I've often read cops dread having to go out on "domestic abuse" calls. Those situations can often turn the most violent since most of the parties involved usually have their emotions and anger at max level.

Right wing hate radio comes home to roost!

He was afraid Obama was coming to take away his guns!

Why anybody would be upset with somebody exercising his Second Amendment rights against the jack-booted authorities trying to interrupt his God given right to correct his wife is beyond me. In afghanistan the police would have done the decent thing and pinned her arms for him.

Charleston Heston

Wow another right wing hate monger with with a gun. Whipping themselves into a frenzy, in their sick fantasies they see enemies at every turn since Obama was elected.

Ring a bell Ashkabibble?

The suspect stated he was afraid Obama was going to ban weapons. Well, DUH! This is a wingnut self-fulfilling prophecy - keep pulling automatic weapons on police officers while wearing body amour and OF COURSE people are going to ask the president to ban these weapons!!

I'm a cop, and I see no reason why a civillian should have access to body armor and an AK47 assault rifle! This is a perfect example of what happens when the 2nd Ammendment is read too broadly!

There is nothing in the the 2nd Ammendment that says you should have access to any and all types of firearms. And I don't see anywhere where this right wing wacko was part of an organized malitia, so if you read the 2nd Ammendment the way it's written, not the way it's interpreted by the NRA, he shouldn't have had guns at all! Even if you read it broadly, the right to keep and bare arms does not have to include all weapons. Hell when it was written, it meant a goddamned musket!

I hope they fry this MFer with a low voltage, so it lasts a really time! Thanks Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, may the deaths of these officers hang heavy on your souls, there is a special place in hell reserved for assholes like you!

sorry, one "m" in Amendment, see what happens when I get my juices flowing, spelling goes right out the window!

"the right to keep and bare arms"

#5 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: illiterate

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
~James Madison

The founding fathers never envisioned a professional army, war was to be fought by the citizenry, who would go back to their regular jobs when the war was over. That's why it was written. We don't need Joe the Cop Killer to defend this country, we pay people to do that. All that happens is that either Joe goes postal spurred on by hate radio, or Joe gets his house burglarized, and his AK47 winds up in the hands of some scumbag on the street! Either way, it's often my brethern and their families who suffer the consequences!

Hell when it was written, it meant a goddamned musket!

a musket at the time was a military firearm.....and firearms change over time....if not then why did our forefathers arm themselves with them.....why did our forefathers keep pistols

maybe you should change your name from gunslinger to rock thrower.....you gun nut

Not a gun nut, it's a tool of my job. And I'm not saying that you sholdn't be able to own guns, I'm just saying that access to an AK47 (more firepower than the responding officers had) and a ballistic vest are beyond the pale. When cops, responding to a domestic call face more firepower than is in their arsenal, that's wrong!

most of my family are in law enforcement and the would totally disagree with you....they promote self defense and they also encouarge our family to own guns and assult rifles....my dad who has been in the force for over 20 years owns several assault rifles.....you would probably shit your pants at our family functions with as any firearms on the propery

Wait, Judas, are you saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living documents? Changing over time? But I though righties like you wanted judges who were strict constructionists. Can't have it both ways! If you strict constructionist idtiots think that way about judges, then turn in our AR's for muskets!

oh yea so how many law biding citizen have you got in a shootout with that had a AK47.... how about this....how many criminal have you had a shootout with that had a AK47

lol, I know lots of cops who own lots of guns. I own lots of guns too! I'm trained in the proper usage of those guns. I've passed a background check, polygraph and psych evaluation. I don't own an AK47, but I do own a couple of AR's

gunslinger...so quick to judge...you can lump everybody in the US by just 2 parties or only lean 2 ways

Fortunately I've never been in a shootout. I will tell you this, we had a burglary a year ago in which 21 guns, pistols and rifles including an AR were stolen. So far three of them have shown up, all at crime scenes, one at a homicide! I believe that if you own guns, you should have to secure them properly. If not then you should be charged as an accessory after the fact! Then maybe people would think twice about the necessity of owning a gun!

I'm a cop, and I see no reason why a civillian should have access to body armor and an AK47 assault rifle!
Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 04:29 PM

you are not on duty 24/7 so you would not need the personal weapons you got.....but only the ones you are issued

Must be a false-flag conspiracy to help the cops in Chicago push their case for HP assault weapons on the force. Shooting after shooting after shooting, I expected shit like this to increase with the fallen economy. Crime rates rise with the temperature, too.

Judas, I read your posts. I read a lot on here. I only post if there's something that gets me going. Most of the crap on here breaks down into name calling, and I get bored with it! Same people making the same posts everyday. It reminds me of the joke about the Prison inmates who had numbered their jokes.

I will tell you this, we had a burglary a year ago in which 21 guns, pistols and rifles including an AR were stolen. So far three of them have shown up, all at crime scenes, one at a homicide!

sounds like a criminal problem to me....how about you disarm the gangs first before you disarm law biding citizens

#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 04:54 PM

point being

I'm a Detective, so I'm on call 24/7. I have my assigned weapons, I personally bought my patrol pistol HK USP45 because it fits my hand better than the Glock that the agency would have provided me. I like to shoot, and I like toys, so I own some guns.

We just read the Binghampton shooter did it because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns. In his case it would have been a good idea, wouldn't it?

Friend: Suspected cop-killer feared 'Obama gun ban'

how about law abiding citizens be more careful with their 2nd Amendment rights! Maybe if you own a gun, you should secure it! Besides, who the hell needs an AK47 for home defense?

We have some of the most liberal gun laws among first world nations, we also have a higher percentage of gun crimes than any first world nation, coincidence? I think not!

And the burglary deal, it was drug related not gang related. Don't get me started on the easy access to Oxycontin!

GUNSLINGER...trust me......weapons in America will always be that.....if you are scared of criminals with guns....i suggest you quit your job

Thanks Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, may the deaths of these officers hang heavy on your souls, there is a special place in hell reserved for assholes like you!

Why blame them?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

i own several assault rifles too....some locked up others not.... i like to shoot and i like toys too......as most of my family...get use to it....or leave....either your job...or America....no matter what i will still be armed....and if pushed i will donated my time and money to any organistion to ensure im armed

I'm not scared of criminals with guns. I just wish it was harder for them to have access to them, and I wish that they didn't have access to weapons like AK47's, which will blow through body armor like a hot knife through butter!

It's just that seven cops have been gunned down by shitbags in the past two weeks! Easy access to guns is a serious problem in this country! When we adopted our dog, we had to have a home visit from the rescue agency to make sure the house was appropriate for her. Maybe we need to do that for gun owners. Make sure they have proper safes, etc. before you can buy a gun!

I'm a cop, and I see no reason why a civillian.....

#5 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are part of the problem as to why people hate cops.

The civi(l)ians you refer to are citizens.

The us vs. them mentality you cops have will continue to have you killed until you start respecting the people you are paid to protect.

.....

Thanks Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, may the deaths of these officers hang heavy on your souls, there is a special place in hell reserved for assholes like you!

#5 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another tool dredged from the bottom of the gene pool that became a cop.
Its bad enough the good ones have to take the heat from assholes like you.
They are the ones whose blood is on your hands.

rwd

The 2nd amendment allows people to keep and bare arms. I think they did have the whole civilian army concept in mind. But I also believe they wanted people to have the ability to overthrow an oppressive government (if it ever came to that point) just as they have overthrown the British rule when it became oppresive. So, people should be able to have the arms necessary to protect themselves, our country and if need be, create a new government.

When you say that they did not have AK47s in mind. I would have to agree, but at the same time I doubt very much that they thought that the 1st amendment would protect pornography. So these things change over time.

It is interesting that people want to pick and chose which rights are extended to people.

The constitution and most of the documents created by the founding fathers were there to *limit* government. Not the freedoms of the people.

That's BS beachbuzz! Those assholes have been revving up the psycho, sicko, "he's coming to get my gun" crowd!. Look at the run on AR's after Obama was elected, even though he never said anything about an assault weapons ban. It's hate radio that gives the right wing robots their marching orders, so they are to blame when one of their robots malfunctions!

A gun crime can get you federal time. In most states there are also harsher sentences if a gun is used.

Maybe others here will know, but aren't there heightened sentences for crimes where a gun is used, even if it isn't fired? If there aren't such laws there should be.

#30 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-04-04 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are plenty of fucking laws.

Don't play into this tools hands,he's a poser

rwd

caring a cop is heavier than caing a pistol

well any ways GUNSLINGER.....you are pretty well armed for somebody that has never been in a shootout

worry about a AK47....as inaccurate as that weapon is.....you should not worry at all...because only gangs and bank robber carry that type of weapon

What pro-civilian disarmament people fail to see is their POV is illogical.

They believe that banning firearms is the way to curb gun-violence.

They believe criminals will not have access to guns if they are banned.

They are figuratively (and will be literally if they encounter an armed criminal-minded nutcase) dead wrong.

And I don't see anywhere where this right wing wacko was part of an organized malitia, so if you read the 2nd Ammendment the way it's written, not the way it's interpreted by the NRA, he shouldn't have had guns at all!

Article TWO of the constitution,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Has two seperate parts:
1) a well regulated Militia
2) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

So which part do you disagree with Gunslinger?

The 2nd amendment allows people to keep and bare arms......

That cracks me up everytime I see it.

rwd

HERE is a gun to worry about

Sure Don, put the blame on me. Asshole! Fact is one of your right wing wacko bretheren goes off and kills three good men, and it's MY FAULT? Fuck you! I know all about the Us vs. Them mentality that is fostered by police culture. I know all about community policing.

Fact: This asshole killed three cops.
Fact: The responding officers weren't armed with AK47's or anything close to that deadly. Not sure if Pittsburgh has .223 AR's in their cars, but I know damn well they don't carry AK47's
Fact: Cops as a part of their job do have special privileges such as lights and sirens on cars, able to carry guns into court houses and bars, etc. I never said that we should be the only ones with guns, I just don't like the cops being outgunned!

we should have cars that do just the speed limit......because why do you need to go faster than 70mph....what the law allows

Has two seperate parts:
1) a well regulated Militia
2) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

So which part do you disagree with Gunslinger?

#38 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-04-04 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) a well regulated Militia(with a big fucking comma in there)
2) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Fact is one of your right wing wacko bretheren goes off and kills three good men

Fuck you, asshole.

Don't try and castigate ALL with whom you disagree by trying to tie these sociopathic, homocidal scumbags to a political ideology.

You get pissed off and then do exactly what pissed you off in the first place.

Oh wait buzz, the comma doesn't mean that the 2nd Amendment has two parts. Some would read it that the founding fathers allowed the people to bear arms so as to be part of a well regulated militia. There are books and articles dedicated to making that argument. Try reading something other than NRA pamphlets sometime!

Judas, gangs, bank robbers, and aparantly cop killers use AK47s.

Don, I'm ignoring you now

Lets disarm citizens who aren't mentally fit to own guns. Rage and emotion are very real and can lead some to do unpredictable things. I don't know if I'd go as far as blaming the assholes on the radio for the shootings, though if you asked me if they make things better or worse, I'd answer the latter - there are plenty of militant hateful organizations that make no bones about using force against whatever gets in their way.

