ANOTHER School Shooting

Light 'em up trolls! Here we go again!!!!

And me without my own popcorn .gifs

I just received 400 more rounds of 7.62×39 ammo for my Ak47. I have purchased over 10,000 rounds for my Ak47, AR15 and UZI since the day after Sandy Hook. The nutty progressives are promoting this business like nothing ever has.

Local ranges are packed from 10:00am to closing.

I talked to a fellow earlier today who has 100,000 rounds in his Perrysburg home.

Exciting times to be a gun enthusiast.

Ar15.com is a great site. Check out the forums.

More kids shots, I can't want to go home and hug my all guns. /sarcasm

Chicago has even more draconian anti-gun laws and the ghetto people shoot'em up on a nightly basis.

Liberalism is a mental disorder. it is the only explanation for the insistence on more gun laws.

The fools think that a ban on the now 100 million+ high cap mags in circulation is going to work :)

Love your post Fred! The fools are running the show these days.

I am waiting for the day a cross-dressing,Native American born, Muslim psycho engages in school violence and the liberal media bend over backwards to excuse the nutcases behavior.

In all seriousness, gun violence is a tragic matter. It is a complex issue that is linked to socio-economic status, race and cultural ethics. A serious dialog can be had on this issue. But we have to move beyond the simplistic gun banning nonsense.

I will be a participant in a University debate relating to this issue next week. I suggested the topic back in August and was told few people would be interested.

They decided to schedule it anyway:)

My opponent is a good friend who is so far left he makes Marx look moderate.

Can't advertise it formally since I would be stepping on someone's toes if I did. But I am looking forward to the night. Should be fun.

"Can't advertise it formally since I would be stepping on someone's toes if I did."

Is it someone else's toes because it ain't mine.

You're right, no law has ever stopped anyone from doing anything. We should just get rid of all laws...

I know at work when we try something and it doesn't work, we just stop going it and give up. We don't see what might work better or try it a different way, we just give up. /sarcasm

SOOOOO, now you're FOR the War on Drugs and stopping illegal immigration?

What's the difference between the laws that require vehicle registration, driver training and licensing, and vehicle insurance and requiring the same of guns and gun owners? (Setting aside the probable fact that no insurance company would ever write an affordable liability policy for a gun owner, as much as I'd love to see that happen.)

There are necessary laws that work for the common good.

Oh great. Another poster who uses a single term as a blanket slur for anyone or anything he disagrees with. A tired and lazy slur, at that.

I was just thinking we needed some more of that on this board...

Umm Holland I have an umbrella policy that covers me in case I'm in a self-defense shooting.

Forgot to add that's very affordable.

The problem with everyone who wants to ban "Assault" weapons is they don't understand what the difference is between an "Assault" weapon and a semi-automatic hunting weapon.

The difference is mainly just plastic to make it look military but changes nothing toward the functionality. Does adding a flashlight really make it more dangerous? That really is what we're talking about here.

For those who have problems with "high capacity magazines" again are misusing terms. No one fills a 30 mag with 30 rounds. Reason being, it compresses the spring too much and causes jams. I know I own about 10 of these mags. You never load them with more than 25 and 20 is actually more realistic. If you limit these mags to 10 or 15 you have the same jamming problem.

This jamming problem is dangerous to a sport shooter. Multiple jams take the shooter out of the shooting mindset and they begin to try to "force" the weapon. This is when misfires occur. They lose what's known as barrel awareness and begin inadvertently pointing their weapon at others without recognizing it. I've seen it myself with Marines who aren't shooting well. Qual day is the most dangerous day on a Marine rifle range. A shooter with slow pit service or who is not on target gets frustrated and becomes a safety hazard. My last range had about 10 drops due to various safety violations which may or may not have been immediately dangerous but all could have led to a dangerous situation.

The biggest problem in all of this is what we're not discussing. The media. Not movies, not prescription drugs (also not talked about enough), not guns. The media sensationalizes and promotes these shootings causing more of them.

So, the news media promotes and sensationalizes mass shootings...but violent movies don't?

They just keep attacking schools and other gun-free zones.

Law of averages says that a gun club or shooting range will be next, right?
I mean, it's not because these crazy bastards know the kids are defenseless, right?

Yes. Here's why.

How many times did you see the video of the VA Tech shooter? I saw at least 50 clips and I purposefully turned the news off when it came on. How many watched the Jared Loughner video? Well again I saw a bunch of clips of it on the news, it's enough to draw people to watch the full vid on YouTube, which has over 100k views.

Also let's look at the shooters. Many of them besides having mental issues are listed as "obsessed" with news media often reading several newspapers and writing to prominent journalists.

The media always touts it's influence on other aspects of our society. Hollywood too. Yet surprisingly they seem they are without guilt here.

Search "Shooter obsessed with" and over 1 million google hits show up with almost as many different cases. There is the real trend.

"Search "Shooter obsessed with" and over 1 million google hits show up with almost as many different cases. There is the real trend."

Yeah. The only other trend I see there is "shooter had gun."

Sorry, mikey. I respectfully disagree. Blaming the media or movies or video games is as flimsy as blaming the gun. It is as flimsy as blaming pornography for rape, or blaming the lack of school-led prayer for anything.

It's the same thing, really. Misplaced blame. And the first amendment makes attempting to reign in the media as much of a dead-end as the second amendment makes attempting to confiscate guns.

Looks like one NW Ohio School is getting the idea

http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=846351#.UO9cRW_C1dA

Responsible for AIDS awareness and the Civil Rights Movement... ok....

But this is where their influence ends?

Don't get me wrong. I'm aware banning violent movies or video games is not a solution. It's a societial problem. To not say they don't have a hand is dishonest. To say ignore the impact on the media is even more dishonest.

As long as we keep sensationalizing these cases they will continue. Additionally we need realize that some medications do require institutionalization especially when they are coming off their prescription like several of the shooting cases.

Another senseless shooting and all I feel is pain for the victims and their families. Some how they get forgotten in all the hyperbole about guns.

Feel free to masturbate to the thoughts of how the resale value of all that have gone up.

I don't think it's stepping on any toes, I think Star doesn't want us to see one foot firmly inserted into mouth and the other shot clean through once they lose the argument.

Does it cover your kids/grandkids/etc. finding the gun under your pillow or in your nightstand and shooting someone with it? Does it cover you drinking a couple cases of beer and deciding to fire away at the nearest LLLLLLLLLLiberal hangout?

If your magazines jam or cause jams, then you NEED A BETTER FUCKING MAGAZINE DESIGN.

Technology, how does it fucking work?

Liberalis Mentalis: See the DSM-V when it is published later this year.

Driving is not in the bill of "rights". It is a privilege.
Thus the difference in regulation and licensing.

The "toes" I would be stepping on are those of the people responsible for organizing the event.

FBI MURDER DATA 2007-2011

Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rifles 453 380 351 367 323

Now rifles is INCLUSIVE of so called assault rifles. Hunting rifles outnumber assault rifles by a factor of 50-1.

So 323 people are killed by ALL rifles in 2011. The other years are around that number.

Far more people are murdered by feet and hands every year.

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

869 875 817 769 728

So when a politician or liberal TV commentator wails against the scourge of "assault rifles" they are full of crap. The probability of being killed by a AR-15 is far far far less than being punched or kicked to death.

Ummm Anonymous idiot. A few things for you #1 my firearms are kept in a biometric safe. #2 I don't drink and if I did guns and alcohol don't mix meaning if I did drink the gun would go in the safe and stay there.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Total Murder Victims 12,664
Total Firearms 8,583
Total Handguns 6,220
Total Rifles 323
Total Shotguns 356
OTHER GUNS OR TYPE NOT STATED: 1,684

Golly gee whiz, that could certainly up the count of rifles, eh?

