the resident semiotician (and robotic feline deity) has indicated that the English language doesnt always work in the manner you describe. As an attorney, I will point out that such constructions as a conditional are annoyingly common in older documents. Moreover, even when not explicitly conditional, it is common in legal interpretation to eliminate a clause as moot if its explanatory rational no longer applies. IOW, we will read something as conditional even if it isnt.

So youre welcome to make an argument why the current interpretation of the 2A is incorrect, but "because of how the English language works" only works if you ignore parts of how the English language works, parts that are particularly relevant to how the English language is used in legal documents at the time the document you are discussing was created.

I'm open to evidence that the imperative clause in analogous mid-to-late 18th-century laws were intended to apply only if certain conditions in the other clause were met. Given how English grammar works, however, the onus is not on me to provide evidence to the contrary. I'd welcome elaboration on the "parts of how the English language works" that I've ignored.

One of ROBOKiTTY's examples was something like "Weather permitting, we'll go out tomorrow." The construction is similar on the surface, but "weather permitting" is a fundamentally different kind of clause than "X being the case" (that was ROBOKiTTY's second example, IIRC, and it's what we see in the Second Amendment). The former is semantically a future conditional that can be rewritten "If the weather permits," whereas the latter is a declarative statement that can be rewritten "Because X is true."

A cause-and-effect relationship between clauses is not the same thing as a conditional relationship between them. "X being the case" declares that X is true and that what follows is a consequence of X; it does not place limitations on what follows.

I don't doubt that there's plenty of legal precedent for ignoring the distinction between cause-and-effect relationships between clauses and conditional ones. But the burden of proof here is squarely on those who would argue that late 18th-century Americans themselves saw no such distinction. Here (PDF) is a paper whose author seems to think it's enough to establish that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, as if that weren't patently obvious.

Here (PDF) is a much better paper that likewise makes the obvious point that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, again skirting the distinction between that and a conditional relationship. (Incidentally, the most interesting part of that paper is the middle section that discusses what "bear arms" meant back then; it's worth reading, although they basically gloss over the word "keep.")

I'm waiting for him to say he actually knows what the writer of that amendment meant, and how that overrides SCOTUS. Because reasons.

Straw man. I already agreed with you that SCOTUS determines constitutionality. What SCOTUS doesn't determine, however, is how English grammar works.

I don't need to know "what the writer of that amendment meant" to correctly parse a grammatically unambiguous sentence. Some sentences are grammatically ambiguous. The Second Amendment isn't.

[Pitchguest]

I like Obama, but he's a milquetoast president. The Bushes were terrible because they were underhanded and greedy. They wanted something, they took it. Fuck due process. They wanted to lock people up, they did it. Fuck hebeas corpus. The problem with Obama is, after he became president, he did fuck all to revert these fuckups. I hoped he wouldn't be, but he is an absolute doormat. If only he took charge for once, then maybe he'd able to get things done. I don't mean any gung-ho bullshit, I mean him being firm but fair. Set some boundaries.

The way he handled the Crimean incident was, in a word, embarassing. Yes, freeze assets, yes, ban officials; all well and good, but then what? That's appetizer, before you get to the *meat.* But he didn't. Putin basically said he didn't give a shit and the reply, most terse, was to shut him out of the G8. Oooh. But the coup de grâce came when he later said, about the situation occuring in Crimea, and I quote, "I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."

:shock:

:|

http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... cepalm.gif

[welch]

Despite the fact that the resident semiotician (and robotic feline deity) has indicated that the English language doesnt always work in the manner you describe. As an attorney, I will point out that such constructions as a conditional are annoyingly common in older documents. Moreover, even when not explicitly conditional, it is common in legal interpretation to eliminate a clause as moot if its explanatory rational no longer applies. IOW, we will read something as conditional even if it isnt.

So youre welcome to make an argument why the current interpretation of the 2A is incorrect, but "because of how the English language works" only works if you ignore parts of how the English language works, parts that are particularly relevant to how the English language is used in legal documents at the time the document you are discussing was created.

I'm open to evidence that the imperative clause in analogous mid-to-late 18th-century laws were intended to apply only if certain conditions in the other clause were met. Given how English grammar works, however, the onus is not on me to provide evidence to the contrary. I'd welcome elaboration on the "parts of how the English language works" that I've ignored.