Cops' duty is to uphold the law and thus will always be disliked. Cops have a damn difficult job. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't tell them from my armchair that they aren't fit for their job because they have a reasoned opinion on something.

Take a look at any region before and after instituting a major change in their gun laws and look at the corresponding change in rates of violent crime. In each instance, the change in crime rates were opposite of the change in gun restrictions:

ban guns - crime goes up
un-ba gunns - crime goes down

By "major" change I am talking about banning or un-banning guns.

PS - I don't even like guns and don't ever plan on owning one.

Jeff, read the article, he was afraid that Obama was coming to get his guns! I don't know many lefties who are afraid that Obama's coming to get his guns!

I just don't like the cops being outgunned

HAHAHHHAHHAHHAH out gunned...police have fully automatic weapons...... this nation is a police state......your weapons also inculed intellegence....riot gear....light armored vehicles and swat teams....police choose when and where somebody gets arrested...and they have communications and helicopters to help out

There are books and articles dedicated to making that argument. Try reading something other than NRA pamphlets sometime!

Given that the DC gun-ban was deemed unconstitutional, I would say more legal scholars than those printing NRA pamphlets are making the case as RWD and Buzz are putting forth.

The Second AMendment protects the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms. NOT the State.

Larry

GUN...i do admitt you have a tough job....but a large number of criminals do surrender to police....not every conforntation leads to a shootout.......you never have been in one...so you see that with 350,000,000 people in america.... your worries are over the top

I'm getting the sense that the more the police militarize, threaten and abuse, the stronger the reactions are getting against them.

Jeff, that's BS. The ban guns, crime rises, un-ban guns crime drops argument is moot, because it's never been done over the long haul! Compare cities in Canada and the US. Guns are much harder to attain in Canada, and you know what, there are a lot less gun crimes. Home invasion robberies, homicide rates, etc. all lower! Sure if you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens, then the criminal element will be the only ones with guns for a time (and I'm not suggesting this by the way, just positing a theory) and will feel emboldened until they have their guns taken by the cops. I believe you would see gun crimes and violent crime drop if the criminal element didn't have access to guns!

he was afraid that Obama was coming to get his guns! I don't know many lefties who are afraid that Obama's coming to get his guns!

Obama's senatorial voting record on the issue of guns has been about as anti-gun as possible. Given his srong majority in both houses, it's not unreasonable to assume that he might push for, and gain acquiescence from congress, a wide-bevy of restrictions making gun ownership more difficult and more expensive.

Although I do agree with you that the belief that he's going to "take peoples' guns away" is over-the-top.

That's BS beachbuzz! Those assholes have been revving up the psycho, sicko, "he's coming to get my gun" crowd!. Look at the run on AR's after Obama was elected, even though he never said anything about an assault weapons ban.

Obama and Eric Holder have both said they want an assult weapons ban and a possible control of ammunition. Google it.

It's hate radio that gives the right wing robots their marching orders, so they are to blame when one of their robots malfunctions!

You can't blame radio for the mental instability of a maniac with a gun or two. Both shootings in the last few days are tragic, but the "radio" didn't kill any of those victims. Maybe the answer is to allow everyone a conceal carry permit. You don't hear about these kinds of shootings in the Arab world. You know why? Every red-blooded muslim has an AK!

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. If we outlaw guns, criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns, but it won't be as easy. Thank God we allow civilians with behavioral issues to buy body armor and cop-killer bullets. Anyone in the pro-guns for everyone lobby should realize that their opinions are probably not going to go over too well in light of shooting, after shooting, after shooting.

THIS ISSUE BY NO MEANS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE....people try to make it look that way....but like i said before in previous post....i have a brother that is a yellow dog democrat....and he owns a 38.special and a AK47 (check my post history it says the exact same thing)

DO NOT forget that the first Nine amendments pertain to what is protected upon the collective individual. The 10th amendment refers to States rights NOT the INDIVIDUALS.

Larry

Wow another right wing hate monger with with a gun.

#4 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-04-04 04:26 PM

Fact is one of your right wing wacko bretheren goes off and kills three good men,

#41 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 05:18 PM |

I read the article and I did not see anything that even hinted of the perp's party affiliation. How do y'all know he was a right winger? Did I miss something in the article, or are y'all just mindless zombie knee-jerk jerks?

I'd really like to know which it is.

but Judas, you're also wrong. We don't have a choice as to whether we go to a domestic call or not. When we get called we HAVE to respond. Sure we can decide to take down a particularly bad guy at the right place and time, but it's the fluid, unknown calls (Domestics, Welfare Checks, etc. or even a traffic stop as in what happened in Oaklans) that can go to shit in a second where cops get killed. No swat team, no automatic weapons (I'm not sure where patrol gets to carry fully auto weapons in this country).

#41 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The cops were standing in the doorway when they were killed.The fact they had high powered rifles is a little muted in this incident don't you think?
A 45 or 9mm would have done the same job.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
You constant deflection to rightwing talk only has me thinking your us vs them mentality is ringing true,since you didn't really state one way or the other.
If you are a cop how many times have you lied in court,or know some fellow brethern who did?
How many times have you seen a fellow cop beat the shit out of a citizen and stand by and do nothing,much less turn them in.
You and your kind are the problem.

rwd

well Goat, based on his fear of Obama, who do you think he voted for? Hmmmmmmm?

#61 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-04 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

That was my next argument Goat.

Actually they were probably democrats on the public dole.

Obamas FAULT!!!

rwd

No, my vest will stop everything up and including a .357, plus I have a titanium trauma plate. At close range, my vest and plate will stop most handgun rounds. However, they sure as hell won't stop a rifle round. Unless the officers were headshot, their vests would have protected them from a handgun round. Besides, the suspect had body armor.

well Goat, based on his fear of Obama, who do you think he voted for? Hmmmmmmm?

Are we reading the same article? How do you know he was afraid of Obama? Even if he was, how do you know he was right wing?

Or do you have the same simple minded biary brain bOoB has?

Oh wait buzz, the comma doesn't mean that the 2nd Amendment has two parts.

That is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on the Drudge, besides some of Danni's drivel.

What kind of grammar school did you go to?

Comma: a punctuation mark (,) used to indicate the separation of elements within the grammatical structure of a sentence.

Thus, two seperate elements. For example: Gunslinger is an ignorant, retarded asshole. See how it works? The comma says you are ignorant and retarded. Just like a well regulated militia and the right of the people to bear arms are two seperate elements of the sentance.

Class dismissed...

biary = binary

#64 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 Where in the aricle does he say he feared his weapons being confiscated.

#2 They were shot in the head

#3 If you are a cop how many times have you lied in court,or know some fellow brethern who did?
How many times have you seen a fellow cop beat the shit out of a citizen and stand by and do nothing,much less turn them in.

rwd

Let's see Don, in our county if you right really good repors, you don't have to testify very often. I've never lied in court. Never had to, I arrest on Probable Cause. I've never seen a fellow officer use unnecessary force. The law gives us the right to use the force necessary to make a lawful arrest. I have never crossed that line, nor has anybody I've ever worked with. I'll tell you that sometimes that's a hard thing. Ever been to a domestic that was so bad that the woman had to have reconstructive surgery? I have. It was all I could do not to give her husband some of his own. Instead I documented the case thoroughly, got good photographs and statements (because I knew that she wouln't want to testify) and that prick is having his asshole stretched in a state prison. He taunted me on the way out the door, said he'd be out before I finished my paper. Did'nt happen. Suspects will taunt you trying to get under your skin. I had guy I arrested for robbery tell me on the way to jail one night that he was going to find out where I lived, and rape my wife and kill my kids (I've since stopped wearing my wedding band at work). I just smiled and told him to have a nice time in the prison showers.

To add to rwd's questions:

Where in the article does it say he feared obama
Where in the article does it say he was right wing.

It scares me that someone who who makes leaps of logic as gunslinger does (AND uses that handle) packs a gun in his line of work. Scary as hell, in fact. I'd like to think that people who carry guns professionally had a brain between their ears.

Anyway, this has been fun, but it's finally nice outside, and I have a jar full of honey do's.

The suspect stated he was afraid Obama was going to ban weapons

Uhm. Where in the article does it say this?

There is nothing in the the 2nd Ammendment that says you should have access to any and all types of firearms.

I'm sure, as a police officer, you're devastated when the courts limit your abilities in searches and seizures too.

Hell when it was written, it meant a goddamned musket!

When the 1st Amendment was written, there was no internet or television.

lol, I know lots of cops who own lots of guns. I own lots of guns too! I'm trained in the proper usage of those guns. I've passed a background check, polygraph and psych evaluation. I don't own an AK47, but I do own a couple of AR's

Hypocrite. Turn in your AR's for destruction. Obviously with your feelings concerning the citizenry owning AR's, you couldn't sell them to someone and have a clear conscious. The only answer is the have them and the ammunition for them destroyed.

#3 If you are a cop how many times have you lied in court,or know some fellow brethern who did

He may not lie in court, but clearly he lies in a blog. Or did I somehow miss in the article that he was right wing and hates obama? I'm still waiting for your explanation there, gunslinger.

Anyway, this has been fun, but it's finally nice outside, and I have a jar full of honey do's.

Plus, you want to avoid telling us where you come up with the right wing and Obama hater assumptions you made.

How convenient to have your wife bail your sorry ass out with 'honey dos'. LOL

Anyway, this has been fun, but it's finally nice outside, and I have a jar full of honey do's.

Translation:

I can't show you anywhere in the article where the guy is afriad of Obama; is a right wing whack that listens to right wing hate speech on the radio...

So I'm going to run away.

Nice one Goatman.

It is also presumed in the article that the shooter was a card carrying NRA member and hated Jews.

Where is my favorite guy to come help Gunslinger defend his position with MSNBC articles that don't link to their own sources.

Geez, there is actually more than one news report about this event...

"Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns."

"Gunman 'lying in wait' kills 3 Pittsburgh officers; friends say he feared Obama would ban guns"

#80 | Posted by prozacboi

Thanks Prozacboi.

At least you can manage to link to the OTHER articles that make this claim. Unlike some other folks who expect everyone to read fucking minds.

From the Article:

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

Yeah, I don't like our rights being infringed upon either, but I'm smart enough to know that when the cops show up at my door, they're not here for the guns. Because they don't have a leg to stand on if they wanted to take them.

This guy was an idiot and probably should have eaten a bullet long ago before he decided to trade shots with the police.

Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

They probably will, but you need to learn a lesson from events like Ruby Ridge and Waco. They're not going to let you win. Shooting it out with them results in nothing but people "just doing their jobs" ending up dead...along with you and maybe you're family.

I think they should chain this piece of shit to Obamas desk and make him clean obama's feet every morning with his toungue, then have to let the kids beat him senseless with unloaded guns each day till he passes out. After he comes to he has to watch a digitally altered movie of Chuk Norris, Ted Nugent and Chuck Heston pulling a wobbly-H.

LM

Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

BFD, this guy had emotional problems throughout his life.Is this the new thought crime,expressing your fear of government confiscation of your guns,to be used as a motive for any crime with a gun.
Did this guy ever make a threat or is he just plain nuts?

rwd

gophead=racist apologist and cop killer--you rock...now go suck more oil so i can drive my suv

It's sad to say, but it was only a matter of time before another of the reactionary fear-stoked monsters suckled by the popular modern right turned on us all in a blaze of gunfire.

