namelesstavern.net

I know this has been debated to death and I'm NOT looking for a fresh debate, BUT, this poor guy, damn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33251920/ns ... ?GT1=43001

Then you've got these sorry to be free idiots:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33270591/ns ... nd_courts/

IMO, it will be the media and events like above that will ultimatly be the demise of "guns" in our society.

Ha, i loved the dude jumping around like a monkey at the end.

John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time.

Its not the guns fault this man is an idiot and it makes me angry that guns are going to get banned becuase of stupid shit like this. This dude broke every rule of useing a weapon for defending ones home and hes going to suffer for it the rest of his life. Imo after hearing the noise he should have got his peice , figured out where his woman was and then and only then engaged the person in the home.

People like arlos will say this wouldnt have happened if we didnt have guns in our home and in this case that would be hard to argue. On the other hand if he didnt have a weapon and he did have an invader in his house people like me would say it could have been porevented with a gun.

As to the ohio shootout even with a gun ban shit like that could and would still happen. Gangters and criminals dont care about the laws and wouldnt just hand over thier weapons just becuase they arent sposed to have them.

Last but not least if we ended the war on drugs this ohio shootout could have been avoided all together.

Why would you fire at a random "figure" in the hallway? Idiots like him shouldn't be able to own any kind of weapon. Had he allowed the "figure" to get close enough to see he had a gun they probably would have run off, had it been an actual intruder.

Spazz wrote:

John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time.

Its not the guns fault this man is an idiot and it makes me angry that guns are going to get banned becuase of stupid shit like this. This dude broke every rule of useing a weapon for defending ones home and hes going to suffer for it the rest of his life. Imo after hearing the noise he should have got his peice , figured out where his woman was and then and only then engaged the person in the home.

People like arlos will say this wouldnt have happened if we didnt have guns in our home and in this case that would be hard to argue. On the other hand if he didnt have a weapon and he did have an invader in his house people like me would say it could have been porevented with a gun.

As to the ohio shootout even with a gun ban shit like that could and would still happen. Gangters and criminals dont care about the laws and wouldnt just hand over thier weapons just becuase they arent sposed to have them.

Last but not least if we ended the war on drugs this ohio shootout could have been avoided all together.

I don't *think* Arlos is anti-gun... I think he's just anti-moron having them.

Make no mistake though. The liberal left doesn't give a flying fuck about you, me or anyone else's "safety" - gun control has nothing to do with resolving crime or "saving lives." It has everything to do with the power and control over our lives.

Yes because as soon as you no longer have guns they're gonna storm your house and implant you with a GPS microchip and tattoo a barcode on the back of your neck. Damn those guns preventing them from doing that.

I'm not wearing the tin foil hat, but what exactly is stopping them from doing so?

The first step in a dictatorship of any sort is disarming the populace. It has been done countless times in history.

Well then we're on our way. Most of the populace is already disarmed and those who are armed, have to unlock their lockboxes and assemble their guns.

no need to disarm us, they've already shut off our brains with advertising and "reality" television

americans are more docile now than ever before because the gubmint has become extremely skilled at doing what it wants to do without alarming the public

You're correct, Diekan. I am not anti-gun. Hell, my dad had several when I was growing up (mix of shotguns, a hunting rifle, and an old 1800's carbine that was handed down through the family). I recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and barring it being repealed (never going to happen), owning guns is a right enshrined in the source of this country's entire rule of law. I even borrowed one of my dad's shotguns when I was in college at Whitman, and would go out shooting with a couple friends in the area around town. (Farmers there generally were just fine with people on their land shooting at targets, as long as you picked up your brass and made damn sure there was nothing downrange of you. Had a couple nice conversations with some who came by as we were shooting at paper targets we'd tack to a inch thick piece of plyboard we'd bring with us)

I am, though, as you said, VERY VERY VERY against morons behaving unsafely with guns. If you want to trace this back, you can point to where my little brother nearly got killed at 2 years old in a rural area outside Sacramento because 2 idiots were firing their brand new rifles in an unsafe manner, and a round came right through the exterior wall of my grandparents' house with enough force to punch through a solid oak cabinet after flying across the room from where it had come through the wall, passing through where my brother had been standing not 10 seconds before the round came through. I was all of 7 at the time.

So, I've long been an advocate of a law making it a requirement to pass a written and practical firearms use/safety test before you get to bring guns you own home. If you don't pass it, you can own them, but you need to keep them stored at a place like a local gun range, shooting club, etc. Classes for those that need them should be offered by gun ranges and police departments, but the classes wouldn't be required to take or pass the tests. (since lots of people learn proper safety from parents, in boy scouts, the military, etc.) I realize this is a bit of a hassle for responsible owners, but it's not unduly onerous, and keeps mongoloids with single digit IQs from endangering the rest of us. (or at least makes it harder for them to)

The other thing I'm opposed to is free concealed carry. The reason there is I have simply known far too many people that turn into complete raving idiots when they get drunk. Hell, think about how many ostensibly normal people get into bar brawls when they're drunk. You don't think some significant fraction of those would turn lethal if Joe Alcoholic With Hair Trigger Temper could freely be armed?