One of ROBOKiTTY's examples was something like "Weather permitting, we'll go out tomorrow." The construction is similar on the surface, but "weather permitting" is a fundamentally different kind of clause than "X being the case" (that was ROBOKiTTY's second example, IIRC, and it's what we see in the Second Amendment). The former is semantically a future conditional that can be rewritten "If the weather permits," whereas the latter is a declarative statement that can be rewritten "Because X is true."

A cause-and-effect relationship between clauses is not the same thing as a conditional relationship between them. "X being the case" declares that X is true and that what follows is a consequence of X; it does not place limitations on what follows.

I don't doubt that there's plenty of legal precedent for ignoring the distinction between cause-and-effect relationships between clauses and conditional ones. But the burden of proof here is squarely on those who would argue that late 18th-century Americans themselves saw no such distinction. Here (PDF) is a paper whose author seems to think it's enough to establish that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, as if that weren't patently obvious.

Here (PDF) is a much better paper that likewise makes the obvious point that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, again skirting the distinction between that and a conditional relationship. (Incidentally, the most interesting part of that paper is the middle section that discusses what "bear arms" meant back then; it's worth reading, although they basically gloss over the word "keep.")

I'm waiting for him to say he actually knows what the writer of that amendment meant, and how that overrides SCOTUS. Because reasons.

Straw man. I already agreed with you that SCOTUS determines constitutionality. What SCOTUS doesn't determine, however, is how English grammar works.

I don't need to know "what the writer of that amendment meant" to correctly parse a grammatically unambiguous sentence. Some sentences are grammatically ambiguous. The Second Amendment isn't.

and of course, your interpretation is the only correct one.

[JacquesCuze]

Hey, if a bunch of peccaries come after his mate's ice cream he's ready.

If you're ever in the area, I highly recommend visiting The Sonoran Desert Museum, https://www.desertmuseum.org/, which is more of a zoo really. And yes, while I've been there, I have seen wild javelina run by. Which seemed cute at the time, but then when you realize they can be quite dangerous, especially as they grow larger.

I'm not saying anyone should shoot them, I am mostly pimping the Sonoran Desert Museum. It's a wonderful place and very unique zoo.

Javelina, bobcat, and even mountain lion are seen around Phoenix and Tucson, mostly around the edges. Outside the Sonoran Desert museum, I've only encountered javelina, about three or four but very large, and I was protected by something far deadlier to javelina than a mere AK-47. A ton or so of it, and a hundred horsepower.

[USMC 0311]

The denialists are refuted by history.

This, without assault rifles in the hands of the criminals, could have never happened the way it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Those were illegaly modified into full automatic. They're already laws prohibiting that.

Try again fucktard!

[Pogsurf]

I was surprised to see the Great SKy KiTTy employ the argument from authority fallacy, and it challenged my faith in omniscient feline automated deities. I lost faith. I despaired. I was angry. Then slowly my faith grew again and I realized that I had been humbled by a greater authority, and it was my time to learn.

Mew? I don't think I argued from authority. I only pointed out that Stollznow has a PhD and I don't, and so I was loathe to criticize her knowledge of the field's history from a second-hand account.

True enough, I did buy it on eBay.

[John Greg]

C'mon, move this fuckin' gun nuts shit to it's own forum. I mean really!

Go wave your mighty happyhappy open-carry white American dicks somewhere else, please.

:hand:

[KiwiInOz]

Right, because you wankers would totally enjoying dining out in this distinguished company.

This is normalcy only to a delusional mind.

http://thefirearmreport.com/wp-content/ ... 499177.jpg

If all that fat and sugar don't kill you ...

Hey, I come from a country that doesn't have snakes (and that told the US Govt to piss off with undeclared nukes in our harbours). Seeing someone walking around like that would give me the willies. In fact, the first time I saw cops with guns was in Australia, and it was freaky. And let's not even ask about the state of my bladder when I saw half a dozen police at Changi airport running in formation holding their machine guns at the ready (although they were probably running for burgers at the end of their shift).

[Clarence]

Oh bless your heart. You completely ignored what I said and then attempted to refute something I didn't say.

Again, because you are rather simple in the head, and prone to not listening:

Let 200-300 non-honkies, i.e. black people, mooslim-lookin' fuckers, mexicans show up in the SAME PUBLIC PLACE, at the SAME TIME, all of them packing AR-15s and similar, carried out in the open with signs daring the cops to do fuck all about it, and the reaction from the local whiteys and the local LE will be vastly, vastly different.