He recently lost his job. So did the immigration office shooter. Only a matter of time before someone walks into the AIG building and goes nuts.

Johhny-
The second time that happens, you'll let me know, right? (It was the least I could do for you...)

...Only a matter of time before someone walks into the AIG building and goes nuts.

Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-04-05 01:16 AM

Better yet, put an outside date on it since you're in soothsayer mode and all.

Guns don't kill people, conservatives with guns kill people.

Gunslinger:

I didn't see in the article that the man who shot those officers was a republican. Nor do I understand why you brought in Rush, Hannity, etc. as fuel to this killers madness.

I don't think it's fair to assign a political position where one clearly isn't stated.

This man has some serious issues. Why not just leave it at that?

I feel badly for the families of these slain officers.

Richard Poplawski: Two profiles emerge

Friends described a Richard Poplawski far different from the 22-year-old man accused of gunning down three police officers today -- a partier sometimes, a guy in search of an understanding of politics, even a walking comedian.

He was also convinced that the government wanted to take away his guns and his freedom.

Childhood friend Edward Perkovic said he spoke to Poplawski via telephone at about 8:30 a.m.
"What he said to me today was, 'Eddie, I'm going to die today. Tell your family I love them and I love you.' And I heard gunshots and he hung up the phone," Perkovic said. "This was a complete surprise to me and my family and everyone's families that were friends with him. Nobody ever expected something like this from him."

Perkovic said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

He feared an Obama gun grab? Gee, I wonder where he could have heard that.

Indeed, a story replete with NRA-style fearmongering about the looming "grab" -- which has been fueling a run on guns at local shops -- ran just three days ago in the Pittsburgh Tribune.

We've been reporting for awhile on the surge in gun sales, and how the paranoia around guns is making the more unstable elements of the right particularly edgy. Inevitably, that edginess is going to break out into actual violence -- as it appears to have done today.

this guy had emotional problems throughout his life.

Is this the new thought crime,expressing your fear of government confiscation of your guns,to be used as a motive for any crime with a gun.

Did this guy ever make a threat or is he just plain nuts?

rwd

Would it offend your sensibilities if an effort was put forward to keep guns out of the hands of nuts?

Would it offend your sensibilities if an effort was put forward to keep guns out of the hands of nuts?

#95 | Posted by Zap at 2009-04-05 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

No it wouldn't.... why would it?

Or do you mean hysteria as a prime motive for restricting gun ownership?

Where you at on that.

rwd

Or do you mean hysteria as a prime motive for restricting gun ownership?

Not at all just asking a reasonable question.

LOL the hysteria would seem to becoming from only one direction

NRA etc..

LOL the hysteria would seem to becoming from only one direction

NRA etc..
#97 | Posted by Zap at 2009-04-05 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe I should of said knee jerk instead.
Check your history and get back to me.

rwd

Maybe I should of said knee jerk instead.
Check your history and get back to me.

Knee jerk indeed have you checked out the price of ammo lately?

"Better yet, put an outside date on it since you're in soothsayer mode and all."

Sadly this shooting reminds me of a prediction I made a little over a year ago after Charles Thorton walked into the city hall of my old home town, Kirkwood Mo, and killed 5 people, including one of my coworkers. At that time I said I hope that wasn't the start of people targeting public officials in a manner similar to school shootings.

Since then we have seen the immigration office shooting, the Arkansas democratic headquarters shooting and now this Pittsburgh which was eerily similar to the actions of a shooter in Maplewood Mo, another city I lived in for a while, when a man set his house on fire and then shot at the first responders.

Another friend, Aaron Vire, 23, said Mr. Poplawski strongly opposed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's candidacy.

Those officers died for your right to keep and bear arms. Day before yesterday you would all have said this guy had that right--and you were correct. Same with every gang member, thug, criminal, pimp, drug dealer, mafioso, and terrorist that walks our streets. They appreciate your fighting for their right to keep and bear arms. Me too. The criminals usually shoot each other, and the home owners generally shoot their families. Win win all around. Except for situations like this. You have to accept that blood on your hands as a price to pay for your right to keep and bear arms. Nothing is free. You share a part of the cause of their death--an accessory. So don't condemn the shooter, and mourn the police--it is the scenario you fought for--asked for--wanted--and deserve. This guy was doing exactly what you say the second amendment was designed for--protecting himself from an oppressive government. He should be your hero.

if the police could arrive at my house the minute i call then they could be expected to look after my safety -but they can't -i don't believe in the right to own assault rifles or machine pistol don't try to tell me they are needed for huntin -this country was settle by people usin single shot muzzleloaders -but i do see a need for home protection-the irony of this the best weapon(a sawed off shotgun) for home is also illegal-a shoot gun discharged in your home will not go thru your walls and into your neighbors walls and kill is kid like legal a copper jacketed 9mm will -a shotgun loses its power in short distance from barrel-since but the police cannot always be there in a timely manner until then i'll be locked and loaded
jasman

"You have to accept that blood on your hands as a price to pay for your right to keep and bear arms. Nothing is free. You share a part of the cause of their death--an accessory. So don't condemn the shooter, and mourn the police--it is the scenario you fought for--asked for--wanted--and deserve. This guy was doing exactly what you say the second amendment was designed for--protecting himself from an oppressive government. He should be your hero."

Jesus, Bob, your idiocy is breathtaking. The illegal actions of a clearly mentally unstable individual are now an indictment of an entire (and quite large) segment of the population? Because I support the right to own guns I therefore condone this action and even wanted it? Your viewpoint is, as usual, fucking stupid and so incredibly black and white it's mind numbing.

JPW

"Your point is stupid and so incredibly black and white."

Good rebuttal moron. Let me help you expand your vocabulary. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

There--raised your retort by 4 levels.

Facts are facts. Face them now and then. Two days ago--would you have defended his right to keep and bear arms? He wasn't crazy then--he wasn't "mentally unstable" then. As stated--you stand for the right of every criminal, thug, drug dealer, pimp, and terrorist that walks the street to keep and bear arms---this guy included, until he pulled the trigger. I know what you'll say--blah blah blah blah blah. At least you are improving.

See if you can explain the words "well regulated" in the second amendment, and explain how this guy was "well regulated", and how his having a gun was a protection for the State.

well Goat, based on his fear of Obama, who do you think he voted for? Hmmmmmmm?

#64 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2009-04-04 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, given that the guy was an Alex Jones fan, he certainly didn't vote for Obama or McCain. He almost certainly voted for Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate.

Alex Jones is a leading purveyor of 9/11 trutherism and every other batshit crazy conspiracy theory you can think of. Think Buffalo Bob with his own radio show. Fans of Alex Jones tend not to support Republicans or Democrats, so using this to try to score political points against more mainstream conservative radio talkers is a fool's game. Alex Jones makes Rush Limbaugh look like a paragon of sanity and restraint.

Freddy K

I doubt he would waste his vote supporting someone he knows has no chance when he knew McCain needed every vote. He may have supported Ron Paul more, but at least McCain wasn't Obama.

I see you have the courage to talk about me in a condescending tone, yet fail to respond to the questiones posed to JPW. He seems to have lost interest. Maybe you are better at snarky remarks than you are at logic. Want to see he Smoke Stack on the Moon? I think people have been waiting for your giant brain to show up and put the mystery to rest so I will STFU about it. So, you have 3 chances to exhibit your giant brain. Answer the questions JPW declined to answer, explain the Smoke Stack on the Moon (I'll post the link on request), or run along, like JPW.

"Facts are facts."

Your statements are not "facts" simply because you label them as such. Your statements are not facts, they are blanket statements that have no basis in reality (surprise surprise) and are used so you can over simplify a situation and a group of people you disagree with.

"Two days ago--would you have defended his right to keep and bear arms?"

If his rights were being trampled on, yes. If his legally bought and owned guns were being illegally taken from him, yes. If it came out that he had homicidal tendencies and was in violation of any current gun laws, then no. If he gets out of prison at some point and wants to buy more guns, no.

"He wasn't crazy then--he wasn't "mentally unstable" then."

He was an unknown variable then. Unfortunately he became a known variable through these actions.

"As stated--you stand for the right of every criminal, thug, drug dealer, pimp, and terrorist that walks the street to keep and bear arms---this guy included, until he pulled the trigger."

Completely untrue Bob and another example of you assigning positions to people to make your ludicrous assertions true. Show me where myself or any other pro-gun poster on this site have in any way stated or implied this. If a known criminal attempts to procure guns, that is an illegal act and does not have my support.

"I know what you'll say--blah blah blah blah blah. At least you are improving."

LOL good one Bob. Did you use your "logic" to come up with that one?

"See if you can explain the words "well regulated" in the second amendment, and explain how this guy was "well regulated", and how his having a gun was a protection for the State."

Yes, Bob, your idiotic interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which flies in the face of just about every commentary and a supreme court opinion, is known to me. I'm not entering that debate with you as I'd better use my time smashing my face against the wall.

"Answer the questions JPW declined to answer, explain the Smoke Stack on the Moon (I'll post the link on request), or run along, like JPW."

My apologies, Bob, for not waiting with angst for your reply. God knows I have nothing better to do with my time. But now you have your answers, so twist away and please display your fucked version of reality for me yet again. Tell me what my positions are and how your "facts" and "logic" are 110% superior.

And you still have no proof of smoke stacks on the moon.

And you still have no proof of smoke stacks on the moon.

#110 | Posted by jpw at 2009-04-05 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you don't have proof they don't exist either.

So you are wrong and therefore they do exist.

At least in Bobtards mind anyway.

My spellcheck bitch should be showing up anytime now.

rwd

My spellcheck bitch should be showing up anytime now.

rwd

#111 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2009-04-05 07:12 PM

Whew, sorry I'm late. Got stuck in traffic and then couldn't find any place to park.

Another tool dredged from the bottom of the gene pool that became a cop.
#31 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2009-04-04 05:06 PM

As opposed to yet another DR right-winger asshole from the bottom of the gene pool.

"Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories"

"Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s."

Some pig with the user tag _Gunslinger_ thinks the citizenry should be disarmed to the point of only being able to wield peashooters.

Tell you what pig, when the fucks who call themselves cops start protecting the citizenry in my area I'll give up all my guns, k?

As it stands, break ins and sexual assaults go completely unsolved and yet I'm supposed to trust you fucking pigs with my safety?

They sure are good at busting drunk college kids though.

Go fuck yourself.

Facts are facts.

Your statements are not "facts" simply because you label them as such.

True, but you have not refuted my statement, so my statement still stands. Supporting a law that makes it possible for this guy and every other person like him to have guns, means you are responsible for the law that gives him his right to have that gun. Your Blah blah blah blah has no logic. NU-uuHHHH is not a refutation.

Two days ago--would you have defended his right to keep and bear arms?"

If his rights were being trampled on, yes.

I take that as a yes.

He wasn't crazy then--he wasn't "mentally unstable" then.

He was an unknown variable then.

He was a known variable then. He was just like every other guy that ever bought a gun. There was absolutley nothing different at that point.

"As stated--you stand for the right of every criminal, thug, drug dealer, pimp, and terrorist that walks the street to keep and bear arms---this guy included, until he pulled the trigger."

