OFFS: The Forsakening

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25468
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by JasonL »

Friends don’t let friends be Open Carry Guy.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2920
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Jake »

Jake wrote: 10 Aug 2019, 05:58 I'm guessing he was trying to do a weird flex on his Second Amendment rights.
Hey, it looks like I was right! The story's been updated.
CNN wrote:"I wanted to know if that Walmart honored the Second Amendment," Dmitriy Andreychenko told investigators, according to a probable cause statement filed by Springfield police.
So he wants to show the world whether or not Walmart "honors" his rights, but apparently hasn't read the Constitution closely enough to notice that Walmart isn't part of the US government, and thus the Second Amendment doesn't restrain them in any way whatsoever. He's gonna breed and pass on his dipshittery too, I bet. Doom.
"One doesn't want to be a Chicken Little but OTOH does the sky look closer to you? It looks closer to me." -- Warren
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 30233
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by thoreau »

The more I look at American culture, the more convinced I am that the second amendment is completely unnecessary to defend gun ownership.

The "free exercise of religion" clause of the first amendment is more than sufficient to protect gun culture in America.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo
User avatar
Wixenstyx
Posts: 455
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 12:43
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Wixenstyx »

Jake wrote: 10 Aug 2019, 11:45 So he wants to show the world whether or not Walmart "honors" his rights, but apparently hasn't read the Constitution closely enough to notice that Walmart isn't part of the US government, and thus the Second Amendment doesn't restrain them in any way whatsoever. He's gonna breed and pass on his dipshittery too, I bet. Doom.
Based on local news reactions, that particular dipshittery was hardly about to die with him anyway...
Perhaps the greatest loss of all is that we may never again live in a world free of hyperbole. --JasonL
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20360
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I don't get it. Why are these people shooting up Walmart? Why aren't they going to Target?
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4613
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Painboy »

JasonL wrote: 10 Aug 2019, 11:25 Friends don’t let friends be Open Carry Guy.
Those guys are very much in my "Please stay off my side" category.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30039
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 10 Aug 2019, 15:11 I don't get it. Why are these people shooting up Walmart? Why aren't they going to Target?
That's going in the act.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3380
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Number 6 »

I have nothing useful to add, but I will say that gun culture in America makes me want to melt down the couple of rifles and shotgun I have. Glob knows, I won't go anywhere near firing ranges because...well, gun wanks.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12108
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by JD »

Chuck Schumer, aroused by the smell of blood, now wants the FBI to regulate sales of body armor.
The bill would require the FBI to establish standards for who is allowed to buy body armor such as bullet-resistant vests after a series of mass shootings in which the gunmen wore body armor, most recently the suspect in the killing of nine people last weekend in Dayton, Ohio.

Schumer’s proposal would include exceptions for police and other public safety officials, according to the AP.

“The ease with which those intent on doing evil are able to get advanced body armor is shocking,” Schumer tweeted Sunday afternoon. “In addition to the House-passed background checks bill, it’s time to require anyone seeking sophisticated body armor to get sign-off from the FBI.”
Has this clown ever had any ideas beyond banning things? His entire worldview seems to be one in which the feds have all the power, and everyone else's life needs to be a game of Mother May I. And seriously, just how many mass shootings have there been lately in which the shooter wore body armor? I'd also love to ask him one-on-one exactly where he thinks the feds have the authority to regulate who can and can't buy armor.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8458
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Shem »

Wixenstyx wrote: 09 Aug 2019, 23:30 https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/us/walma ... index.html

This is such a bizarre story. He says he didn't go in intending to shoot anyone, but went in dressed like he was intending to shoot someone and carrying a rifle with which he COULD have shot someone, on the day after a mass shooting in a Wal-mart elsewhere.
After the shooting at the military recruiting office a couple years ago, a moron showed up at the local recruiting office open-carrying an AR15. He was going to guard them. He couldn't got the life of him understand why people were twitchy.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 30233
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by thoreau »

Because if there's one thing military organizations love, it's armed people who aren't part of their organization hanging around their facilities.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo
User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 8803
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Pham Nuwen »

thoreau wrote: 12 Aug 2019, 18:43 Because if there's one thing military organizations love, it's armed people who aren't part of their organization hanging around their facilities.
What about our friends in Iraq and Afghanistan that we liberated from tyranny?
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20360
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Pham Nuwen wrote: 12 Aug 2019, 18:46
thoreau wrote: 12 Aug 2019, 18:43 Because if there's one thing military organizations love, it's armed people who aren't part of their organization hanging around their facilities.
What about our friends in Iraq and Afghanistan that we liberated from tyranny?
We don't let them wander around secured areas. It's not like it's their country, after all.
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18935
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by lunchstealer »

JD wrote: 12 Aug 2019, 12:52 Chuck Schumer, aroused by the smell of blood, now wants the FBI to regulate sales of body armor.
The bill would require the FBI to establish standards for who is allowed to buy body armor such as bullet-resistant vests after a series of mass shootings in which the gunmen wore body armor, most recently the suspect in the killing of nine people last weekend in Dayton, Ohio.