If you want an actual example of "privilege", this is a great one. As a group a bunch of white people with guns, even when they are loaded and the people carrying them are openly threatening to shoot anyone who is a representative of Federal Law Enforcement, i.e. The Current Shit In Nevada, are going to be handled with a lot more patience and understanding and care than if those same numbers with the same gear are a bunch of black panthers or similar threatening to bust a cap in the first honkie pig who fucks with them.

THAT is an actual working example of privilege, because anyone with a brain knows if that fuckstick in Nevada was not lily fucking white along with all his friends, that shit would have gone down VERY differently.

Actually, dumbass, that would depend on where you live.
I can guarantee you that harassing the tea party and any white 'good old boy' is something that many police in Baltimore like to do. So take your stupid, retarded example of supposedly universal white privilege and shove it.
Meanwhile if you mind your own business in certain areas here, the cops will downright look the other way about drug dealing.

See here's the thing that you don't seem to understand.
The US is divided politically and racially.
Many areas selectively enforce laws depending on the wants and prejudices of their local populations.
In areas where there are not alot of whites, whites stick out. And 'white culture', esp 'white GUN culture' is fucking frowned on.
In areas where the population is a bunch of white 'good old boys' even if they aren't racially prejudiced they are gonna notice if a bunch of vibrants show up in their community, esp armed. And yes, they aren't likely to appreciate the difference in culture.

And lastly, what do you have against profiling? Are you REALLY GOING TO ARGUE that the local VFA association Gun Owners Club (which actually has a few black middle class members) should draw just as much attention from law enforcement as the local Crip Gang Gun Appreciation day? Or would it be RAYCIST and PRIVALEEGE to note that one group is made up of largely law-abiding old men while the other is made up of largely criminal young thugs?
Welcome to the real world, motherfucker.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Despite the fact that the resident semiotician (and robotic feline deity) has indicated that the English language doesnt always work in the manner you describe. As an attorney, I will point out that such constructions as a conditional are annoyingly common in older documents. Moreover, even when not explicitly conditional, it is common in legal interpretation to eliminate a clause as moot if its explanatory rational no longer applies. IOW, we will read something as conditional even if it isnt.

So youre welcome to make an argument why the current interpretation of the 2A is incorrect, but "because of how the English language works" only works if you ignore parts of how the English language works, parts that are particularly relevant to how the English language is used in legal documents at the time the document you are discussing was created.

I'm open to evidence that the imperative clause in analogous mid-to-late 18th-century laws were intended to apply only if certain conditions in the other clause were met. Given how English grammar works, however, the onus is not on me to provide evidence to the contrary. I'd welcome elaboration on the "parts of how the English language works" that I've ignored.

One of ROBOKiTTY's examples was something like "Weather permitting, we'll go out tomorrow." The construction is similar on the surface, but "weather permitting" is a fundamentally different kind of clause than "X being the case" (that was ROBOKiTTY's second example, IIRC, and it's what we see in the Second Amendment). The former is semantically a future conditional that can be rewritten "If the weather permits," whereas the latter is a declarative statement that can be rewritten "Because X is true."

A cause-and-effect relationship between clauses is not the same thing as a conditional relationship between them. "X being the case" declares that X is true and that what follows is a consequence of X; it does not place limitations on what follows.

I don't doubt that there's plenty of legal precedent for ignoring the distinction between cause-and-effect relationships between clauses and conditional ones. But the burden of proof here is squarely on those who would argue that late 18th-century Americans themselves saw no such distinction. Here (PDF) is a paper whose author seems to think it's enough to establish that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, as if that weren't patently obvious.

Here (PDF) is a much better paper that likewise makes the obvious point that the clauses have a cause-and-effect relationship, again skirting the distinction between that and a conditional relationship. (Incidentally, the most interesting part of that paper is the middle section that discusses what "bear arms" meant back then; it's worth reading, although they basically gloss over the word "keep.")

I'm waiting for him to say he actually knows what the writer of that amendment meant, and how that overrides SCOTUS. Because reasons.

Straw man. I already agreed with you that SCOTUS determines constitutionality. What SCOTUS doesn't determine, however, is how English grammar works.