Completely untrue Bob and another example of you assigning positions to people to make your ludicrous assertions true.

They all have guns, you support the law. You see, they haven't been convicted of any crime. They haven't done anything wrong as far as the law is concerned. Thy have guns because people like you fight for their right to have it. Sure, after they are convicted, you are against their right to keep and bear arms, but you have fought so hard for that right, that they can pick up a gun anywhere. They have guns because of you, nd people like you.

I know what you'll say--blah blah blah blah blah. At least you are improving."

LOL good one Bob. Did you use your "logic" to come up with that one?

No--I used your logic. I just returned your response to you in a more concise and understandable manner.

"See if you can explain the words "well regulated" in the second amendment, and explain how this guy was "well regulated", and how his having a gun was a protection for the State.

Yes, Bob, your idiotic interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which flies in the face of just about every commentary and a supreme court opinion, is known to me. I'm not entering that debate with you as I'd better use my time smashing my face against the wall.

I was asking for your idiotic interpretation of the second amendment--what I got was--blah blah blah blah blah blah---as expected. The Supreme Court was a 5-4 decision, with the Activist Judges holding sway over the Constitution and the English language.

Answer the questions JPW declined to answer, explain the Smoke Stack on the Moon (I'll post the link on request), or run along, like JPW.

My apologies, Bob, for not waiting with angst for your reply. God knows I have nothing better to do with my time. But now you have your answers.

What answers? You must be delusional. The only answer I saw you give was that you supported his right to keep and bear arms until he killed those officers.

And you still have no proof of smoke stacks on the moon.

What do you say it is? It is proof of something.

Live or Die

Your gun will only protect you in one scenario.

This is the scenario:

You are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

That's it. Other than that, your gun is a danger to you and your famly. Your gun has a very good chance of beiong used against you, or if people know you have one, it would make your home a target for burglary when you are NOT home.

You are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

Even with your carefully placed adjectives and qualifiers---that covers most situations.

Other than that, your gun is a danger to you and your famly.

You have little or no understanding of the application of firearms to a home-defense situation.

That's what makes you so amusing.

Your gun will only protect you in one scenario.

This is the scenario:

You are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

#117 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

If your gun fails do you have the tools to defend yourself with your hands? Probably not.

I have Spiffy.net to defend myself!

Its like...stealth technology for ineffectual pussies!!!

--Sincerely

RastaGidget

You are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

Even with your carefully placed adjectives and qualifiers---that covers most situations.

No, it covers only ONE scenario. How about you are walking from your car to your house, and someone sticks a gun in your back? How about if someone knocks on your door and when you answer it they stick a gun in your face? How about if you are watching TV, and they crash through your door and stick a gun in your face? In all those situations, your gun will likely be used against you, or at the least, become part of the bad guys arenal.

Other than that, your gun is a danger to you and your famly.

You have little or no understanding of the application of firearms to a home-defense situation.

I told you the one scenario where gun will help you, and several where it wouldn't help you. How about explaining another scenario where your gun will help you? It would help to make your point.

that's what makes you so amusing.

Until you come up with another scenario, the smiles are directed in your direction.

#118 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-04-06 01:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

If your gun fails do you have the tools to defend yourself with your hands? Probably not.

#120 | Posted by rastaninja

I love that boob thinks he's made a point with his "scenario," which turns out is the single reason I own a gun in the first place; to have some protection in the case of a break in. Believe it or not, not everybody lives in lily-white leave it to fucking beaver town, some of us have friends and coworkers who have suffered through break ins. I bet boob was fighting the requirement that cars have seat belts tooth nail, constantly reminding Nader that the only scenario in which a seat belt is helpful is in the case of a collision.

Another internet commando who can take multiple armed intruders with his bare hands.

#123 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

No but I have been studying martial arts for 17 years now and feel that I would fair better than the average human in a hand 2 hand fight.

No, it covers only ONE scenario

Except that's not ONE scenario.

There's thousands of scenarios.

And millions of subscenarios.

The problem with your particular tack of argumentation on this topic, Bob, is that you require your point of view to be validated by various fantasies you conjure up in your mind.

So you're not really "debating" so much as you are running you fucking mouth out of sheer boredom.

1.) I own firearms.

2.) I'm very proficient in the use of firearms.

3.) I'm very aware of my surroundings.

4.) I'm much safer and much less likely to be a victim of crime because of the above-three realities.

Does this mean I'm invincible in every imaginary circumstance that might be contrived by a lonely old contrary dumbfuck that would argue for hours in an internet chatroom that smokestacks exist on the moon?

Of course not.

But it does mean I'm much safer and much less likely to be a victim of crime.

I'd suggest taking a more quantitative approach toward advancing your point of view.

Right now, you just look like a stupid fucking tool that enjoys the sight of his own text on a thread.

No but I have been studying martial arts for 17 years now and feel that I would fair better than the average human in a hand 2 hand fight.

#125 | Posted by rastaninja

2.) I'm very proficient in the use of firearms.

3.) I'm very aware of my surroundings.

#126 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Yeah, "rastaninja" is a bad motherfucker.

Like, Lee Marvin bad.

You best watch yourself.

He has the death sentence on 12 anonymous email proxies.

You best watch yourself.

He has the death sentence on 12 anonymous email proxies.

#129 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Between Rasta and Jak, I have the casting for the G.I. Joe movie all wrapped up.

I don't think its particularly gung-ho or braggadocious to mention one's proficiency in the use of the firearms he owns---or his awareness of his surroundings.

Do you?

Gentlemen, choose your weapons.

#130 | Posted by califchris

Good job, Chris.

We should be Facebook friends.

I don't think its particularly gung-ho or braggadocious to mention one's proficiency in the use of the firearms he owns---or his awareness of his surroundings.

Do you?

#132 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

I love that boob thinks he's made a point with his "scenario," which turns out is the single reason I own a gun in the first place;

#124 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't mitigate my point. The odds of you being home when a break in occurs is where the term-"stupid" comes in when describing the burglar. Most bad guys will come in when you are NOT home. They don't want to get shot. Coming in when you are there makes them STUPID---wouldn't you say? If they are coming in when you are there, they are after YOU, and if they weren't stupid, they would attack you when you are most vulnerable--not when you have the chance to get armed. The few home invasions I have heard about were done by people who knew what, and who was in the house. Otherwise, your gun is like an added bonus to break into your house when you aren't there.

No but I have been studying martial arts for 17 years now and feel that I would fair better than the average human in a hand 2 hand fight.

#125 | Posted by rastaninja

I've noticed the average size of a Drudge retort blogger is 6'8 290.

And that's the women.

It doesn't mitigate my point. The odds of you being home when a break in occurs is where the term-"stupid" comes in when describing the burglar. Most bad guys will come in when you are NOT home. They don't want to get shot. Coming in when you are there makes them STUPID---wouldn't you say? If they are coming in when you are there, they are after YOU, and if they weren't stupid, they would attack you when you are most vulnerable--not when you have the chance to get armed. The few home invasions I have heard about were done by people who knew what, and who was in the house. Otherwise, your gun is like an added bonus to break into your house when you aren't there.

#137 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

But when I'm traveling and the wife is home alone, your super master genius street burglars aren't going to let some little woman keep them from swiping my big screen T.V., so I prefer knowing she has 12 gauges of death and destruction underneath her to take out the unlikely but possible home intruder should something like that ever happen.

I've noticed the average size of a Drudge retort blogger is 6'8 290.

#139 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-04-06 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

And that's the women.

#140 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

No, it covers only ONE scenario

Except that's not ONE scenario.

There's thousands of scenarios.

And millions of subscenarios.

#126 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-04-06 01:38 AM | Reply | Flag

Then bust one of them out here Spanky, and let's take a look at it. Put up, or shut up. Should be easy with millions to choose from.

Waiting on you.

;-)

rex did you see the war Torres was in?

Watching the spirit on DVD right now.

Btw I also own a shotgun for home defense.

But when I'm traveling and the wife is home alone, your super master genius street burglars aren't going to let some little woman keep them from swiping my big screen T.V., so I prefer knowing she has 12 gauges of death and destruction underneath her to take out the unlikely but possible home intruder should something like that ever happen.

#141 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 01:58 AM | Reply | Flag

How's she going to get to the gun? How do you envision the bad guys coming in, and she gets to the gun? Can you explain the scenario at all? Have you considered exactly how this is supposed to protect your wife?

She answers the door, and two guys push their way in---how does she get to the gun? She's unloading groceries from the car and two guys force her inside. How does she get to the gun?

What is your scenario where she gets to the gun?

Its late.

I come home.

The dogs got into the Mescal, so they're out---not barking.

I walk out to the pumphouse to turn off the well.

A lamb baaaas...

A heifer grunts....

Suddenly, a wet meskin jumps from behind a mesquite bush---thinking with the whack of a piece of sucker rod he's got himself a cupboard full of feed and a diesel pickup to cruise into town with to meet his contact.

But Mao's quick....and sees the situation develop...

(to be continued tomorrow...)

We need to find you a girlfriend, Bob.

Seriously.

What I love about this post is that he was careful to leave open the possibility that some other race might best him in a hand 2 hand fight, like say an orc or space alien. It's only the mere humans he can best in mortal combat!

#138 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 01:54 AM | Reply | Flag

I think he was talking about other species. Like bears--chimps--gorillas--
kangaroos--lion--tigers--
elephants. Strange that your thoughts go to orcs, and space aliens.

We need to find you a girlfriend, Bob.

Seriously.

#147 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-04-06 02:12 AM | Reply | Flag

You need to bust out one of those scenarios. Seriously.

Waiting on you, loudmouth.

;-)

How's she going to get to the gun? How do you envision the bad guys coming in, and she gets to the gun? Can you explain the scenario at all? Have you considered exactly how this is supposed to protect your wife?

She answers the door, and two guys push their way in---how does she get to the gun? She's unloading groceries from the car and two guys force her inside. How does she get to the gun?

What is your scenario where she gets to the gun?

#145 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

All your dumb ass really needs to know is up there in #126.

And nobody's "waiting on you". ;-)

Any scenario that involves night time in which she'd be sleeping just a few feet above the thing. I never said a gun was guaranteed to protect a person in all cases.

#150 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 02:19 AM | Reply | Flag

So, we are back to my original scenario:

You(or your wife) are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

He has to be stupid to be breaking in when someone is home, and he has to be stupid for giving anyone enough time to arm themselves.

That's the only scenario a gun will come in handy, but there are other methods of home protection that are more effective.

All your dumb ass really needs to know is up there in #126.

And nobody's "waiting on you". ;-)

#151 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-04-06 02:19 AM | Reply | Flag

All that is in #126 is your bullshit which is getting exposed here. Nobody's waiting on me because I answer the questions directly. Try it sometime--like now.

Bust out one of those MILLIONS of scenarios loudmouth.

Waiting on you.

;-)

Between Rasta and Jak, I have the casting for the G.I. Joe movie all wrapped up.
#128 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I got a car antenna, can I be cast as the Cobra arms dealer with WMD?

So, we are back to my original scenario:

You(or your wife) are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

He has to be stupid to be breaking in when someone is home, and he has to be stupid for giving anyone enough time to arm themselves.

That's the only scenario a gun will come in handy, but there are other methods of home protection that are more effective.