Knives or cutting instruments 1,694
Blunt objects 496
Personal weapons (hands/feet) 726

You know why rifles are the method of choice for shooting up a school or a movie theatre? Because you can fire off 30 fucking rounds without reloading. They're BUILT for that sort of thing. Yeah, you can get a 30 round magazine for your fucking Glock 9mm. It will protrude like a motherfucker from the grip and it's probably a stone bitch for quick load/unload and jamming. It's gonna be a fucker to conceal if you carry it loaded, too. So you either have to carry your 30 round Glock mag separate and have fun slamming it home before you shoot up the place, or you might as well not bother with carrying concealed, which thereby means there's no really good reason to NOT just haul around a rifle.

But since you're being a douchenozzle by cherry-picking your point that it's not rifles, you are deliberately ignoring handguns, so hey, let's look at handguns!

Murders by handguns/type of felony
1,007 ALL FELONIES
474 Robbery
38 Burglary
267 Narcotic Drug Laws
213 Other/not specified

Murders by handguns/other than felony types
2,761 OTHER THAN FELONY TYPE TOTAL
39 Brawl due to alcohol
71 Brawl due to narcotics
1,416 Other arguments
106 Gangland killings
391 Juvenile gang killings
620 Other/not specified

2,417 Other/unknown

Golly gee whiz, maybe we need to do something about HANDGUNS while we're at it! Thanks for pointing that out by your conspicuous absence of discussing it!

And how many of them were committed by people that weren't even supposed to be in possession of a firearm because they are a felon??

Excellent. Then you are a smart gun owner. Thing is, it's the stupid gun owners and the complete nutjobs like Alex Jones and THIS FUCKING CRAZY ASS who make the rest of us very, VERY nervous. They're why you can't have nice things. Between them and the people who actually go shoot up a school or something, they're the functional equivalent of Limbaugh or Romney shooting their mouths off about women who use birth control being sluts or the 47% quote or "corporations are people". They make your group look REALLY REALLY BAD. And, like that, instead of going straight up and condemning those remarks and getting someone out there with some kind of rational explanation to mediate and moderate, you guys double and triple down on the crazy and blame everything else (video games! television! phase of the moon! LLLLLiberals!)

Maybe you ought to take a look at your fellow gun owners in these threads and consider telling them to, quote, "shut the fuck up, you're not helping". But that won't happen, because you're probably scared of them too.

Probably quite a few. So that means you're going to go down the road of "gun control don't work" and "if we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns, since they already can get their hands on a gun easily".

Oops, guess you can't do that now because I called that out. So sorry.

School shootings or massacres will only continue until you Liberals finally give up and let people keep and bear arms in public places (like public schools) to effect their defense.

I will say this same thing every time another shooting or massacre happens. I will also tell Liberals that their stupid game of keeping people disarmed to discredit the Second Amendment, won't work. There have been dozens of shootings or massacres since Columbine. The Second Amendment is as strong as ever. 44 states have similar language in their own constitutions. We're never going to lose the right to keep and bear arms. Any fool can see that.... any fool except a Liberal, apparently.

Tell me something, GZ. If they "come for your guns", are you "willing to fire the first shot in the resulting civil war"?

Reagan shut down all the state mental institutions, remember? So if anyone does come for him, it'll have to be the SWAT team.

It was progressives in the 1960's who pushed for laws that made it impossible to get mentally ill people hospitalized. Psychology/Psychiatry were constantly being attacked from the left for not allowing these folks with "alternative" visions of reality to integrate into society.

Also, Limbaugh never said a woman who uses birth control is a slut. That is called a straw man argument and it is nonsense.

Most conservatives I know are not religious at all. The stereotypes tossed around here are absurd. The most rightwing people I know in the Toledo area are black. Seriously. Hard core righty libertarians and black at the same time. They are racist??

My new Draco AK pistol should arrive at the FFL on Friday. Getting everything in order before Barry has his news conference on Tuesday.

Don't have to go down that road because you already did it for me. You keep spouting stats about murders and such and then admit most are probably committed by felons who shouldn't have them in the first place.

I'm thinking ruling by fiat is setting a very very bad precident, who is to say that next wont be the 1st amendment, or look at it this way, would you like bush to be able to sidestep a constitutional amendment? Be very very careful of what you wish for, those slippery slopes have all kinds of unintended consequences.

You represent the overwhelming statistical majority of responsible gun owners.

I sincerely hope that you are not punished for the criminal and insane acts of the tiny statistical minority of evil people who primarily access guns illegally and then use them to break other existing laws.

I wonder why the Brady Campaign lied and said that 40% of firearms are purchased without a background check due to internet sales when they certainly know that there are no internet sales without a FFL or 03CR.

Internet sales must be shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer for transfer and background check, or to a licensed 03CR collector who is licensed by the BATFE, established required record keeping, undergone the federal background check and sent the federally required notice to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in their county of residence.

There are no "background check free" internet sales.

It's almost like they wanted to scare people.

It occurs to me that human trafficking is a heinous problem that steals our children and forces them into a life of slavery.

A relatively small number of truck drivers are involved in this unbelievably evil activity.

But we must stop human trafficking. Therefore, according to the same logic that suggests millions and millions of lawful gun owners should be punished for the acts of a very, very few evil killers, trucking should be banned.

OT, but...
Star56:
"Also, Limbaugh never said a woman who uses birth control is a slut. That is called a straw man argument and it is nonsense."

It is not a straw man, it is not nonsense, and he most certainly did say it.

Sandra Fluke was testifying that there were legitimate medical reasons for birth control to be covered by health insurance; apart from simply preventing pregnancy. Limbaugh went on to say: "[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

If you accept this as true about one woman, it must be true about all women. Unless you are cherry-picking your enemies. Therefore, he did suggest that a woman who uses birth control is a slut. And worse.

I'm not a Limbaugh fan, and I think that it was a startlingly stupid comment. I only heard it repeated in the news (alot) as I haven't actually heard one of his shows since Clinton was in office.
But I think that if you are really gonna disect that one, he suggested that a women who wanted to get her birth control paid for by someone else is a slut.

Expansion beyond that is only made possible by words like "therefore."

Let's see:

Passing "gun control" laws is PUNISHMENT for the criminal and insane acts of the tiny statistical minority of evil people who primarily access guns illegally and then use them to break other existing laws.

Saint George Dubya and all his GOP friends in Congress passing the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, getting us involved in two wars, creating an entirely new Cabinet level Department of Homeland Security, saddling us with the TSA, and all the other spending for all that plus all the other laws and inconveniences, due to the "criminal and insane acts of the tiny statistical minority of evil people" who hijacked 4 airplanes with the aid of boxcutters, with the intent of turning them into guided missiles and killing people" is what? A rational and well-thought-out response?

Or to rephrase, 19 people with boxcutters take over 4 planes and fly them into buildings, and instead of just fixing the flaws in security (i.e. letting them have knives on the plane and installing secure cockpit doors and not letting hijackers into the cockpit under any circumstances), we can pass a set of laws that make the NYC white pages look tiny by comparison, along with what, $2 trillion of spending for "homeland security" and two wars, one of which was complete bullshit, and nobody, not even the civilians killed in those wars, was "punished" for the acts of those 19 men, BUT hey, passing one single law in the wake of VT, Aurora, Sandy Hook, is PUNISHING THE POOR INNOCENT GUN OWNERS.

Words fail me.

Hitler and guns...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control

Good read.