I don't need to know "what the writer of that amendment meant" to correctly parse a grammatically unambiguous sentence. Some sentences are grammatically ambiguous. The Second Amendment isn't.

and of course, your interpretation is the only correct one.

Grammatically, yes, it is. That's my point.

"X being the case, Y is the law of the land." ≠ "As long as stipulation X is met, Y will be the law of the land."

Not a single person who's disagreed with me so far has offered another grammatical way to parse the sentence. The closest anyone came was ROBOKiTTY, who correctly pointed out that there are several types of absolute constructions.

[decius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Those were illegaly modified into full automatic. They're already laws prohibiting that.

Try again fucktard![/quote]

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?

[Pitchguest]

If you haven't had a good hard cringe in a while, here's something for you - the comedy stylings of Rebecca Watson. She and her pals Adam, Brian Thompson, and Carrie Poppy do improv sketches and the results are weird and nasty. A couple of samples:

Playa Report - PUA call-in show, guest starring Jamie Kilstein. Non-stop riffs on conning, raping, beating, and killing women (and little girls), because just saying that stuff out loud is funny:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN004.mp3

Swoonsocket - another sex advice call-in show with the JizzMaster, a smooth Black-voiced operator who leaves ribbons of spunk wherever he goes. Rebecca is his mom. She's been fucking him since childhood and still fortifies him with fresh servings of mother's milk:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN209.mp3

Her Playa Report announcement on Reddit SRS:

http://imgur.com/lEqxxAs.png

Oh, cute. Does this mean Jamie Kilstein was a feminist since he was born, too? Or does this invalidate that?

[USMC 0311]

Yes they do. US Marines and several other armed forces use shotguns in their entry teams. I got a fair amount of training with a 12Ga when I learned urban warfare at Camp Pendleton's School Of Infantry.

What do they use for loads? 00? slugs?

00 Buck. They come in the same ammo cans as .50 BMG rounds but they hold 160 12Ga shells.

[Pogsurf]

A feminist is a feminist.

I'm a professional pedant, but even I cannot fault that sort of logic.

Maybe because you conveniently snipped out the part where I actually offered a definition in order to take a cheap shot. I'll quote it for you.

"I don't know of any perfect or universal definition, but if one sincerely self-identifies as a feminist and supports women's rights, opposes sexism against women or something in that ballpark, then as far as I'm concerned they are one."

Thanks for the clarification, I feel a lot better now.

[Guest]

Now tell me your pros.

I can't think of one. A really valid, good one, that is. Here's the thing, though: I can't think of any reason not to allow it, either. So logically the only problem I should ever have with the issue is whenever the right to do this is being taken away from me. You know, just in case and for other contrived reasons. For safety. Like how they do it in Europe what with their elastic "constitutions" and all.

Now if I'm allowed enough liberty to employ a reason that's as contrived as the ones you're trotting in, here's one: If one was going to terrorize an establishment, how likely would it be for them to carry out this intent if the second they walked in, they saw an M4 carbine open-carried by a patron of said establishment? Whenever I walk into an establishment in Texas -- any establishment -- and I see fellow patrons strapped with firearms, I really don't feel any safer for it, but I do take a moment to appreciate that the freedom is there to do so.

And as many times as I've seen this, I've never died from a hail of gunfire like you fear. Imagine that.

[USMC 0311]

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?

ANY semi-auto rifle can be converted to full auto, even a 100 year old Remington model 8.

Are you going to ban and confiscate every semi-auto rifle in the world now? fucktard??

[katamari Damassi]

I like Obama, but he's a milquetoast president. The Bushes were terrible because they were underhanded and greedy. They wanted something, they took it. Fuck due process. They wanted to lock people up, they did it. Fuck hebeas corpus. The problem with Obama is, after he became president, he did fuck all to revert these fuckups. I hoped he wouldn't be, but he is an absolute doormat. If only he took charge for once, then maybe he'd able to get things done. I don't mean any gung-ho bullshit, I mean him being firm but fair. Set some boundaries.

The way he handled the Crimean incident was, in a word, embarassing. Yes, freeze assets, yes, ban officials; all well and good, but then what? That's appetizer, before you get to the *meat.* But he didn't. Putin basically said he didn't give a shit and the reply, most terse, was to shut him out of the G8. Oooh. But the coup de grâce came when he later said, about the situation occuring in Crimea, and I quote, "I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."