#152 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

And as to your "original scenario," I responded:

That's exactly the scenario in which I would need it.

#119 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Just for laughs, please do spell out the more effective measures of home defense.

but there are other methods of home protection that are more effective.
#152 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Such as...?

Sure thing Bart.

#157 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

YES! (Napolean Dynamite style)

Such as...?

#156 | Posted by bartimus at 2009-04-06 02:45 AM | Reply | Flag

Such as an alarm system that would in all probability stop the attack before it happened. With an alrm on all the windows and doors, the sound would probably scare the guy off, but it would also give you time to get to your weapon. If a guy keeps coming after an alarm is going off and waking the neighbors and calling the cops, you have pissed someone off real bad.

People may hesitate at the critical time to pull the trigger, or they may miss, or they may blow the attacker's guts all over the room. It takes a long time to get the smell out, and even longer to get rid of the memory. Especially if it was a drunk neighbor at the wrong house. But once warned, with the alarm, the defender can use mace, followed by a tazer gun, followed by a tazer baton, followed by a hand held tazer, followed by a baseball bat. At least with those items, you won't have to keep them locked up, and they are more accessible.

You act as if picking up a shotgun takes a significant amount of time. Try again.

I tried correctly the first time. YOu simply moves the bar. I never said it took a long time to get pick up a shotgun. I asked how she got to it.

And as to your "original scenario," I responded:

That's exactly the scenario in which I would need it.

#119 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

The funny part is that you think spelling out the most likely scenario in which a gun would be useful equates to you making a point.

#155 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 02:45 AM | Reply | Flag

It is not the most likely scenario. It is the least likely scenario.

The point is--that scenario rarely happens. 300 million people in this country. Post 3 home invasions where that was the scenario. Post 1 where that was ever the scenario.

But once warned, with the alarm, the defender can use mace, followed by a tazer gun, followed by a tazer baton, followed by a hand held tazer, followed by a baseball bat. At least with those items, you won't have to keep them locked up, and they are more accessible.

#159 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

#161 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 03:34 AM | Reply

Your point? Something wrong with the logic? Can you explain?

But once warned, with the alarm, the defender can use mace, followed by a tazer gun, followed by a tazer baton, followed by a hand held tazer, followed by a baseball bat.

#159 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Who needs all that shit when a car antennae will do?

Strange that your thoughts go to orcs, and space aliens.

#148 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 02:12 AM

It's strange that yours didn't

What is your scenario where she gets to the gun?

She is in bed in the middle of the night and hears noises of breaking and entering downstairs.

How odd that your twisted mind can come up with smokestacks on the moon, but it can't figure out a scenario where a gun is advantageous.

What I find amusing is the fact that Bob defines a criminal as "stupid" for breaking into an occupied home. This is because the home owner might shoot him.

If we don't have guns available to us the criminal does not have to be stupid to break into an occupied home. He only needs to provide himself with a baseball bat or some other weapon with which he feels that he can overpower the occupants.

If you have a gun that you plan to use for self defense, you must become a "Gun Nut' and practice with that gun. You must keep it clean and functional. It's use should be second nature.

You don't want to use it, but if you need it you must know how to use it.

Lots of personal attacks against Bob, but nothing has made a counter point to what he said. Instead, you guys keep coming back to the one scenario he laid out. Surely someone can step up to the challenge?

Cowboy

You think a burglar that breaks into an occupied home is smart?

Maybe that's why so few burglars break into homes when people are there. Maybe that's why they wait until the people are gone, and then break in and steal their guns.

As stated above, there are other options. Of course, you haven't read any of the posts because you know it all alrady. How's that walking on water gig coming?

She is in bed in the middle of the night and hears noises of breaking and entering downstairs.

How odd that your twisted mind can come up with smokestacks on the moon, but it can't figure out a scenario where a gun is advantageous.

#165 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 05:48 AM | Reply | Flag

How odd that your twisted mind agrees with mine.

Your gun will only protect you in one scenario.

This is the scenario:

You are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

#117 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

and again here.

So, we are back to my original scenario:

You(or your wife) are at home, and some stupid bad guy tries to break in and gives you enough time to get to your gun and shoot him.

He has to be stupid to be breaking in when someone is home, and he has to be stupid for giving anyone enough time to arm themselves.

That's the only scenario a gun will come in handy, but there are other methods of home protection that are more effective.

#152 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 02:30 AM | Reply | Flag

Try to keep up Goatman. There is only one scenario where a gun comes in handy. You seem to agree with me.

Try to keep up Goatman. There is only one scenario where a gun comes in handy. You seem to agree with me.

There are many. The fact I cited only one because I didn't want to spend the next 6 hours listing even more of the thousands does not mean I agree with you that there is only one.

bOoB logic really sucks.

There are many. The fact I cited only one because I didn't want to spend the next 6 hours listing even more of the thousands does not mean I agree with you that there is only one.

bOoB logic really sucks.

#170 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just pop one out here Sparky. I didn't ask for a library. You run away, and my logic sucks.

Got it.

;-)

It's Obama's fault, not Bush's.

Just pop one out here Sparky.

???

I did 'pop' one up there, bOoB. Just a few minutes ago. If you only took my oft repeated suggestion and use your PGUP key, you wouldn't be so lost all the time.

'a protection from abuse order against him in 2005. '

How did he buy the guns with a record?

You run away. . .

Unlike you, bOoB, I have a life and sometimes I have to attend to the details of it. But you may call it 'running away' if you wish.

"Just pop one out here Sparky."

OK..WHAT IF...someone in this school besides the killer had a gun?

"A teenage gunman killed 15 people, most of them female, on Wednesday in a rampage that began at a school near Stuttgart in southern Germany and ended in a nearby town, where he then killed himself after the police wounded him."

Or here?

"Police are continuing to search for a gunman who shot two teenagers in a packed fast-food restaurant."

There are lots and lots of these if you'd like to see more, Boob.

Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

It is truly unfortunate that once again, a few isolated incidents by individuals pushed over the edge, and or career criminals are being used as so-called justification to infringe upon our inalienable birth right, to defend ourselves, our friends, family, neighbors, etc., using equal or greater force then that which may be brought against us, be it foreign or domestic, including but not limited to the Tyranny of our own government...

Continued infringements of our Constitutional rights, out of control Tax & Spend and Entitlement Programs, the lubricious idea that we can spend our way out of dept, spending more money in their first 30 days in office, then any other administration has in their entity in the history of the country, Inflation Adjusted! Printing money to pay ourselves for money we spent, that we just do not have, FALSE PROMISES OF "CHANGE THAT WE CAN BELIEVE IN" are driving many Americans to take heed to Thomas Jefferson, when he stated such actions were just cause for actions such as A NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, A NEW AMERICAN TEA PARTY...

"You think a burglar that breaks into an occupied home is smart?"

Most criminals are not smart.

There are lots and lots of these if you'd like to see more, Boob.

#176 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-04-06 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag

Innocent people get killed with guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Got it.

How about if none of the shooters had guns? You fight for their right to have them, and are surprised when they shoot people.

You seem to think the answer to gun deaths is more guns.

However, we were talking about personal protection. Notprotecting schools and subways. Do you think schools would be safer if all the kids had guns---or all the teachers had guns? How bout just the teachers? Surely no student would ever go whacky and steal the teachers gun and shoot up the hallways---we could have bullets flying everyhere, through walls and ceilings---but they would just hit the bad guys--right? How about the workplace--should all the people be allowed to have guns at work? Do you thin the schools and work would bsafer places? Is that your point?

"You think a burglar that breaks into an occupied home is smart?"

Most criminals are not smart.

#178 | Posted by kerrin57 at 2009-04-06 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Smarter than you. List three home break ins where that scenrio is in play.

VBohemian

The activist judges on th USSC disagree with you. They have changed the second amendmet to mean that gun rights may be infringed any way the government sees fit.

You and all those Tea Party Chuck Norris Americans can simply leave and form your own government. You will have no argument from me. Nobody wants your whiny ass in this country anyway.

I suggest you look into history and see what not putting money into the economy, and loosenng credit did to America in the thirties after a similar breakdown. As a matter of fact, the History Channel has a nice program called CRASH that pretty much explains the current crisis and how we got here.

"Smarter than you. List three home break ins where that scenrio is in play.

Here are three, BOOB. There are a BUNCH more, but you can go see them yourself. You DO know how to do that, right?

Fair to Rich Peoples Tax you mean---moron.

Jestgetinalong

Your first scenario is false. The man was never in any danger. He was not protecting his life or property. He simply killed a teenager that was no threat to him or anyone else. This is a case against gun protestion. If there had been no gun, there would have been no death.

"How about if none of the shooters had guns?:"

Well, hell, just outlaw ALL guns...that should work really well. Worked well when booze was outlawed during prohibition, booze completely disappeared. Same thing with cocaine and heroin now. There is no cocaine or heroin available since it was outlawed. Repeal the Second Amendment, why didn't I think of that. You really ARE brilliant...why does everyone call you, "Boob?"

Jestgetinalong

Your second link is the same as your first---moron.

"Your second link is the same as your first---moron."

Just considering your handicap, Boob...I didn't want to confuse you with more than one to consider.

It's a good thing lunatics are prohibited from having guns, or car antennas.

Jestgetinalong

Your third scenario was the same thing. The guy was never in any danger. Had the thieves been serious, they would simply have shot him, and taken his gun. The more thieves see tories like this, the more likely they are to be armed and understand that they had better shoot first and ask questions later.

But this guy was allowed to get to his gun by the thieves. Stupid thieves--they are out of the gene pool---the smarter thieves will just shoot the guy next time, and you can bet if his store is targeted in the future, that that will be understood walking in. The amateurs that tried before should have been committed to their task.

So let me add your scenario to the list.

If a stupid thief gives you enough time to get to your gun when he is robbing you--a gun will come in handy.

and

If a stupid burglar breaks into your home and gives you enough time to get to your gun, a gun will come in handy.

Now we have two scenarios.

As long as you have stupid thieves, you are OK. Run into a smart thief, and you will end up dead.

Anything else?

"It's a good thing lunatics are prohibited from having guns, or car antennas."

Poor Boob...his mental status prevents him from lawfully owning a gun so he want to deny guns to everyone. No hope for him on THIS subject, but I'll return tomorrow for his special ed class on "Fake Moon Landings."

It's a good thing lunatics are prohibited from having guns, or car antennas.

#188 | Posted by Ricky_Retardo at 2009-04-06 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag

You mean like the guy who this thread is about? That lunatic?

Why are you talking about car antennas on a gun thread? Stooopid?

Well, hell, just outlaw ALL guns...that should work really well.

#185 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-04-06 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag

It seems to work well in the countries that have tried it, little mind. I guess reality is fiction to you.

The guys who tried to rob that store probably wouldn't have tried it without the gun to give them courage. It is hard to rob a bank with a baseball bat. You can try the old---I've got a bomb, but even then, the number of attemts would go way down.

Facts are, if more bad guys get shot being bad, they will know to shoot first, or stay home. They won't stay home.

In all the situations, if there were no guns, the chances are very good that there would be no crime.

I am so glad I don't live in Buffalo Bob's world, where every criminal is a cunning genius and every legitimate, responsible gun owner is a deaf, drooling retard with no manual dexterity. (Here's a hint Bob, there's a reason why they are criminals...it's not because they are Rhodes scholars.)