Totally agree. We must not repeat the mistakes of the prior administration. We can't afford many more fear-based over reactions that continually erode our rights. Great post AC.

From Anonymous_Coward: Tell me something, GZ. If they "come for your guns", are you "willing to fire the first shot in the resulting civil war"?

He won't have to. All GZ (or anyone else who is armed) must do is inform the government thugs that he is, in fact, armed and willing to shoot. They'll retreat.

The behavior is predictable. During the hurricane Katrina aftermath, the police confiscated firearms from those people who were complacent and willing to surrender them. Anyone who was willing to put some lead in the air was left alone.

From Anonymous_Coward: Words fail me.

Would that were true.

You got it. I think this might be a test case to see just how far a sitting president can reach with the executive order privilege. If the Second Amendment can be regulated at the whim of the Ayatollah Obama, why not a few others? I'm begging the question here, because clearly if a high profile amendment such as the Second can be sharply curtailed by executive order - or in the case of the Ayatollah Obama, by His Divine Intervention - then how about clamping down on the others, such as those that affect news media or the right to travel.

I don't count on the GOP to oppose this very seriously. They'll be waiting quietly in the wings, salivating and thinking that the Moonbats will eventually be evicted from the double-wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. When that happens, guess who holds the baton now? Of course, they'll only use that nice, new authority for good.

Right AC?

The thing is, the executive order is law as soon as it's signed. Congress may object, the populace may howl in protest, but if the order sets things in motion, then the motion begins immediately. Not later on, after all the stuffed shirts, bloviators and fatheads have had a chance to mull it over and harumph over it. It begins now.

If the Ayatollah Obama issues an order that clearly, blatantly violates the 2A, if the order is not immediately and successfully opposed by Congress, if no one challenges the order and takes it all the way to the USSC, if the USSC agrees to hear the case...

Well, it'll be too late. The real question has more to do with who will enforced the Ayatollah's New Decree.

Because you have no right to drive, Holland. You do, however, have the right to bear arms. That's the difference.

MikeyA, I crave some enlightenment.

This jamming problem is dangerous to a sport shooter. Multiple jams take the shooter out of the shooting mindset and they begin to try to "force" the weapon. This is when misfires occur.

I understand the reliability issue with high capacity magazines, and I also understand autoloaders, clearing a jam and the direction of the muzzle. I thought a misfire occurred when your firearm was in battery, the shooter pulled the trigger and all he got was a click - the hammer dropped, but there was no joy. The gun missed fire. So what's going on here in your scenario?

They lose what's known as barrel awareness and begin inadvertently pointing their weapon at others without recognizing it. I've seen it myself with Marines who aren't shooting well. Qual day is the most dangerous day on a Marine rifle range.

I've seen the loss as well.

A shooter with slow pit service or who is not on target gets frustrated and becomes a safety hazard.

What is pit service?
What is 'not on target'? Do you mean the shooter is not hitting the target?

My last range had about 10 drops due to various safety violations which may or may not have been immediately dangerous but all could have led to a dangerous situation.

What is a drop?

Thanks in advance.

Some day, maybe five years from now, if we don't stop the gun violence, mass shootings in the US will have killed more people than the guns that the ATF intentionally allowed to "walk" into Mexico during Fast and Furious.
But as of today, the Fast and Furious guns are leading by a 5:1 ratio. But most of those people are Mexicans... so we don't really care too much about that. Heck, we don't even care about Brian Terry.

The sad punch line is that the same folks who allowed the guns to move illegally FROM the US resulting in 200 deaths are preparing to take the moral high ground on US gun control.

This thread is proof positive that no topic in America gets people revved up more than guns and more specifically, gun control. I bet if you started a radio show where all you did was talk about gun control, it would be the highest rated program in the nation and folks would be on hold for hours trying to get on the air. Hmm...

plus

equals

I think I may be on to something here...

Limbaugh was making the point that Fluke wanted someone else to pay for her birth control and thus the ability to have frequent sex without concern for pregnancy. It was her desire to have OTHER PEOPLE pay for one aspect of her sexual encounters that prompted the slut comment. If others pay for you to have sex that is a form of prostitution.

Merely using birth control does not make one a "slut". Limbaugh could care less. It is the desire to have others pay for it that elicits the slut analogy.

Fluke was a fraud. Oral contraception is FREE to poor women at any and all federal clinics.

Other than very conservative Catholics, Republicans could care less if women are using birth control. it is who pays for it that is the key.

I don't think that is what Limbaugh meant, I really think he was trying to say that an unmarried woman who has need for birth control must need it to prevent pregnancy. And if you need to prevent pregnancy, you must be a slut.

But if you follow that (idiotic) argument, isnt' any insurance company who provides Viagra to unmarried men also making those men prostitutes? Like paying taxes, the whole insurance racket is based on a broad pool of people making payments and then possibly getting services should their situation warrant it. That means by paying my health insurance premiums to Humana, I am helping them make my swinging neighbor Al not much better than a common streetwalker.

With this apparent push from the government, when will the well-regulated militia form and begin violently fighting back, defending all of our rights to get excited about hearing loud bangs while shooting at targets?

Just curious when the line will be crossed.

If Limbaugh and Republicans could care less, maybe they should start.

Good diversion, troll!

Hi puppy dog.

Here's a militia involved in a different way, I think.

Jan 11, 2013 RT.com story titled Armed militia of volunteers patrolling schools and streets in Maricopa County

I couldn't help thinking of this

or this

Oh, man, Arpaio is a case-study himself.

AC said: So if anyone does come for him, it'll have to be the SWAT team.

I hear those sorts of things frequently out of the furiously masturbating Liberal gun grabbers, but when you realize there are over 200 million firearms in 58 million households, all the Liberals are revealing is their gross stupidity. If even 1 officer is lost for every 10 households, that's nearly 6 million dead SWAT guys. That's 10 times as many as there are police of all kinds in the USA, and 2.3 times the size of the entire US military. We have a name for that sort of carnage: Civil War. And that war will be won by the 58 million armed households.

Limbaugh could care less.

I suppose he could, but it isn't likely.

Rush Limbaugh makes his living by saying outrageous things on his radio show. By coincidence, Rush is a conservative giving the Wingnuts a cross to bear. The thing to remember about Rush is that the more outrageous the statement, the higher the ratings and the more money he makes.

By comparison the Moonbats have their own list of favorite commentators. In no particular order, here are a few examples, each outstanding in his or her own way:

Keith Olbermann, notable finger pointer and critic of The O'Reilly Factor
Rachel Maddow, bull dyke Moonbat who has repeatedly screamed that she doesn't support the Ayatollah Obama
Bob Beckel, who referred to Jewish Americans who had participated in a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Israel as "a bunch of diamond merchants we don’t know the names of."
Al Franken, noted for sacrificing a career with Saturday Night Live to become a professional mudslinger.
Nancy Pelosi, mouthpiece for the House and official underminer of fiscal responsibility and freedom. Hey, tomorrow never comes.
Katie Couric, 60 Minutes liar and official Moonbat mascot who is famous for conducting an insightful, sensitive interview with Lady Gaga.
Honey Boo Boo, who likes sparkly things and is rumored to have her eye on a brand new double wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. Just give it time.

"If your magazines jam or cause jams, then you NEED A BETTER FUCKING MAGAZINE DESIGN.

Technology, how does it fucking work?"

Well AC if we designed a better magazine it would be more lethal and hence you'd want to ban it.

And there are alternatives to a spring like pneumatic and electric but those come at the cost of weight, electricity, etc so they've never been fully developed because it makes no sense when the same can be done with a simple spring.