:shock:

:|

http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... cepalm.gif

I'll be the first to say that Obama capitulates at the drop of a hat-at least as far as dealing with the opposition party goes, but honestly, what action do you expect him to take against a nuclear power when we're exhausted from 2 wars-one of which is still ongoing?

[decius]

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?

ANY semi-auto rifle can be converted to full auto, even a 100 year old Remington model 8.

Are you going to ban and confiscate every semi-auto rifle in the world now? fucktard??

Round and round we go. Do your semi-auto rifles support immensely large magazines and are they comparably suitable for guerilla warfare?

We've been over this before, remember?

[Sulman]

I don't mind the gun arguments but get some fucking 'nyms already.

[Pogsurf]

Ms Elyse MoFo Andery @dELYSEious · Apr 29

The people who showed the most support for me today is a man I met a few weeks ago & @justinvacula. I can't even tell you how dirty that is.

That may be the most evil thing Justin has ever done: being kind to someone who shat on him.

Well-played Sir 'Stache. Well-played.

I met Sir Gallahad not in "the" elevator, but in the Gents toilet nearby. I was very surprised that even though he is American, he has very good manners. Introduced him to my wife, and he didn't slurp his tea. What more could you ask?

[James Caruthers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Those were illegaly modified into full automatic. They're already laws prohibiting that.

Try again fucktard!

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?[/quote]
Parts. The same way you illegally modify them. Parts and expertise. The same way you build bombs in countries that outlaw owning bombs.

[Pitchguest]

I like Obama, but he's a milquetoast president. The Bushes were terrible because they were underhanded and greedy. They wanted something, they took it. Fuck due process. They wanted to lock people up, they did it. Fuck hebeas corpus. The problem with Obama is, after he became president, he did fuck all to revert these fuckups. I hoped he wouldn't be, but he is an absolute doormat. If only he took charge for once, then maybe he'd able to get things done. I don't mean any gung-ho bullshit, I mean him being firm but fair. Set some boundaries.

The way he handled the Crimean incident was, in a word, embarassing. Yes, freeze assets, yes, ban officials; all well and good, but then what? That's appetizer, before you get to the *meat.* But he didn't. Putin basically said he didn't give a shit and the reply, most terse, was to shut him out of the G8. Oooh. But the coup de grâce came when he later said, about the situation occuring in Crimea, and I quote, "I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."

:shock:

:|

http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... cepalm.gif

I'll be the first to say that Obama capitulates at the drop of a hat-at least as far as dealing with the opposition party goes, but honestly, what action do you expect him to take against a nuclear power when we're exhausted from 2 wars-one of which is still ongoing?

Well, okay. I mean, Obama alone perhaps cannot do anything, but he has a certain influence. I would've at least imagined that someone with his kind of power would not allow another sovereign nation annex a peninsula from another sovereign nation and not call them on it. His response (and in extension, Nato) was just... weak.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Also, forgot to mention: how great is it that Watsons guests on her new series are all rich old white men? She LOVES rich old white men when they are useful to her.

I'm middle-aged and make good money. You can guest on my show* any time, honey.


*a euphemism**.

**For his penis. Mykeru is inviting you to try and stuff his broken-down old genital mess into your mouth, vagina or anus.

Sexual satisfaction for either of you is, to be frank, unlikely.

[James Caruthers]

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?

ANY semi-auto rifle can be converted to full auto, even a 100 year old Remington model 8.

Are you going to ban and confiscate every semi-auto rifle in the world now? fucktard??

Yes. That is really what decius is arguing for.

[real horrorshow]

Funny how you don't mention the spree shooting in Norway, where the killer used weapons and tactical gear in the UK to kill a bunch of people. Because banning works so well. The Norway killer had a mini-14, which he got using your super awesome UK permit system. So I guess your argument is even the UK doesn't go far enough, and needs to outright ban anything semi-auto.

The UK and Norway are two different countries with different gun laws. I outlined the UKs gun laws in this post. I think that the current UK laws are unnecessarily strict. However, even 20+ years ago, before Dunblane, owning a Mini-14 would have been illegal in the UK.

The last person to go on a shooting spree in the UK was Raoul Moat. He was armed with a sawn off double barrelled shotgun. He killed one person and blinded a police officer who later committed suicide.

Precisely because they are freely available to non-criminals. Guess why such shootouts never occur in Europe.