"It seems to work well in the countries that have tried it"

Mexico comes to mind.

Mexico's Drug Wars

I guess reality is fiction to you.

Posted by da bOoB

Your version of it is. LOL

In all the situations, if there were no guns, the chances are very good that there would be no crime.

Hey Bob, if you hate guns so much, why don't you move away and form your own country where everyone has an alarm, worships the police and are robbed on a regular basis? Everyone can have a car antenna, worship Obama and Michael Moore, and feel safe that no responsible individuals own guns.

Why are you talking about car antennas on a gun thread? Stooopid?
#191 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Come on, Bob. Any thread where you are actively debating is always also a car antenna thread.

This is part of your retort legacy.

In all the situations, if there were no guns, the chances are very good that there would be no crime.

LOL.

So there was no crime prior to say, the 15th century, right?

"Hutchison lunged at him "

#184 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Was the homeowner supposed to wait for a knife in the gut before reacting ?

Come on, Bob. Any thread where you are actively debating is always also a car antenna thread.

This is part of your retort legacy.

#198 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-04-06 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag

How so? What is your point?

"the chances are very good that there would be no crime."

You take the chance then.

An 87 year-old woman is in a Memphis hospital after being nearly beaten to death during a home invasion.

How so? What is your point?
#201 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Please, Bob. Don't feign ignorance.

Was the homeowner supposed to wait for a knife in the gut before reacting ?

#200 | Posted by kerrin57 at 2009-04-06 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag

The guy who shot the kid said that. Read the article. Listen to what the people who knew the kid said about him. Look at the kid.

Do you really think the kid lunged at a guy with a gun----with his bare hands? Nope--sounds like cold blooded murder to me. Just like the guy who went outside and murdered the two guys robbing the next door neighbor by shooting them in the back as they tried to run away.

I think he said

Please, Bob. Don't feign ignorance.

#203 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-04-06 10:27 AM | Reply

Not at all. Spell it out. What's your point?

"Just like the guy who went outside and murdered"

The Harris County grand jury disagrees with you.

An 87 year-old woman is in a Memphis hospital after being nearly beaten to death during a home invasion.

#202 | Posted by kerrin57 at 2009-04-06 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

She should have had an alarm system. This was my first scenaro where a gun would come in handy--a stupid burglar breaks in when someone is home and gives them enough time to get their gun. But I doubt a gun would have helped her--she probably would have had it taken away from her and been beaten with it. An alarm system would have stopped the attack altogether, or if the guy was stupid enough to still break in, the cops would have shown up much quicker.

The Harris County grand jury disagrees with you.

#206 | Posted by Ricky_Retardo at 2009-04-06 10:39 AM | Reply | F

I understand. How about OJ---that jury disagrees with me too. You must think OJ is innocent of murder.

So there was no crime prior to say, the 15th century, right?

#199 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag

There weren't any gun deaths, and no bank robberies.

Not at all. Spell it out. What's your point?

You sounded like a complete moron when you announced your weapon of choice was a car antenna. Every firearm thread from that post forward will have a car antenna joke at your expense. It is written in the retort bylaws.

Bob, 2 more scenarios where guns came in handy; maybe the criminals were dumb, but the guns came in handy and didn't involve your scenario (home invasion) at all.

Iraqibukkake

I have never announced that a car antenna was my weapon of choice.

Does the phrase--"You are a fucking liar"--enter your ears more than once a day? Pay attention. They know what they are talking about.

"no bank robberies."

#209 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag: Needs to up the meds.

But I doubt a gun would have helped her--she probably would have had it taken away from her and been beaten with it.

Of course...in your world it's impossible for a law abiding citizen to be trained to defend themselves.

So there was no crime prior to say, the 15th century, right?
#199 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag
There weren't any gun deaths, and no bank robberies.
#209 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Yeah, but the beheading and gutting rates were sky high!

Bartimus

In your first scenario, the gun was not used in self defense. His attacker was unarmed when he was shot. The pizza man was in no danger at that point. If he had been a cop, he would have lost his job for a bad shoot. The gun was not a factor in his safety. He would have been safe without it.

So there was no crime prior to say, the 15th century, right?

#199 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag

There weren't any gun deaths, and no bank robberies.

Posted by da bOoB

Well, duh. There weren't any car accident deaths either.

You said:

In all the situations, if there were no guns, the chances are very good that there would be no crime.

(emphasis mine)

Don't deflect. Do you stand by this statement or not?

I have never announced that a car antenna was my weapon of choice.

What did you say Bob? Did you say you would prefer a car antenna to a pistol (or rifle, don't remember which) in close quarters? Please tell me you aren't going to back away from one of the most memorable quotes in Drudge history.

Be careful Bob...your treatise on car antennae is the drudge equivalent of "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" and "is our children learning?"

In your first scenario, the gun was not used in self defense.#217 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

From the article:
"Sgt. Vince Valdez said when Spiers arrived inside the building with the pizza, a man in the hallway pulled a gun."

He would have been safe without it.
#217 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Since you like hypotheticals so much, what if the robber had had a knife or another gun? At that point, the pizza dude had no idea; shooting and disablinbg someone willing to put a gun to his head was the prudent thing to do. The law seems to agree with me and the pizza guy; the robber WAS shot in SELF-DEFENSE, notwithstanding your definition of self-defense.

#217 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What about the dozens of other stories I linked to? Even if my first link is "disproven" using Bob logic (and I'm not saying it is, just another hypothetical) you can't deny that guns in those other stories saved lives and prevented crimes.

is the drudge equivalent of "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" and "is our children learning?"
#219 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Hey, I love that Clinton quote. That's some heavy thought there. A great example of E Prime theory.

Bartimus

Your second scenario, fits my second scenario where a gun comes in handy--a stupid robber gives you enough time to get to a weapon. So it doesn't really count. His attackers weren't armed, and they should have figured their victim would be armed and taken that into account. If they had greeted him with a gun, they wouldn't have gotten into a running situation. They would have disarmed him, or if he went for his gun--shot him. That his attackers had no gun is lucky for him.

However, if this guy had shot in the ground, the kid would still be alive like his buddies. He probably would have stopped the attack, and been arrested and learned a lesson.

He may have been able to stop the attacks with a stun gun as well. He was close enough to his attacker. The gun was probably the worst tool for the situation. Sad all around.

Your second scenario, fits my second scenario where a gun comes in handy--a stupid robber gives you enough time to get to a weapon.

Your scenario specifically spoke to home invasion.

So it doesn't really count. His attackers weren't armed, and they should have figured their victim would be armed and taken that into account.

You never said the criminal had to be armed; just a criminal.

If they had greeted him with a gun, they wouldn't have gotten into a running situation. They would have disarmed him, or if he went for his gun--shot him.

How do you know this? Maybe they were cowards and would have run, even with a gun (the 4 on 1 odds suggest this). You are just making up stuff now - you cannot say for certain that they would have done what you proposed.

#223 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob Flag: Continually moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

Killer goalpost

How do you know this? Maybe they were cowards and would have run, even with a gun (the 4 on 1 odds suggest this). You are just making up stuff now - you cannot say for certain that they would have done what you proposed.

In Bob's world:

All criminals are brilliant and are afraid of alarms. All people who defend themselves with firearms are incompetent and are incapable of being trained. All guns are the worst tool for self defense and all car antennae are weapons of mass destruction.

What did you say Bob? Did you say you would prefer a car antenna to a pistol (or rifle, don't remember which) in close quarters? Please tell me you aren't going to back away from one of the most memorable quotes in Drudge history.

#219 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-06 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag

The quote is in your delusions, little mind. The car antenna reference comes from the scenario on another gun thread where I was talking about a good guy with a gun for defense walking down the street, and a bad guy with a knife that wants to rob him.

The bad guy comes up pulls his knife and takes the good guys gun. What good was the good guys gun?

I said that I would have been better protected by a car antenna in my hand than that gun. My point was that I would rather have a car antenna that I could get my hands on, than a gun that I couldn't get to.

Which do you think would be more effective? A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't reach?

Answer up Sparky. Let's hear your logic for picking the gun.

A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't reach?
#227 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

How can you get to the car antenaa but not the gun? Of course you're right in your tailor-made scenario that you cherry-pick for yourself! IF you were holding a car antenna (and it wasn't in your pocket, backpack, trunk, etc.), IF the criminal had a knife but not a gun, IF you had the wherewithal to consider an antenna a weapon (as most Drudgies now do, thanks Bob!) and IF the criminal didn't just take that away from you (as he miraculously does with the gun!), your scenario works.

How many IF's do you need to have to make your scenario plausible? In any rational scenario, the car antenna would be just as inaccessable as the gun.

Here's a scenario for you Bob. I CAN get to the gun. Which would you rather have, the antenna or gun? No considerations or arguments from you, just follow my scenario and answer the question! See, when you pick the circumstances and disallow any dissention, even th scenario is ultimately dumb/unrealistic/pointless, it's hard to make an argument.

*if, not "th"

The quote is in your delusions, little mind. The car antenna reference comes from the scenario on another gun thread where I was talking about a good guy with a gun for defense walking down the street, and a bad guy with a knife that wants to rob him.

The bad guy comes up pulls his knife and takes the good guys gun. What good was the good guys gun?

I said that I would have been better protected by a car antenna in my hand than that gun. My point was that I would rather have a car antenna that I could get my hands on, than a gun that I couldn't get to.

Which do you think would be more effective? A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't reach?

Answer up Sparky. Let's hear your logic for picking the gun.

If that was what you had really said, you wouldn't have been made fun of in a thread on a weekly basis for the past 18 months about car antennas.

Instead, you would have been made fun of for "Buffalo Bob's Retarded Scenario Generator". It's never too late, I guess...

Bartimus

You asked about the car antenna--you got the answer.

Now--answer up Sparky

Which would you rather have. A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't get to.

You seem to have fun making fun of my answer--let's hear yours.

Waiting on you.

;-)

Which would you rather have. A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't get to.
#232 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I rahter punch the dude than rely on a flimsy piece of metal that he could detect me pulling out of my backpack.

Now, what would you rather have, a gun you could get to or a car antenna you could get to?

Would you rather have?

A gun with no bullets or a car antenna?
A shark with a laser beam or a car antenna in the middle of a frozen lake?
A rabid pit bull who has had all it's teeth pulled, or a car antenna?
A roll of Mentos and a 2-Liter of Diet Coke with the lid screwed on too tight, or a car antenna?
OJ in prison or a car antenna?
A syringe full of AIDS blood with no needle or a car antenna?

I WISH you had said what you suggested you did...that's the only way to make it more ludicrous.

All these back and forths about what the founders intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Some people argue that they only intended it for a militia. The founders thinking was that the citizenry needed to be able to protect itself from government. If they were alive today they would see that same need and might even see more of a need for it. Whatever the case, they would say that citizens should be armed.

I don't think anyone can make a case for the opposite.

Now THIS is an antenna!

If that was what you had really said, you wouldn't have been made fun of in a thread on a weekly basis for the past 18 months about car antennas.

#231 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-06 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag

I'm sure the thread can be found someplace. I think I saw someone say there was an archive that goes back to 2003.