There is a spring in the magazine. Depending upon how it is compressed determines the force it is sent to the chamber and hence the way it is seated within it. A double feed or misfeed are the result of a too loose or too tight spring assuming the magazine is seated correctly. Using the max the magazine can take puts the spring in a lot of compression and thus makes the spring more unreliable for that string of fire and for the life of the magazine.

MJ, I'm using Marine terms which is why you're familiar with the other aspects but not them.

"What is pit service?" On our ranges a shooter shoots while his peer is under the birm. After a string of fire the guy in the birm pulls and marks the target. We call it pit service. If the guy in the pits is not paying attention, marks the shot wrong, or just is being lazy it's frustrating to the shooter who has a limited ammount of time to make well aimed shots. It's designed to judge a shooters accuracy while under a time limit. It can be stressful if the guy pulling your pit is a jackass.
"What is 'not on target'? Do you mean the shooter is not hitting the target?" Not hitting the target, hitting paper but not being "in the black". Basically shooting poorly.

"What is a drop?" In the military you have to qualify every year. If you do not qualify for whatever reason you are "dropped" off the range. Some for shooting so bad they don't qualify but then there are "Safety Violators" who are dropped for 1) shooting after the command cease fire 2) pointing their weapon "on line" or at another shooter (it's most time by accident but a violation of the safety rules hence the violation) 3) "Saving rounds" trying to sneak rounds off of prequal in order to have more to fire during qual. Now only #2 will directly cause a casualty but they all are indicators of an unsafe person who could cause an unsafe situation and hence a safety violation.

Any of those will get you thrown off the range and a myriad of problems like NJP, adverse fitrep, scolding, etc.

What makes the AR-15 so dangerous is not the "high capacity" magazines or the things added to make it an "assault weapon". It's the same reason it's such a valuable hunting weapon. It's VERY accurate. A bullet doesn't move like they say in the Matrix. It's path is a series of circles both left and right and up and down. An AR15 can be signed at 30 yards and the bullet's path will have it at the EXACT same point at 300 yards to within 99.996%.

It is not that accurate under fully automatic mode which is why that was removed from the military after Vietnam. Now it's only offered in a 3-rd automatic burst.

Which is why, unlike the GOP reaction after 9/11, Obama's having a nice series of meetings with many representatives of both sides to hash out a plan, as opposed to throwing a NYC phone-book sized bill at Congress to vote on within hours of receiving it with Fox News pushing the narrative that NOT voting for the PATRIOT Act means you support the terrorists, or pushing an ambiguous AUMF through to go to war. So therefore you gun nuts should be SHUTTING THE FUCK UP because there is actual DISCUSSION going on involving the NRA and such vs. the absolute lack of public discourse on what we should actually have done about 9/11.

But you of course ignored the other side of "hey, how many other people are inconvenienced in their pursuits because of 9/11, but GUN NUTS are soooooooooooo sacrosanct and nothing is allowed to get between them and owning lots of high powered rifles and 100k rounds of ammo, just to shoot tin cans and deer and also just in case we wake up one day and Red Dawn is happening."

Because every teacher should be focused on PACKING HEAT and making sure the one troublemaker in every class doesn't figure out how to get the gun off her, instead of actually teaching.

Actually, you know what? Fuck it all to hell. Let's arm the teachers, but you will never ever again be allowed to criticize teacher quality, because now you're going to be making them not only responsible for teaching, ensuring order in the classroom, and all their other daily jobs, but you're going to be making them responsible for the security of a firearm as well, and all the situational awareness that goes with having a (presumably loaded, cocked and locked) firearm in a classroom of kindergarteners or HS seniors or whatever with that one kid who will be trying to fuck with the teacher all the time. And the minute a student gets their hands on a teacher's firearm and shoots someone, it is ALL ON YOU, motherfucker, and I expect you will do the honorable thing with your own weapon and paste your brains all over the ceiling.

Schools aren't safe environments to have guns in, in much the same way that a refinery is not a safe environment to smoke cigarettes in. You're the crazy fuck who is all for juggling fucking sparklers while riding a rocket-powered skateboard through the Sunoco refinery.

Armed and willing to shoot didn't work so well for, oh, the Waco wackos, but I don't want to go down the road of that conspiracy type bullshit. Suffice to say though that when you have a few rifles and the government has fucking drone aircraft that can drop a fucking bomb down your chimney while the operators sit in a bunker 1500 miles away, well, you're fucked, game over.

Limbaugh was making no point, because Fluke didn't want someone to pay for HER birth control, since the true story (which you aren't gonna listen to because FACTS HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS) is she was testifying about a friend WHO HAD INSURANCE THAT DIDN'T COVER BIRTH CONTROL, EVEN FOR MEDICAL REASONS LIKE OVARIAN CYSTS, WHICH ENDED UP COSTING HER FRIEND AN OVARY.

It was NOT about FLUKE wanting TAXPAYERS to PAY FOR THE PILL FOR BIRTH CONTROL.

So GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKING IGNORANT FUCKSTICK FOR FUCKING BEING SO FUCKING STUPID. Keep defending Rush's defenseless bullshit... which is my point that the right-wing and gun nuts double and triple-down on their fucking stupidity and insanity and thus not only LOSE THE ARGUMENT, they LOSE ALL RESPECT.

Wow.

Well... there is all of that. Entertaining show.

And then there is the simple fact that there were already existing laws against every bad act that has been offered as justification for any new layer of laws. Those laws already in place included the possession of firearms under a variety of circumstances which made each a prohibited possession.

There is going to be no gun grab, because it would so clearly unleash a socio-political and legal duststorm so dark that it would block the sun. It simply sets in place ramifications that nobody wants. It would redifine the nation and the administration in ways that would harm each.

Now, guns and rush limbaugh and all of the other distractions aside...If every generation adds a layer of restrictive regulations and removes a layer of freedoms, rather than do the real work to cause systemic changes in other ways... in very few generations our great grandchildren will inheret a legacy much more terrible than the evils each generation tried so foolishly to ward off with legislation.

There's laws against underage drinking, and that doesn't keep alcohol out of the hands of underagers.

Does make it a hell of a lot harder for 17-year-olds to get their hands on a bottle of Jack Daniels though.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/state-suspends-gun-permit-for-ceo-who-said-he-would-start-killing-people-over-gun-control/

What a fucking pussy. COME ON TOUGH GUY, THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET YOU RIGHT NOW, FIGHT BACK LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD, OR ARE YOU A FUCKING PUSSY-ASS BITCH?

AC your as crazy as a moonbat.

My as crazy what? Grammar, do you know it, motherfucker?

Also, moonbat is the stupidest, lamest insult I've heard. Where the hell did that even come from?

And yet the underage drinking problem is an epidemic.

I agree with you completely.

We should MAINTAIN the current laws against underage drinking and against underage illegal possession of firearms.

We do not need new laws against underage drinking or underage illegal firearm possession.

Perhaps your point is that we should ban alcohol for adults who have clean records, no problems with police or any other issue related to their responsible drinking, just in case it helps prevent 17-year olds who want to drink from doing it as easily.
And if so, you are describing prohibition, which failed miserably. Because again, the gubment wants money.

The experience at a liquor store or a gun store should be the same for a 17 year old today, without new layers of laws and new layers or freedoms removed. Illegal, both. Right now.

Maybe if parents were held accountable when kids kill, rather than millions of complete strangers who were lawfully going about their business, things would improve. But we certainly can force parents not to suck or anything.

AC said: Obama's having a nice series of meetings with many representatives of both sides to hash out a plan[.]

Plan? There isn't a legal plan going on. The Second Amendment forbids the federal government (which means Obama) from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. What could Obama possibly be planning? He has no legal power in this case.