Anyway, speaking as the resident raving lefty commie pinko liberal, my position on guns has *NOTHING* to do with control, period. I have no interest in running anyone else's life. My position is entirely based on my interest in not getting my ass shot off by a drunken moron in a bar, along with my interest in not seeing 5 year olds getting shot with guns that were stored improperly by negligent owners, or other similar injuries or deaths caused by people behaving irresponsibly with lethal weapons. Sure, we can never stop all of it, but I don't see that as a reason why we can't TRY and make things better. Now, I can't speak for ALL other liberal types, but I personally don't know a SINGLE one whose interest in gun control has a motive of wanting to take away people's freedoms or control people's lives. Instead, it's pretty universal that it's safety concerns. *shrug* That whole "liberals want to take away your freedoms" or "Liberals want power and control over your lives" is nothing but a bunch of completely paranoid BS, honestly.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:You're correct, Diekan. I am not anti-gun. Hell, my dad had several when I was growing up (mix of shotguns, a hunting rifle, and an old 1800's carbine that was handed down through the family). I recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and barring it being repealed (never going to happen), owning guns is a right enshrined in the source of this country's entire rule of law. I even borrowed one of my dad's shotguns when I was in college at Whitman, and would go out shooting with a couple friends in the area around town. (Farmers there generally were just fine with people on their land shooting at targets, as long as you picked up your brass and made damn sure there was nothing downrange of you. Had a couple nice conversations with some who came by as we were shooting at paper targets we'd tack to a inch thick piece of plyboard we'd bring with us)

I am, though, as you said, VERY VERY VERY against morons behaving unsafely with guns. If you want to trace this back, you can point to where my little brother nearly got killed at 2 years old in a rural area outside Sacramento because 2 idiots were firing their brand new rifles in an unsafe manner, and a round came right through the exterior wall of my grandparents' house with enough force to punch through a solid oak cabinet after flying across the room from where it had come through the wall, passing through where my brother had been standing not 10 seconds before the round came through. I was all of 7 at the time.

So, I've long been an advocate of a law making it a requirement to pass a written and practical firearms use/safety test before you get to bring guns you own home. If you don't pass it, you can own them, but you need to keep them stored at a place like a local gun range, shooting club, etc. Classes for those that need them should be offered by gun ranges and police departments, but the classes wouldn't be required to take or pass the tests. (since lots of people learn proper safety from parents, in boy scouts, the military, etc.) I realize this is a bit of a hassle for responsible owners, but it's not unduly onerous, and keeps mongoloids with single digit IQs from endangering the rest of us. (or at least makes it harder for them to)

The other thing I'm opposed to is free concealed carry. The reason there is I have simply known far too many people that turn into complete raving idiots when they get drunk. Hell, think about how many ostensibly normal people get into bar brawls when they're drunk. You don't think some significant fraction of those would turn lethal if Joe Alcoholic With Hair Trigger Temper could freely be armed?

Anyway, speaking as the resident raving lefty commie pinko liberal, my position on guns has *NOTHING* to do with control, period. I have no interest in running anyone else's life. My position is entirely based on my interest in not getting my ass shot off by a drunken moron in a bar, along with my interest in not seeing 5 year olds getting shot with guns that were stored improperly by negligent owners, or other similar injuries or deaths caused by people behaving irresponsibly with lethal weapons. Sure, we can never stop all of it, but I don't see that as a reason why we can't TRY and make things better. Now, I can't speak for ALL other liberal types, but I personally don't know a SINGLE one whose interest in gun control has a motive of wanting to take away people's freedoms or control people's lives. Instead, it's pretty universal that it's safety concerns. *shrug* That whole "liberals want to take away your freedoms" or "Liberals want power and control over your lives" is nothing but a bunch of completely paranoid BS, honestly.

-Arlos

This.

the only problem is that you can't really pass a "no morons allowed in the gene pool law"


realistically speaking, you'd have to then be able to enforce culling, and selective breeding, etc etc

I'm confident if they made tests difficult enough it would help. Right now you don't really have to take any test, just say you did when you were 15 as a boy scout, even if that, and you're locked and loaded in a weeks time.

Also, if you take the 2nd to a literal meaning, we should be able to have guns equal to our government, without additional burdens, etc. I think it is safe to say that is not the case so while the 2nd makes the right feel all warm and fuzy, the truth is, you've already given up your rights to form a public militia with a snowballs chance in hell to overthrow a fucking ant hill.

For whatever it is worth, I'm only anti-hand-gun, I've never had the same issues with rifles and in all my "rants", I've made that pretty clear.

yeah i'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment means cities can have an armed militia. but now people think "militia" means "population". WELL GOT DAMN IT THAT'S THE WAY MY DADDY DID IT AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'M A GONNA CHANGIN'

this country is fucked!!! Alex put it perfectly. and i know i've said this before but every time i meet a new foreigner the stereotype is reinforced: Americans are self-absorbed egotards. no matter what anyone says, be it infallibly logical or not, someone like spazz is gonna think people need guns. why don't you just get a sword? or a slingshot? or like, something that's more badass than a) point b) click

guns are for faggots and were invented by pussies (european whites, big surprise) that couldn't handle real combat. perpetrated by an even bigger group of pussies (Americans) that ran away from mother england. guns are the bitch's way out of tough situations. i'd wager the world would be a drastically different place if the firearm weren't invented

Unless Chow Yun Fat were wielding the guns. That man is a badass.

somehow he would marry guns and civilization into a utopian paradise

Drem wrote:somehow he would marry guns and civilization into a utopian paradise

Yes!