But to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief. Only someone as stupid as you would believe that someone would actually say such a thing.

I don't think anyone can make a case for the opposite.

#235 | Posted by everlong at 2009-04-06 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag

What you are saying is that the Founding Fathers were too stupid to come up with the sentence.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

or even

All males have the right to keep and bear arms.

Is that what you are saying?

to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I agree.

I would say any criminal that tries to hold someone up with a knife is a fool, but if he has a knife and you make a move, you could be sliced pretty bad and there's no guarantee you shoot him or don't have the gun used on you. No guarantee the bullet won't go through him and kill someone else.

I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun in that situation. Even a rock or a club.

Thinking you will be the only one with a gun is wishful thinking.
Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-01 12:40 PM

Of course, Bob will now say that being robbed at knifepoint is not "a battle at any range." Poor predictable Bob.

Joe

I stand by that statement today. Thanks for the effort. The point still stands.

I would rather have a car antenna I can get to than a gun I can't get to.

Which would you rather have--A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't get to?

What is your answer?

"I stand by that statement today"

Then how do you reconcile it with what you just said? You know:

"to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief"

I'm sure the thread can be found someplace. I think I saw someone say there was an archive that goes back to 2003.

But to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief. Only someone as stupid as you would believe that someone would actually say such a thing.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 12:01 PM | Reply

You can find some here www.archive.org asnd then enter the drudge retorts main page URL and You can find some of them. If for a specific person just enter that users URL and You can find some that way too.

Of course, Bob will now say that being robbed at knifepoint is not "a battle at any range." Poor predictable Bob.

#240 | Posted by JOE at 2009-04-06 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag

Not at all. You have never been right about anything about me. ever. Take a hint? It is certainly a battle. You have the knife, and I have the gun in my pocket or holster. I make a move--do I succeed in getting my gun out and blowing your ass off, or do you cut my guts out, and take my gun?

Chances are if the guy with the gun is smart, he doesn't move. The guy with the knife should have figured him for a gun in the first place, and acted accordingly--meaning if the guy didn't cooperate, he was willing to commit to killing him(recalling the pizza boys).

You haven't answered. Frightened?

Which would you rather have--a car antenna you can get to or a gun you can't reach?

Which would you rather have--a car antenna you can get to or a gun you can't reach?

Bob is so easy to spot in public. He's the one with the antenna in his hand at all times, poised to attack like Sir Galahad.

Answer #242 and I will answer your stupid question about car antennae. The point of #239 was to point out the inconsistency between what you say today ("to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief") and what you said originally (that you would prefer a car antenna to a gun when being robbed at knifepoint). Until you admit this apparent 180 on the topic of car antennae, I will not answer your attempts to deflect this into a debate about the use of them as a weapon.

I'd rather have a car antenna than a gun myself cause then I could listen to My Car Radio again instead of having to wait until it's bone cold outside to pick up anything.

Larry

to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief

#242 | Posted by JOE at 2009-04-06 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag

If the gun is out--the gun wins.

Which would you prefer in the battle I described is the point though, don't you think?

Which would you prefer to have in that battle? A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't reach?

"Which would you prefer to have in that battle?"

I agree with what you said today. That "to say that someone would prefer a car antenna to a gun in a battle at any range is simply stupid beyond belief." It's a shame you no longer agree with yourself.

bOoB -- your hypotheticals run into the ad absurdum. "What would you rather have" is so ignorant. When a burglar breaks into my house in the middle of the night we don't sit around and discuss which weapons we would rather have, then begin the crime.

At any time I would rather have a gun. Period. Over a knife, over a rock, over a 2x4, and yes -- even over a car antennae.

If I choose the wrong "what if" scenario then I guess I fucking lose. But I'll take my chances with the gun because I feel they offer a better defense than any other legally obtained weapon.

You stick with your car antennae and I'll ask you: "What if the burglar had a gun?" LOL

BTW, you (who constantly states "I answer all questions") somehow missed my #218

The sooner everyone agrees that BBob is correct, the sooner this inanely ridiculous argument can end. Because short of agreeing with him, BBob will never, ever admit defeat or let it go.
Personally, if I were ever charged with a crime and I knew I was guilty, I would want BBob representing me.

Which would you rather have--a car antenna you can get to or a gun you can't reach?

Bob is so easy to spot in public. He's the one with the antenna in his hand at all times, poised to attack like Sir Galahad.

#245 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-06 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Still no answer. Sometimes Sir Gallahad wins.

Which would you prefer to have in that battle? A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you can't reach?

If you can tell us what the fuck this means, perhaps we could answer.

So am I being robbed while working on my car antenna in the driveway or am I playing "King Arthur" with my 8 year old friends? When is the scenario "I have a car antenna in my hand and a gun in my shoulder holster, and man am I looking for trouble..."

A car antenna you can get to, or a gun you
can't reach?

Unbelievable.

Sometimes Sir Gallahad wins.

But bOoB always loses.

#218. Still no answer

If there is one thing this last week has taught me, that's "its better to have a car antenna and not need one than to need a car antenna and not have one."

"its better to have a car antenna and not need one than to need a car antenna and not have one."

'Tis true, especially when the CD player in your vehicle craps out.

"Still no answer."

I've answered you. I'd rather have a gun, because we can't plan ahead and make sure we are always in the unique situation you described in which a gun is inaccessible but a car antenna happens to be in my hand. A few minutes ago, when you said that preferring a car antenna to a gun in any situation is stupid, it appeared we were in agreement. But when confronted with your idiocy, you are back to the old Bob.

d'b00b erects a straw-man argument with the car antenna that is always at the ready, and a gun that is never available when you need it.

I'm sitting next to a hot cup of coffee. My radio antenna is on my truck. So what you rather have, an antenna that you can't get to, or a hot cup of coffee?

Personally I wish d'b00b would send me his address so I could give him a little surprise and when he whips out that car antenna I could take it away from him and shove it up his ass.

Ok...here's the deal.

You are a car antenna installer. Not a great living, but you get by. Your wife is cleaning your gun. "Crazy Train" is on the radio and you love that song. You are robbed. Do you break the antenna off, interrupting Ozzy, or do you have your wife load the gun and shoot the robber between the eyes? You make the call.

If you outlaw car antenna, only outlaws will get FM

bOoB, you stupid strawman is exactly the same as asking a starving man, "What would you rather have, a bowl of earthworms you can get to or a filet mignon you can't?"

If you put up comparable arguments (in this case to alternative weapons), all other conditions have to be the same or the analogy is invalid.

A valid comparision therefore is a gun or car antennae you can reach, or a gun or car antennae you can't reach.

bOoB logic sucks. I've no idea how you made it this far through life using it.

"Right Wing Radio and the Fox News are whipping people into a frenzy of class warfare.
Someone is going to get hurt."
#5 | Posted by MURPHY at Never in a million Years

Guns and bibles!!!EEEEEEhawwwwww!

The lord protects me, but just in case, I've got kevlar and and ak to kill those pesky fucking police officers!!

----the "from my cold dead hands" crowd

proven fact.. law abiding citizens with legal access to legal firearms LOWER crime rates in their neighborhoods and towns. a government doing the right things by it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed population. this is not "right wing", it's fact.
the 2nd amendment guarantee's the right to bear arms and was put in place to ensure the population could defend itself FROM the government.

there will always be crackpots on either side and because someone goes off is no reason to fear legal gun ownership. I feel dearly for the fallen officers and their families and this guy should fry for what he did, but his poor decisions should not effect anyone's right to legally arm themselves.

proven fact.. law abiding citizens with legal access to legal firearms LOWER crime rates in their neighborhoods and towns. a government doing the right things by it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed population. this is not "right wing", it's fact.

google [kennesaw gun] to remove any shadow of a doubt about this fact. Kennesaw has a local law that makes gun ownership mandatory. Crime rate dropped greatly after the law was passed. Crime rate in Kennesaw (a suburb of Atlanta) remains lower than Atlanta or any of its suburbs.

I wonder what a first time reader of the DR must think when he/she happens upon a thread like this while innoculously surfing the web? And what are the odds of them ever knowingly returning to the site?

#273 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 01:04 PM |

I wonder what a first time reader of the DR must think when he/she happens upon a thread like this while innoculously surfing the web? And what are the odds of them ever knowingly returning to the site?

#274 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-04-06 01:05 PM |

Borrowing from the lyrics of "Hotel California" (w/two minor changes):

...
Last thing I remember,
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax,' said Rcade
DR is programmed to receive.'
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave.

progressivevalues.blogspot.com
Posted by panchovilla at 2009-04-06 01:24 PM

Yes, Pancho, I know there are two points of view on the Kennesaw thing. That's why I suggested that people google it instead of disingenuously cherry picking my links and posting them -- as you chose to do.

Like anything on the web, there are two (or more) sides. If you did the google, you will see that there are more links that agree with the 'guns keep crime down in Kennesaw' than the other camp. More importantly, these links are local, not from a national liberal web site that you chose to link to.

At any rate, there is no doubt at all that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rates of Atlanta and its suburbs.

If you want to play the cherry pick game (and it seems you do) I'll play. You post a link that disagrees, and I'll post one that agrees. We'll see who runs out of links first.

#276 | Posted by CalifChris

HAHAHA!!! Very good Chris!!

"""If you want to play the cherry pick game (and it seems you do) I'll play. You post a link that disagrees, and I'll post one that agrees. We'll see who runs out of links first."""

WAsn't my intent goat, thought YOU were doing the cherry picking in support of seedeez. With the army of lobbyist that the nra and arms manufacturers have, the pros are sure to dominate a google search.

"""At any rate, there is no doubt at all that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rates of Atlanta and its suburbs."""

I'll compare a similar town in canada that has no guns and blow those stats out of the water.

WAsn't my intent goat, thought YOU were doing the cherry picking in support of seedeez.

???

How can you say that when you post one link to one liberal web site and I suggested a google which provides hundred un-chosen (by me) ones? Are you high? You must be to make such an outrageous statement.

I'll compare a similar town in canada that has no guns and blow those stats out of the water.

You can't find a similiar town to Atlanta in Canada. Attitudes are completely different there. Demographics are different. More importantly gun laws are different in Canada. Apples and oranges. Comparing Atlanta's suburbs to another Atlanta suburb is a fair comparison. If you think not, tell me why. Again, are you high?

#276 | Posted by CalifChris

FF!

Lots of personal attacks against Bob, but nothing has made a counter point to what he said. Instead, you guys keep coming back to the one scenario he laid out. Surely someone can step up to the challenge?

#167 | Posted by YAV

But once warned, with the alarm, the defender can use mace, followed by a tazer gun, followed by a tazer baton, followed by a hand held tazer, followed by a baseball bat. At least with those items, you won't have to keep them locked up, and they are more accessible.

#159 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

PS, pancho, your bullshit offer to dispute the Kennesaw gun ownership law by finding a comparable city in Canada to compare it to (instead of its own sister suburbs) is as if I made the claim, "they eat more rice per capita in Texas than Iowa" and you responded, "I can find a comparable province in China that blows those stats out of the water"

Seems easy to get your goat today goat.