This President needs to be Impeached.

AC started to lose his effin' mind: Because every teacher should be focused on PACKING HEAT and making sure the one troublemaker in every class doesn't figure out how to get the gun off her, instead of actually teaching.

Actually, every teacher is an adult, in a public place (in the case of public schools), fully empowered in 44 states (including Ohio and Connecticut) to keep and bear arms for his or her self defense.

That's the truth. That's what's legal. And it's time you Liberals recognized it.

The Onion nails it again:

"Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

"Plan? There isn't a legal plan going on. The Second Amendment forbids the federal government (which means Obama) from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. What could Obama possibly be planning? He has no legal power in this case."

Additionally, at least after 9/11 GWB went to Congress and received their approval to take military action.

The VP announced this week that the President would not seek Congressional approval and would enact his "plan" via EO.

Well, that idiot in the White House can sign anything he likes, but what he's doing isn't legal, and as such we should just ignore it. The SCOTUS can be used to slap him down if necessary. CNN has reported in 2012 that there were just about 1.00 firearms per person in the US. That's 310 million firearms in private hands, in half the nation's households. And they don't go bad; firearms are very much non-perishable goods. They aren't going away, and they can't get them all; if they tried, we'd kill all the police, all the military, and all the armed government agents that dared to contend the issue, 10 times over... not that all the police, military and so on would choose to support gun confiscation anyway.

AC said: "And the minute a student gets their hands on a teacher's firearm and shoots someone, it is ALL ON YOU, motherfucker, and I expect you will do the honorable thing with your own weapon and paste your brains all over the ceiling."

You smooth-talkin' rascal! But as it stands, every time a psycho gets into a public school and starts shooting people, it's all on you and the rest of the Liberals for insisting they be disarmed. And I'll be here, telling you that, again and again. With some luck, you'll finally burst a blood vessel in your head and that will be that.

And what grounds do you have for impeachment? What are you going to charge him with?

Oh wait, we know the answer to this. One count of Presidenting while black.

And the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and free exercise of religion, yet you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre and you can't declare yourself to be a member of the Church of Pot and smoke joints all day long, either.

You don't get an unlimited right to carry your own personal arsenal around with you everywhere, and it's about time you Conservative Tea-Tards recognized it.

You keep refusing to address the issues of having guns around a pile of schoolkids of any age. Please, tell us exactly how you're going to ensure that the one little brat in every class won't get his hand on a gun, or won't fuck with the teacher about her gun, or how the teachers are supposed to simultaneously secure their weapons and also have them close to hand for the next shooting. Please, tell us how a 14-classroom K-6 (two classes for each grade level) elementary with maybe a grand total of 25 teachers, librarians, principals, custodians, and aides, is supposed to manage 350 kids (25 students to 1 teacher ratio).

Now tell me how you're gonna handle arming the teachers at one of Toledo's fine public high schools, where instead of dealing with little kids, you have hood-rat teenagers, gang problems, etc. who would love to get their hands on a gun.

I've asked these questions before, and your chickenshit pussy-ass Internet Tough Guy self has completely ignored them. You want the teachers to be armed but you refuse to postulate the possible outcomes of this (other than your masturbatory fantasy of Kindergarten Cop plugging a bad guy in front of the class).

Here's the challenge for you. You have 72 hours from the time of this post to post a DETAILED plan that covers exactly how the teachers, AND the rest of the staff, are supposed to be armed, the training they are supposed to receive, how they are supposed to carry their guns (on hip, concealed, how/where they are supposed to conceal them), what kinds of guns and ammo they are supposed to carry, how and where they are supposed to secure them (desk, lockers, whatever), rules of use/engagement, and how much all this is going to cost (including additional insurance for the staff and district). You are to argue the various pros and cons of anything you propose (e.g. trigger locks will keep the kids from being able to fire the weapon unless they're good at picking locks, but they take time to remove in a crisis situation).

Consider this your homework assignment. Failure to turn it in is an automatic ZERO. Plagiarism is an automatic failure (cite your sources and don't copy someone else's plan as yours). This is a solo project so nobody is to help you with it (that means the rest of TT leaves GZ to his own devices and doesn't post suggestions). Refusal to accept the assignment will be taken as grounds that you are either refusing to acknowledge the consequences of your stance, or that you can't actually defend your stance any further other than your repeated bleating of "but but Second Amendment and state constitutions!" and you will be ridiculed appropriately.

Come on, tough guy, show us what you've got.

AC, you stupid fuck stick. Here's what I got, Right Here!

Now go back down to the bus station and make a few bucks, bitch.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/state-suspends-gun-permit-for-ceo-who-said-he-would-start-killing-people-over-gun-control/

I read your post as implying you're gonna pump lead in me. Do I need to contact TPD or Lucas County Sheriff or what, to have them go knock on jr's door with a search warrant demanding your IP address so they can figure out who you are and investigate if you have "criminal intent"?

Keep it up, guys, the only thing you're doing is shooting more holes in your arguments and case.

http://www.13abc.com/story/20569951/woman-stabbed-outside-of-deja-vu-strip-club

ARM THE STRIPPERS WITH KNIVES, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING STABBED!

(see how gun nut logic works!)

See how the left attempts to marginalize and villianize millions and millions of law-abiding citizens who have broken no laws?

Better logic?: 99.9999% of gun owners have done nothing wrong. Let's further restrict them until we make them criminals.

AC asked: What are you going to charge him with?

Violating one of the most basic laws of all: The Second Amendment, listed quite clearly in the US constitution. The President raised his right paw and swore to uphold that document. Apparently he lied. Obama lies a lot.

AC used another long-discredit Liberal argument against guns: And the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and free exercise of religion, yet you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre and you can't declare yourself to be a member of the Church of Pot and smoke joints all day long, either.

Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater isn't rightful use of your speech. But you can be attacked by anyone else in the public space, hence your right to keep and bear arms in those public spaces shall not be infringed. Arming yourself in public is rightful use.

Where do you Liberals learn the same, dumb, discredited arguments from? Is there some secret rite you take in college or something? Clad only in loincloths, chanting and moaning on your knees before your robed Liberal superiors?

AC continued bloviating: You have 72 hours from the time of this post to post a DETAILED plan that covers exactly how the teachers, AND the rest of the staff, are supposed to be armed[.]

How about 7.2 seconds? :

They have the right to keep and bear arms and may commonly do so in the ways that the public do already.

There. Maybe it was only 5.6 seconds. LOL!

AC and the rest of the Liberal morons will never, ever understand it. We don't need training to vote, to speak, to buy, to sell, to arm ourselves. As citizens, we have the right to do these things. Liberals are TERRIFIED that people are free to do things, which really puts their name into the category of "false advertising". With only the tiniest of scratches, beneath a Liberal's seemingly civilized facade, lurks a nasty demon of Fascism. Liberals want to control everyone and everything they do. Everything must be certified and licensed... except when some brown-skinned person comes over the border, then all the certificates and licenses are waived for some reason. (Some perverse and nasty reason.)

Is that your *F*inal answer?

The final answer is that there's no requirement for citizens to undergo training in order to effect their armed self defense. So yes, that's the final answer. And you're not even in a position to grade it. That was always the point: You don't get to decide who has a right and how they enact that right. They have the right already. You're simply not involved.

I know that's the worst thing you can tell a Liberal/Fascist, that they have no authority. But you don't. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

So what you're saying is that teachers should pack heat and be damned to the consequences.

Again, first time there's a shooting in a school due to staff bringing in weapons for "defense", it's all on you.