Schumer’s proposal would include exceptions for police and other public safety officials, according to the AP.

“The ease with which those intent on doing evil are able to get advanced body armor is shocking,” Schumer tweeted Sunday afternoon. “In addition to the House-passed background checks bill, it’s time to require anyone seeking sophisticated body armor to get sign-off from the FBI.”
Has this clown ever had any ideas beyond banning things? His entire worldview seems to be one in which the feds have all the power, and everyone else's life needs to be a game of Mother May I. And seriously, just how many mass shootings have there been lately in which the shooter wore body armor? I'd also love to ask him one-on-one exactly where he thinks the feds have the authority to regulate who can and can't buy armor.
Why the fuck should there be an exception for cops? If a cop can't get authorization from the FBI to buy body armor without some I'm-a-cop trump card, then he shouldn't be a fucking cop.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18935
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by lunchstealer »

Generally speaking I feel that in order to become a cop you should have to qualify for a concealed carry permit without reference to your intended profession. Police should also have no special treatment when it comes to possession of restricted classes of firearms. It should be a felony for them to possess any automatic weapon that was manufactured after 1987. If assault weapons are banned, they should be required to relinquish any AR-15s.

For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30039
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 00:23 ...law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible.
That's a very interesting mandate. How'd you come up with it?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18935
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by lunchstealer »

Warren wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 01:12
lunchstealer wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 00:23 ...law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible.
That's a very interesting mandate. How'd you come up with it?
That unicorn told me as he flew by handing out free lunches.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6988
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Dangerman »

lunchstealer wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 00:23 Generally speaking I feel that in order to become a cop you should have to qualify for a concealed carry permit without reference to your intended profession. Police should also have no special treatment when it comes to possession of restricted classes of firearms. It should be a felony for them to possess any automatic weapon that was manufactured after 1987. If assault weapons are banned, they should be required to relinquish any AR-15s.

For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.
This is an extremely solid argument IMO.
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12108
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by JD »

Dangerman wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 11:07
lunchstealer wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 00:23 For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.
This is an extremely solid argument IMO.
This is what I've felt too. If they're only good for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible, why do the police have them? Of course, every time I bring up some variation of this argument, I get responses like, "Cops might need to face bad guys who are heavily armed! Cops are special and different! You're not being serious! You want everyone to have an AR-15!" etc. etc.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17171
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Aresen »

Team lunchstealer, Dangerman and JD.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4613
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Painboy »

JD wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 12:42
Dangerman wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 11:07
lunchstealer wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 00:23 For fuck's sake if an AR15 is designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible, they have no legitimate use for law enforcement whose job is not to kill as many people as possible. They are not assassins or soldiers, and they never have authorization to engage in non-defensive killing. If an AR15 has no legitimate defensive value, then cops should be banned from possessing them.
This is an extremely solid argument IMO.
This is what I've felt too. If they're only good for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible, why do the police have them? Of course, every time I bring up some variation of this argument, I get responses like, "Cops might need to face bad guys who are heavily armed! Cops are special and different! You're not being serious! You want everyone to have an AR-15!" etc. etc.
I imagine the anti-gun counter argument is cops shouldn't have them either and ultimately when we get rid of all guns cops won't need them. Then we can get to banning knives.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25468
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by JasonL »

One of a continuing series “most shitty things are that way because people want them that way”, I don’t think you’d get much disarming the cops talk from the left. They fucking love jackboots they can control for the greater good. Love love love [emoji177] the absolute monopoly of force.
User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1685
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by dead_elvis »

OFFS what could possibly go wrong:

Screen All Adult Patients for Drug Abuse, National Panel Urges

It should then be insisted that doctors start every appointment with a reading of Miranda rights.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13852
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by Highway »

dead_elvis wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 15:26 OFFS what could possibly go wrong:

Screen All Adult Patients for Drug Abuse, National Panel Urges

It should then be insisted that doctors start every appointment with a reading of Miranda rights.
Immediately followed by a "Crisis! People not going to the doctor to get maladies taken care of until too late!" Because they didn't want to get narced on by their doctor.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12108
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: OFFS: The Forsakening

Post by JD »

JasonL wrote: 13 Aug 2019, 15:13 One of a continuing series “most shitty things are that way because people want them that way”, I don’t think you’d get much disarming the cops talk from the left. They fucking love jackboots they can control for the greater good. Love love love [emoji177] the absolute monopoly of force.
I don't think it's even really limited to the left. Most people want to be ruled by a Great King, who has the power to do anything he wants, as long as he's their kind of king.

BTW, I recently read a few discussions on the anarchist perspective on gun control; most participants were left-anarchists (I think because most people who identify with the anarchist label are left-anarchists), and most of them rejected the idea, pointing out that control implies a controller. There were one or two Bakuninites who said things like "Well, all arms should be kept in community armories, managed by democratically elected committees..." but even in left-anarchist forums they tended to be hooted at by those who asked how that wasn't just government under a different name.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
Post Reply