Yeah, you have stabbings, decapitations and violent gang rapes instead. Maybe I should post a bunch of images of fundamentalist Muslim groups decapitating citizens, as proof we need to ban all edged weapons and tools from Europe. Because, as we've learned, rare, horrendous, media-grabbing crimes are totes a legit excuse to ban something for ALL law-abiding citizens.

As I pointed out in this post, America too has had examples of Muslim violence rather worse than the Lee Rigby case (despite having a 0.8% Muslim population compared to the UK's 4.6%). The US does not have "stabbings, decapitations and violent gang rapes" instead of gun crime, it has them as well as gun crime. Violent crime is - apparently - declining in both the UK and the US, but it is higher in the US.

[James Caruthers]

How do you convert them, if you can't access them in the first place, fucktard?

ANY semi-auto rifle can be converted to full auto, even a 100 year old Remington model 8.

Are you going to ban and confiscate every semi-auto rifle in the world now? fucktard??

Round and round we go. Do your semi-auto rifles support immensely large magazines and are they comparably suitable for guerilla warfare?

We've been over this before, remember?

Yes they do.

[decius]

For safety. Like how they do it in Europe what with their elastic "constitutions" and all.

What do you mean by this?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Right, because you wankers would totally enjoying dining out in this distinguished company.

This is normalcy only to a delusional mind.

http://thefirearmreport.com/wp-content/ ... 499177.jpg

Hey, is that my dad on the right?

[John Greg]

Jesus. The only person talking sense here, and not waving his dick around, and not raging hyperbole is Welch. :shock:

The rest of you, you too decius, are just fucking having a juvenile fucking pipe swingin' contest. Fuck off.

When it comes to guns I am a total authoritarian fascist fucking asshole. When I become King, guns will be illegal, full stop. Fuck the hunters; you wanna hunt, go to Africa. Fuck the target shooters; you wanna target shoot, go to the Middle east.

I don't fucking care. In my country, anyone except some few highly trained and authorized professionals do not, will not, cannot own guns. First offence for owing a gun: 3 years, no questions asked, no parole, fuck you. Second offence for owning a gun, 5 years, no questions asked, no chance of parole, double fuck you. Third offence, 10 years, fuck off. Fourth offence, fuck you Charlie, you just lost your allowance for participation in my society; into a hardcore prison you go until you die, no chance of parole at all, ever; fuck you.

Now, please, take this fucking dick swinging contest elsewhere before I start really whining about it. I am not forcing anyone to move it; I am not telling you to move it; I am asking, with extreme prejudice, that you take this white boy dick swinging open carry cracker horseshit to another thread somewhere, and keep it the fuck out of the main thread.

[Pogsurf]

Now tell me your pros.

I can't think of one. A really valid, good one, that is. Here's the thing, though: I can't think of any reason not to allow it, either. So logically the only problem I should ever have with the issue is whenever the right to do this is being taken away from me. You know, just in case and for other contrived reasons. For safety. Like how they do it in Europe what with their elastic "constitutions" and all.

Now if I'm allowed enough liberty to employ a reason that's as contrived as the ones you're trotting in, here's one: If one was going to terrorize an establishment, how likely would it be for them to carry out this intent if the second they walked in, they saw an M4 carbine open-carried by a patron of said establishment? Whenever I walk into an establishment in Texas -- any establishment -- and I see fellow patrons strapped with firearms, I really don't feel any safer for it, but I do take a moment to appreciate that the freedom is there to do so.

And as many times as I've seen this, I've never died from a hail of gunfire like you fear. Imagine that.

I am imagining that you are alive, but medically brain-dead. Not hard at all.

[KiwiInOz]

I met Sir Gallahad not in "the" elevator, but in the Gents toilet nearby. I was very surprised that even though he is American, he has very good manners. Introduced him to my wife, and he didn't slurp his tea. What more could you ask?

What was your wife doing in the men's toilet? Did she bring in the thermos?

[another lurker]

The real threat of drones...they will be used to steal your mj crop:

http://www.businessinsider.com/british- ... ana-2014-4

Criminal gangs in the UK's rural Shropshire County are reportedly using flying robots equipped with infrared cameras to spot hidden marijuana growing operations from the sky, then blackmailing the growers or downright stealing their crop from the house.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/british- ... z30PoYZQG9

[James Caruthers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... h-men.html

I thought this was pretty funny.