LOL. One guy posts "may" and then the other guy comes along and says "So, you are saying SHOULD and it's all your fault."

"if schools weren't gun-free zones, this wouldn't have happened"

You can't logically say that, because a situation exists in which you could have a non-gun-free school and then nobody brings guns anyway and therefore things go down exactly as before.

What would be the point of removing the gun-free zone if nobody brought guns for defense anyway? What, the thought of "maybe someone might possibly be packing" is going to stop someone determined to go out via suicide by proxy?

Whatcha got now, smart guy?

Actually, yes, as shown by the Aurora, CO theater shooting - Holmes lived within 20 minutes of seven theaters. But he didn't pick the closest, he didn't pick the biggest ... he picked the one that banned guns.

People don't have to actually bring guns for there to be an effect, just the possibility that the bad guy will meet armed resistance is enough for the bad guy to find an easier target.

And you bring up suicide by proxy - most of the wackos kill themselves or are arrested alive by the police. These are not suicide by proxy situations. Or they would be picking places that had armed resistance.

"This ordinance banning the carrying of "dangerous weapons" was deemed "unenforceable" when Colorado state prohibited cities and counties from enforcing such laws in 2003. After talking to officials the Aurora Police Department, we found that counties can now issue concealed-and-carry permits, BUT in Aurora, it is still against the law to fire the weapon unless at a shooting range (or if you are an officer on duty). Therefore, it would have been illegal for anyone to fire in the theater. Also, the theater reportedly had a ban on any and all weapons. Anyone without a conceal-and-carry permit in Aurora must also keep their guns unloaded unless at a range."

Hate to ruin your Fox News bullshit, but the fact that the theatre Holmes chose banned guns is irrelevant because any other theatre which allowed weapons wouldn't have any patrons legally allowed to fire back anyhow.

Try again.

AC just doesn't get it: So what you're saying is that teachers should pack heat and be damned to the consequences.

Once again, I'm saying they have the same right to keep and bear arms in a public place that I do and you do in the State of Ohio. Stating anything otherwise is a pure Liberal invention whose time has come to be overturned as the mental illness it really is.

If you're concerned about consequences, then you have the same (and I might add, pointless) concerns about people keeping and bearing arms in public places. And there's nothing you can legally do about it... except to change the constitution of the State of Ohio. Wait, wait, Liberals don't bother with constitutions, seeing how they are just pieces of paper with offensive language like "the right to keep and bear arms".

Toledo Blade: Armed-Janitor Plan Draws Mixed Reaction from Montpelier Parents

School officials said they began floating the idea of arming some nonteaching staff about six months ago in response to periodic national incidents of classroom violence. The Dec. 14 massacre of 20 students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School provided the impetus for the school board enact the plan.

Four janitors, all men, have volunteered to take part and are to undergo a two-day training course in March that will be paid for by the school district.

Also, a reminder: Schools aren't really "gun-free zones". They are "defense-free zones". That's why psycho shooters make a bee line for them; in terms of body counts, that's where you'd go.

And they are only defense-free zones because of Liberals and their horrid strategy of keeping schools in a condition of high potential victimization in order to get America angry enough to tolerate gun bans (which are, after all, illegal). Liberals are responsible for each and every dead child and adult in every school shooting. And it will happen again. And again. And again.

After all, it's not like we'll actually lose the right to keep and bear arms. CNN in 2012 reported there are about 1.00 guns per person in the USA, which is about 310 million guns. These are in about half of the households in the nation, which results in 60 million. There's no way to confiscate them legally or illegally without starting the Civil War II. And with 310 million guns in the hands of at least 60 million people, who do you think will win that particular war? If only 10% of those 60-75 million people defend their natural right to keep and bear arms, they'd outnumber our combined military, police and govt-agent forces by 10-to-1 (assuming 100% of the govt forces fight against the citizens, which is laughably false).

You switched points. Not uncommon.
On the sub-topic that you switched to, I think that part of the growing phenomenon where young whackos steal guns or buy them under false pretenses is that they choose locations that are gun-free zones. Do I think that gun free zones work? They seem to have the opposite effect as was intended. Doesn't it seem that way to you?
I don't think that there is anything that we can do about suicide by proxy. I'll let you know what I come up with.

You know, a couple of months back, I joined you in the gutter. It wasn't really that fun. For a while now, I have made a conscious effort to make sure that my focus is on the topic, rather than on the poster. I think that we are getting to the point that I don't call you names or anything. I simply keep my comments on my perspective and position on the topic that we are discussing. I find that I enjoy participating more, and I think that you should try it.
Here is what I got, smart guy:
I believe that it is the wrong tactic for each generation to add layers of laws on top of the ones that already exist to make up for the compounded failures of each generation in terms of social and economic policy and what appears to be a coarsening of our culture.
I believe that it is the wrong tactic for each generation to remove freedoms out of new fears of what seem to be unprecedented new dangers, but are really just new versions of the same old evil.
I believe that it is unfortunate that the people with the least knowledge of firearms scream "ban" the loudest. Fear and ignorance typically lead to prejudice, and that prejudice is clear in the emotional arguments of the lunatic anti-gun fringe.

Ok, now, from past experience, you will respond with insults, references to fox news and name calling.

If you are a smart as your tone suggests that you think you are, challenge yourself to have the rest of the conversation reasonably and without so much attention on the poster, rather than the post.

So the fact that even if people did have guns they wouldn't be allowed to fire them in the theater affected Holmes' decision to go to a theater that banned guns.

And if someone comes in and illegally starts shooting, someone who is legally carrying would not shoot back because it is illegal. Love the logic.

And you're assuming that all of the theaters within 20 minutes are within city limits, which is something I looked for and cant find.

Schools aren't public places. You don't have a right to bear arms in them.

I guess it is up to the school system. And the proper licensing of the person carrying. I am not sure where I fall on that sub-debate. I guess that I would respect the right of that school district, those parents, and those custodians or teachers. I think that custodians seems like a better idea than teachers in classrooms. Seems it would manage any distraction. We saw grown ups in uniforms with guns as kids. I think that in this new world, it may give them some feeling of security to know that Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith are actively watching for bad people so that they can learn. I am a long way from young, so who knows.

That kid who did the shooting that brought us this thread was after a bully. He looked at a girl and said "not you."

Columbined involved bullys and outcasts. There is a bully problem, and powerless kids who turn to guns that they are prohibited from existing law from having.

Should we address the bully problem?

Or band pistol grips and magazines on rifles instead? It is easier.

AC still doesn't get it yet: Schools aren't public places. You don't have a right to bear arms in them.

Public schools are... what? Private?

Hear that ringing noise in the background, AC? It's the "clue phone". It's ringing, for you.

All public institutions are public places. If my tax money pays for them, they are public.

If you want a "gun free zone" in a school, open your own school, a PRIVATE school.

Justread said: Should we address the bully problem?

You can't. You can't control what children say or even do to or with each other for all the time they are in school, much less online after school. Bullying is already "against the rules". And yet it just continues. It's what Humans do, and unless you want to put the little bastards in chains, that's what you'll have to accept as the Human norm.

I don't disagree. I think my "d" is sticking, though. :)

The government shouldn't regulate the carrying of firearms in a public place? We should allow firearms into Domestic Relations Court? The IRS? That's absurd.

I don't know why I 'm bothering though. I seem to remember GZ saying a while back that anyone, including the mentally ill and convicted criminals, should not be prohibited from owning whatever weapon they want.

I am totally on board with the current restrictions on court proceedings, bars, and similar public places. I do support licensed concealed carry in bars for the non-drinking person who qualifies.

I double dog dare you to walk into a public school and wander around.