Yeah, guns were invented because people couldn't handle "real combat" lmao

You're off your rocker there.

i really have to explain that to you? *sigh*

Dude Guns arent for pussies. I get it you live in a safe spot where the shit doesnt go down every other night . Thats great you dont need a gun. I live with one of the worst spots other than detroit just blocks from my house. I assure you i can fight and even when i carry id rather settle with my hands but sometimes something like 4 dudes with bats and pipes have you in an alley . Even fedor would have a problem in a situation like that. Guns keep people safe and not all people who drink draw arms and kill people. If guns worry you dont have one in your house but dont assume im some jackass brandishing a weapon just becuase id rather not get " Kilt" one evening by some goobers that think im someone else.When you say no one needs a gun what you mean is that you dont need a gun. Ill invite any one of yall to come stay with me for a month or two and tell me you dont see a reason why people carry round here.


DREM you met a few black dudes that sell coke and saw a rap video or 2 and you think you know whats really hood. Tell me what would you do cought away from home by 4 armed dudes that thought you were someone else? You gonna let them come up on you and try to talk to em ? Gonna hope you can run faster and you wont find 2 more around the corner ? Pull your katana and represent? I guess what im tryin to tell you buddy is that in my neighborhood shit can get out of hand before you even realize its goin down. People get fucked up round here for just bein in the wrong place at the wrong time. All those jokes bout detroit being a shithole are based on something man .

Makes me wonder if the urban centers are the new Frontier that American culture has been needing for so many years?

We need a new frontier ? Yea dude everyone loves to live hoping that thier tv will still be at the house when they get home after being gone a few hours. It feels like christmas inside wondering if in the 2 blocks it takes to walk to the store and back will i get robbed or beat down. Dont get me wrong I love my hood cuz its where I live but this isnt exactly a place any sane person would want to live. Isnt anything new up here to tame and settle just a lot of pitfalls to avoid till you can make it out. You cant change the hood but the hood can change you.

Spazz wrote:We need a new frontier ? Yea dude everyone loves to live hoping that thier tv will still be at the house when they get home after being gone a few hours. It feels like christmas inside wondering if in the 2 blocks it takes to walk to the store and back will i get robbed or beat down. Dont get me wrong I love my hood cuz its where I live but this isnt exactly a place any sane person would want to live. Isnt anything new up here to tame and settle just a lot of pitfalls to avoid till you can make it out. You cant change the hood but the hood can change you.

There are some schools of thought that put forth an idea that the mythological American cowboy, representing independence, freedom, power, etc... is a result of traversing at the point between civilization and savagery. In such a crucible a unique rugged identity will be formed that the rest of the world has come to identify as the essence of our culture.

I would say that we as Americans have adopted the urban centers as the new frontiers. Exporting the idealized imagery of those living on the boundary (rap stars?) at the same time as fearing them back in the more "civilized" centers. The greatest economic profit to be had without international trade is found in the transitional regions; you can homestead and purchase cheap land hoping that some day it will once again become civilized(gentrified).

I can't wait for a chance to actually fully develop a thesis based upon Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis. I think it could work.

is someone talking again about how cool they are because they choose to live a crime-ridden shithole?

hey man, my whole family's in Houston or DC, my parents are from NYC, and I was born in Los Angeles. shitholes and crime are nothing new to me

as far as your question, yeah, if this were the type of society that still took any fighting seriously besides MMA and shooting people i probably would've done something like study a weapon since i was a kid. then when 4 people came at me high on crack trying to kill me i'd probably have little trouble getting rid of them

you have to realize when i say guns are for pussies it's because they're like a recent human development. we never needed them before, so why now? well it's because a fat man is still as effective at fighting with a gun as someone that's actually in shape. it's easier to talk shit and point a gun than it is to actually know how to fight. and it's true. you can get someone to do almost anything if you point a gun at them. it's the lazy man's way out

Your its new and we never needed it fore line is a bunch of bull. Technology allways moves forward and once it does it doesnt go back. Why did the sword and spear stop being used on the battle feild? Since man has been on earth his weapons have constantly improved and they allways will. Learning to use an anciant weapon would be an awesome thing to learn but that isnt going to protect you in any ghetto that i can think of. You could learn every form of martial arts on the planet and chances are high that it wont save you from a group of attackers either.

I carry a weapon not so that I can be the biggest bully on the block or win any fight I start but so that i can exit safely if something does go down.I drew my weapon on those 4 characters I mentioned in the previous post and i told them i wasnt him and that i was going home. They backed down and we are all still alive. How is this a bad thing ? What are you not understanding ?


Also L.A New York and Houston are not DETROIT and you would do well if you ever come up here to remember that.