I double dog dare you to run around a public cemetery or park after it's closed.

I triple dog dare you to go down to the water plant and walk around as if you own the place.

DO IT.

Oh we should address the bully problem.

Except that would cost money because we'd need more resources to monitor things, possibly cameras in the hallways and so on to capture evidence.

You're a hardcore conservative, you hate funding public schools.

So yeah, it's easy for you to say let's address the bully problem, you won't do it though.

On the subject of public schools, I don't mind funding them if they don't suck.
I'd like to address the bully problem. It's possible it would cost less up front then afterward. Look at St. Pat's with the tip system.

Just like failing public schools, throwing money at the bullying problem will not fix it. Bullying happens because certain kids are perceived as weak. So we need to teach our weak kids to stop acting weak. That's what I did with my son when he was having problems in the fifth grade - the bullies didn't stop harassing him until he stopped caring what they said to/about him and built his own personal strength. Putting him in martial arts helped the process (I will admit this did cost me money). I used. Different tactics with my daughter a few years later. Bullying isn't stopped at school by telling the bully to stop. Bullying is stopped by getting the bullied to believe in themself.

Thru out life, each of is met with challenges, and different personalities and aggressive people. We have to teach our children how to deal with this or they will be unprepared to deal with what life is as an adult.

Ace_face said: The government shouldn't regulate the carrying of firearms in a public place?

The US constitution says the federal government can't do it. The Ohio constitution says the state government can't do it. So you've run out of levels of government in the United States, friend. Bother to understand the structure of your nation and its laws.

And if you're concerned about people being armed, like you're scared or something. then arm yourself. You have that right. It says so right there in TWO constitutions whose text are easily obtained. Can you read?

I won't bother engaging with you regarding legitimate state interests, rational relationships and other concepts that have affected Constitutional interpretation over the years. There's no point.

Try carrying a gun into the courthouse sometime. Make sure you tell the guard that he is violating your rights. I imagine it going down like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5EVcJZkU0

AC, public schools are public places. Yes they ask you check in with the administration but there are a lot of gov't buildings that do that who cannot prevent access to the public.

Ace, SCOTUS takes a very VERY limited view when it comes to limitations on Amendments. Now in the case of a courthouse, they allowed that as an exception because there is armed security on site.

The problem that frustrates the anti-gun lobby is that because of the threat they pose to law abiding carrying citizens those citizens have the tendancy to be VERY well informed.

I'll tell you what, AC. Don't you let me intimidate you or anything, you just do as you see best.

You stupid fuck stick.

Eh, not so fast my erudite associate. The school system can address behavior issues such as bullying. The school teachers can even begin teaching morals and acceptable ethical behavior.

Now, given that Johnny can't read, how successful is the Ethics of Modern Living curriculum going to be? Compounding the problem is that the people doing the teaching begin every third sentence with I feel followed by You (insert accusation).

From JustRead: I believe that it is the wrong tactic for each generation to add layers of laws on top of the ones that already exist to make up for the compounded failures of each generation in terms of social and economic policy and what appears to be a coarsening of our culture.

From GuestZero: Also, a reminder: Schools aren't really "gun-free zones". They are "defense-free zones". That's why psycho shooters make a bee line for them; in terms of body counts, that's where you'd go.

Well said, enough so that the comments bear repeating.

Interesting encounter. I think that if that guy would have tried that in Toledo, he would have been arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting public panic, and resisting arrest. That's if he wasn't shot first.
Then, he would have "resisted" some more and been tazed down at the LCJ.

Ohio Revised Code
» Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE
» Chapter 2911: ROBBERY, BURGLARY, TRESPASS AND SAFECRACKING

2911.21 Criminal trespass.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;

(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

• It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.*

If the state has a law saying you can't be on so-called "public" property, then there's no reason why you should expect to be able to carry your prosthetic penis with you on it, either.

Odd how this time the rights of GZ to carry his metal phallus trumps that of property owners.

They "ask" that you check in, they don't require it?

Yeah, again, I want to see GZ just march right in to all these "public" places packing heat and see what that gets him.

Didn't taxpayer funds build 5/3 Field and Huntington Arena? How about those "public" places? You Toledoans get the right to have your own games there, right?

^^ How GZ and the other gun nuts see themselves. ^^

^^ What the stupid gun nuts are like ^^

^^ Why people start getting uncomfortable around them ^^

^^ Then we see them armed like this ^^

^^ Then they do this stuff and wonder why people think they're crazy and want restrictions on firearms.

Good question. Anyone want to tell us exactly how they think they'll be able to fight back and win?

Are you saying I cannot attend games there?

There are limitations in use. Just because something is public doesn't mean there aren't hours of operation but that does not deem them not public. They also cannot ban GZ from games just because they don't like his beard or can they? A non-public place could do just that.

Is GZ even legally allowed to carry a gun in the state of Ohio?

So you can't go walk onto the field and start hitting balls at 5/3 Field, but you maintain you have the right to carry a loaded firearm around there or anywhere else without restriction?

Probably won't be after they see this thread and adjudicate him as a danger to himself or others.

I am not sure that gun owners have been fairly represented in AC's creative art project.

Before Sandy Hook, normal everyday people who happened to be shooters were allowed to exist as if they were not crackpots.
Well, we are still not crackpots, but people who don't happen to know any shooters are freaking out, so now, if we talk about gun ownership in a positive light, we are the subject of attempts to marginalize and villianize us. Even though we have done nothing wrong and are the same people as before December.

Here is an example of that normalcy that the left has attempted to marginalize:
http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/tt.pl/article/126926/New_indoor_firing_range_in_Maumee

Last post Dec. 4. Back when it was ok to be us. Nobody back then would have thought to hijack the thread, calling us all baby killers or post ridiculous parody pictures of us. People who weren't interested in that particular activity simply passed it by.
We live in a different world now. It has never been more important to join or support the NRA.

^^^ of course, as always... if a specific person is a specific, credible threat to you, you should call the police.

If a stranger just pisses you off on the internet, get over it.

You guys did it to yourself.

Go look at the Alex Jones interview.

Go find the James Yeager video.

Go find where the NRA proposed to arm the teachers.

Look at GZ's responses here.

Look at the rhetoric the right-wing has talked up over the past 4 years, the "Liberal Hunting Permits", the "We Came Unarmed [this time]" signs at Tea Party protests/rallies.

Don't walk in here and act all innocent and say you're being marginalized and villianized. Don't expect the whole "but but liberal media is out to get us" line to work, either.

You and your side have been asked to set up a dialog, and every time you speak, it's "BECAUSE SECOND AMENDMENT, WHICH YOU LLLLLLIBERALS DON'T GET!" Even when the question is "okay, fine, then how are we gonna arm teachers yet keep the guns out of the hands of the kids during school time?" Not one word on that, it was "BECAUSE SECOND AMENDMENT, NOW SHUT UP YOU STUPID LLLLLIBERAL!"

All that's been done on your side is to scream about how the Constitution empowers you to carry whenever, wherever, and anything less is unconstitutional and grounds for armed rebellion. However, that's bullshit, because if you gave a damn about the Constitution, you'd be just as pissed off when it came to infringement upon the separation of church and state, free speech, search and seizure, equal protection/equal rights (including gay rights), and so on. But you want Jesus in schools, you called everyone who questioned the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping and government surveillance traitors and terrorist-lovers (at least until Obama won the election, then suddenly those became issues, gee I wonder why!), and you certainly harbor all sorts of racism, sexism, and homophobia. The gun nut crowd is overwhelmingly conservative Republican/Libertarian, after all, anyone who dares say "maybe we don't really need 30 round magazines" is immediately excommunicated, ostracized, and tagged as a LLLLLLLLLLiberal gun-grabber. So the only conclusion to make is that your argument about Second Amendment just means you have an entitlement complex whereby not being allowed to carry around your choice of replacement for your penis and security blanket makes you throw a tantrum.

For you, really, it's not about Second Amendment or gun ownership, it's about you not having/getting what you want.

Owning a gun and shooting away at targets is fun, I get that. So is model rocketry, so is photography, so is playing video games. At the same time, rocketry got hit by post 9/11 regulations, photography of lots of things now gets you stopped and questioned by rent-a-cops or police or FBI, and video games are being blamed for violence yet again. But when someone goes "I don't see where you really need 100 or 30 round magazines for your hobby", suddenly it's flip-out and attack the LLLLLLLIBERAL GUN-GRABBER TIME.

"So you can't go walk onto the field and start hitting balls at 5/3 Field, but you maintain you have the right to carry a loaded firearm around there or anywhere else without restriction?" Is there armed security on site as I showed previously?

Funny you linked that justread. Should we call to have SensorG investigated now since in that thread he said he wanted a flamethrower? He had no reason to have a flamethrower. Yet he said it in an internet thread.

"You guys did it to yourself." and that would be what exactly? Explain how limiting a magazine is dumb to which you then suggested we make them more lethal?

"you'd be just as pissed off when it came to infringement upon the separation of church and state, free speech, search and seizure, equal protection/equal rights (including gay rights), and so on." Well since I showed earlier how the Journal News infringed upon almost every single one of those in another thread and I believe they should be held financially liable for it, then no I don't.

"At the same time, rocketry got hit by post 9/11 regulations, photography of lots of things now gets you stopped and questioned by rent-a-cops or police or FBI, and video games are being blamed for violence yet again." Actually no. First, there is no Constitutional Amendment that says that owning fuel for a rocket "Shall not be infringed". Likewise, no one has/is saying ban violent video games. What I did say in the other thread is we are ignoring a social problem by threatening lawful gunowners. That was exactly what the Journal News did by publishing the gun owners, it issued a threat. Your silence on that is deafening.

Can AC get any more smug with himself?

The millions and millions of us that are not represented in your emotional rant did not "do this to ourselves."

Your description of "my side" does not actually fit my views or my posts. I don't think that you read them. I think that you make broad sweeping generalizations.

I talk about laws and freedoms, responsibility, and reflect on the a tiny percentage of people who are evil and will ignore the new laws as much as the old laws, thus making them apply only to law-abiding citizens. I talk about my belief that layers of new laws are not the appropriate reaction to layers of new challenges created by failed social and economic policy.

I believe that many of the rights are at risk, not just the 2nd. I think that what "your side" (so silly) is essentially doing the same kind of wrong freedom grab that the Patriot act was. You see, I don't like it when people make reactionary grabs at freedoms out of fear and a desire to control what they can't. I don't care what party they are in. Frankly, on THAT topic, Clinton is looking dam good right about now. But that, like so many of your points, is off topic.

I have no interest in armed rebellion. I don't think that either "side" does. I really don't see it so much as "sides" as I do different people with different opinions and perspectives.

You talk about racism, sexism, homophobes, and penises. You attempt to marginalize and villianize people who have nothing in common with the stereotypes that you select to represent them.

Are you not emotionally capable of having a reasonable conversation? I don't think that you have followed the conversation and the rational points that have been made.

You know, AC... perhaps if you actually knew any actual gun owners, Guest Zero would not have to serve as your single point of reference.
And if you actually read posts, you would know that we don't represent one another.

The sane, responsible gun owners are not posting in this thread.

GZ, the moron here is you.

I have said it again and again: you have a one-track mind. You use one word over and over and over again: LIBERAL. You lack the basic intelligence to carry on a debate while moving past your overriding prejudices and stereotypes. Instead of effecting meaningful debate, you rest upon that word and that notion like a crutch. Whenever a point of yours is well refuted, you ignore the refutation and go back to bashing 'liberals' [is Ron Reagan a liberal gun grabber? You never answered my question]. This is because you lack the mental capacity to wrap your head around a complex issue. You NEED that buzz word or you can't communicate. Disagreement is not only OK, it is essential for a free nation to survive--and I would never even say that EVERYTHING you say is wrong. But you cannot handle disagreement with your worldview...and you certainly cannot engage in civil debate...and that is where your buzzword comes in. I have said it before: your lack of security in your own opinions and perceptions is so complete, the word 'liberal' is the brain salve you use to reassure yourself that those who disagree with you are a single, well-defined cabal and the one thing you must eliminate (or at least marginalize) in order for the world around you to be perfect. The reality is that the world and this nation--specifically this nation's problems--are more complex than that. There is not just one thing wrong here, not just one thing at fault, and not just one thing that needs to be done to improve things.

AC tends to fly off the handle, with nasty insults and profanity; which is no more productive than what you do. I won't defend that either.

But the fact remains, my friend, you are an incredibly ignorant and small-minded person.

Fuck you, SensorG.

Fuck you, AC.

Fuck you, Maryellen.

Fuck you, John Boy.

Fuck you, grampa.

(Sorry... one dam glass of wine.)

Ha!
Ha!Ha!
Ha!Ha!Ha!

That's rich!

Good one, JustRead. I damned near snorted bourbon all over my keyboard. Here's a tip of the old fedora and a hoist of my evening bourbon glass to you sir.

Starting to sound like the lyrics for an Eminem song minus the talent.

Back atcha Jack, and of course, fuck you. :)

:: looks in mirror

Oh hi, gun owner.

Now, who is the average Joe going to be worried about? Me, who has two long guns (shotguns/rifles) what are bolt/pump action, and I'll neither confirm nor deny ownership of A handgun, or you guys, who are adamant that you need AR-15s with all the trimmings for your "hobby" and "self-defense" and who are on here going on about SECOND AMENDMENT! and how if everyone was armed there'd be no shootings?

Ol' AC might go out during huntin' season and shoot a few ducks and wabbits, or off to the range and smash a few skeets.

You guys have made wonderful comments about how many guns and rounds of ammo you gots in your bunkers and how the value of your "investments" has doubled.

Guess what?

YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR ME.

Thanks for nothing, assholes.

I'm too tired to make an appropriate riposte, so:

[generic insult about your mother]

I said I don't like AR 15s.
I said that I don't have an "assault rifle."
I said I could live without 30 round mags.
I have never identified which weapons I may or may not own, nor have I disclosed how many rounds I have.
I simply gave one example one day of the result in the market of the strong banning language that was being tossed around.

You are getting people mixed up or lumping them together, or something.
And also, fuck you AC.

The best was the CA congressman who tweeted "When duck hunting I am only allowed to have 3 shells in my shotgun. Apparently we care more about ducks than we do people."

Well then I would suggest he pass a law that when shooting PEOPLE you are only allowed to use 3 rounds at a time.

Again, shows the absurdity of this argument. There are already laws against murder. Of course he ignores these because he wants to limit a constitutional protection he doesn't like.

I advocate for a ban on hunting upland water people during their annual migration.

I advocate for a ban on hunting upland water people during their annual migration.

Easy for you to say. Have you taken a hard look at the damage they cause during migration? They've absolutely ruined every single backyard, city park and golf course within three miles of their migration route, and now I hear that they're spreading out even further.

How about all the guides, boat rentals and private hunting stands you're going to put out of business. You ever think about them? A lot of those people have children that won't get a Christmas if that stupid ban goes through.

I don't know, JustRead. I think you really should reconsider.