This was your original post, which led me to believe that you were stating that kennesaw was proof positive that more guns = less crime. Here's the one you chose to post:

"""google [kennesaw gun] to remove any shadow of a doubt about this fact. Kennesaw has a local law that makes gun ownership mandatory. Crime rate dropped greatly after the law was passed. Crime rate in Kennesaw (a suburb of Atlanta) remains lower than Atlanta or any of its suburbs."""

It could appear that you are supporting one pov here, I posted another link that stated otherwise.

As for your comment about the canada town thing, I'll find a town that is similar in demos as kennesaw (not atlanta), and BECAUSE our gun laws are different, I'll prove that there is less crime in the cdn town where there are no guns, 'cept for the odd shotgun and .22 for gophers.

Geez, lighten up, have some green tea or something. Are the seas rough or something?

""" (instead of its own sister suburbs)"""

Start by reading the link I provided.

I'll find a town that is similar in demos as kennesaw (not atlanta), and BECAUSE our gun laws are different,

If you want to make invalid analogies, feel free. Thinking people know better.

We are talking about gun laws in the US, not Canada. As I said in the other post, if we are talking about rice consumption in the US, we don't compare it to China.

You've already proven your disingenuity by posting a single link to a liberal blog whereas I suggested people look at google, which would allow them to see both sides and make their own decision. That to me screams "AGENDA!" on your part, but fairness on mine.

Go ahead and compare Kennesaw to a Toronto suburb if you want, instead of the only suburbs in the world with the virtually the exact demographics and laws. You sound like you won't be satisfied until you have convinced yourself that a canadian town makes for a valid comparision. LOL

PS, to find such a city and make a validcomparison,you would have to find one that had a suburb that had a mandatory gun ownership law. I don't think there is one in Canada.

Start by reading the link I provided.

I did. Now would you like me to cherry pick ONE link as suggested reading for you?

""If you want to make invalid analogies, feel free. Thinking people know better.""

Christ on a stick goat, the point of comparing two towns here would be to find similar towns in terms of demographics with different gun laws. The point is to see how having a shitload of guns vs. none impacts local crime... How fucking hard is that to understand?

From your last few posts, I think you only think you can think.

How fucking hard is that to understand?

LOL You're the one who thinks that how American gun laws make a difference between two cities can be ascertained by brining Canada into the argument. That's funny.

From your last few posts, I think you only think you can think.

Of course not. But no doubt I've got the drop on you. I realize that in order to make a statement about American gun laws you have to compare like demographics and laws. For some odd reason, you don't.

Likewise, if I wanted to compare rice consumption of the US States, if we used your logic, it would be fine to bring china into the discussion.

As said, thinking people understand. Whether you do or not, matters not to me and that being the fact, I'm foolish to continue this conversation.

bOoB, you stupid strawman is exactly the same as asking a starving man, "What would you rather have, a bowl of earthworms you can get to or a filet mignon you can't?

#267 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag

You miss the point as usal. The argument was about where the concept of the car antenna came from.

I don't know why I keep correcting you. You seem too stupid to learn anything.

The point remains valid.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

I chose the antenna. What did you choose?

"The point remains valid."

What about the "point" you made today, that anyone who would prefer a gun over a knife "in any battle" is "stupid?"

*prefer a car antenna over a gun.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

To make a valid comparison, all else has to be the same. You can't have two variables. That is invalid logic.

A valid question is:

"Would you rather have a gun in hand or a car antennae in hand?"

Equally logical comparison would be:

"Would you rather have a gun out of reach or a car antennae out of reach?"

It would be as if a woman put on an old, ill fitting red dress then put on a new well fitting green one and she asked you, "Which color looks better on me, red or green?" Well obviously the green one looks better, but not necessarily because of the color.

It's truly amazing you are too stupid to understand this basic concept of logic, bOoB. It is your lack of understanding of the science and mathematics of logic that you fail so often in your arguments.

And what about answering my #218 which you never did, Mr. "I always answer questions". LOL

I chose the antenna. What did you choose?

Since you always get to set up the scenario, I'm going to do the same. I'll answer your question, but I'm going to make it a logically valid one.

Since you have your weapon in hand, I get to have mine in hand to make it a fair and valid question. I choose the gun.

PS. You're dead.

"The point remains valid."

Note: Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

I live alone. I wouldn't mind having a gun to protect myself from a burglar. But then all my neighbors could have one. And in this country, I have a better chance of being shot by my neighbors intentionally or unintentionally than by a burglar. The odds are something like 100 to 1 or greater.

Zorg - that was sweet! I need to get one of those in case of a zombie attack. If it can shoot down an incoming missile, it can dispatch the living dead no sweat.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

WWMD - What would MacGyver do?

DR toughies at the shooting range....

Holy shit corky, that's like a fucking anti-tank weapon.

That was Tosser's Posse at the practice range.

Girl Gets Owned by a Desert Eagle

That was Tosser's Posse at the practice range.

Lol did they think that the US was going to invade Pakistan while mounted on armored elephants?

Oh my god, this thread is horrible. Stubborn Goatman and Stubborn Bob both have fish on, and it's hard to imagine anything worse. This thread's like a car wreck.

The guy that owned the gun is a chiropractor.

"Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?"

I will give Bob credit for one thing, he's a master at dreaming up ridiculous scenarios to fit his arguments while ignoring every other plausible scenario. Then he has the balls to criticize someone else's logic.

Bob talking about logic is like a legless man talking about running.

Also Bob, I don't know if you actually live in Buffalo, but here in Houston home invasions and burglaries while residents are home are on the rise. I've stopped reading the local news because it's depressing as hell that someone is shot or beaten in their own home nearly on a weekly basis.

"DR toughies at the shooting range...."

What little I watched of the video showed a bunch of people who are not familiar with firing rifles trying to shoot something that's waaaayy to big to begin with. Not a single one of them was standing properly or holding the weapons properly and each got their ass appropriately kicked by it.

I see dipshits like that at the range all the time and usually leave if I'm unlucky enough to be in the next booth over.

Since you have your weapon in hand, I get to have mine in hand to make it a fair and valid question. I choose the gun.

PS. You're dead.

#295 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 04:14 PM | Reply | Fl

You miss the point as usal. The argument was about where the concept of the car antenna came from.

I don't know why I keep correcting you. You seem too stupid to learn anything.

The point remains valid.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

I chose the antenna. What did you choose?

Get it yet? Probably not. The stupid tend to stay stupid.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

I chose the antenna. What did you choose?

#290 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 03:57 PM

Although some have already addressed this point while I was writing my post I have to jump in on this one. Your analogy does't make sense when it comes to making a logical choice of weapons to defend yourself.

You present a scenario where it's only a choice of either having a weapon (a car antenna in your hand) or having no weapon at all (a gun you can't reach).

Also, why does your scenario always assume the gun will be out of reach yet the car antenna will always be in your hand and at the ready?

In the most probable scenario, where someone breaks into a house while the occupants are asleep, wouldn't it be just as likely the homeowner's gun would be as easily accessable (most likely kept in a nightstand drawer next to the bed ) as would a car antenna to be used as a weapon (most likely kept underneath the bed). I doubt most people fall asleep in bed with a car antenna gripped tightly in their hand.

Your scenario is only logical in an outdoor situation where there were cars nearby and you are confronted by an attacker so, in a last ditch effort to defend yourself, you break off some car's antenna. Even then -- if the other guy already has his gun drawn -- you can pretty much kiss your chances of winning good-bye.

At the downtown high-rise office where I worked they held a yearly tear gas class for all the women. (It was required to attend the one-time class in order to be certified to legally carry and/or use a small tear gas container). If you worked late it was often dark when you left the office and your car was usually always parked on one of the lower levels of some underground parking garage. It was often totally deserted when you got out of the garage elevator and began the walk to your car.

I'd carry the tear gas vial in my hand while walking to where my car was parked but it was a wuss weapon and only gave a "feeling" of being safe. If you weren't able to stop an attacker dead in his tracks with the first squirt of tear gas to his eyes, he could grab it right out of your hand. I'd rather have a CWP to carry a small gun than a tear gas vial -- or car antenna.

Also Bob, I don't know if you actually live in Buffalo, but here in Houston home invasions and burglaries while residents are home are on the rise. I've stopped reading the local news because it's depressing as hell that someone is shot or beaten in their own home nearly on a weekly basis.

#306 | Posted by jpw at 2009-04-06 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag

I would think thata big city like Houston has a Newspaper online that would have those home invasion stories listed. How about posting couple. Home invasons are big human interest stories. Papers love to spread fear like that--it sells papers.

It would seem in Houston, that many of those homes would have guns in them. I would like to see the stories.

Would you rather have a car antenna in your hand for defense, or a gun you can't reach?

Invalid argument. Rephrase logically if you want an answer. I refuse to answer illogical questions.

Or if illogical questions are OK, answer this one: "Would you rather have a dick in your mouth or up your ass?"

Answer my illogical question, and I'll answer yours.

How about posting couple.

Translation:

"Jump through my hoops!"

LOL

Don't you have google?

Calfchris

The car antenna was never considered to be a weapon. I could have said comfy chair. Or stray cat.
The point of the whole scenario was that a guy with a knife can take a guy with a gun if the guy with a knife moves first. I said the guy with the gun would be better off having a car antenna than that gun. In no way would I ever choose a car antenna as a weapon against a gun or knife unless it was the only possible thing available, which is why I said it in the first place--to illustrate how useless the gun was in that situation. The guy would have been better off with a banana cream pie as the gun.

If a guy has a gun and another guy has a knife and they are going to fight--the guy with the gun wins. However, if the guy with the gun doesn't know there is going to be a fight--his gun is useless--as useless as a car antenna--a comfy chair--or a stray cat. The point is--if you can't get to your gun--your gun is useless.

Don't you have google?

The Google machine reads my thoughts. Try again, genius.

Sincerely,

BoOb

It would seem in Houston, that many of those homes would have guns in them. I would like to see the stories.

#309 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 05:26 PM

You can start with this one article by a local tv station in Houston. Near the end of the article it states home invasions are on the rise.

if you can't get to your gun--your gun is useless

ya think?

So IOW, bOoB, the lesson isn't to keep a car antennae close by, but to keep a gun close by?

I would think thata big city like Houston has a Newspaper online that would have those home invasion stories listed. How about posting couple.

Okay, here's 35.

"The point is--if you can't get to your gun--your gun is useless."

I'm tellin ya', this Buffalo_Boobster guy is BRILLIANT! Who else could ever have come to that conclusion? It follows then, that the same thing would apply to your telephone...right? Or your knife, baseball bat, car antenna, or whatever. Who woulda thunk it?

CalifChris

The point is--would a gun have made her safer? Put yourself in that woman's position. How was she going to get to her gun? How would having a gun in her house have helped her in that situaltion? When was she going to get the gun? In that situation, having a gun would have been more dangerous to her than the bad guys.

The point is--if you can't get to your gun--your gun is useless.

#312 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Then you're suggesting we need to keep our guns carried in holsters so they're always at the ready and close by our side? I think BuffalobOB yearns deep down inside himself for a return to the days of the wild, wild West.

btw -- As for the article I linked about the woman in the Houston area being attacked in a home invasion? I never leave my doors unlocked. That's where she made her big mistake -- leaving her doors unlocked for 20 minutes after she got home. Dumb move.

later

One thing should be kept in mind, the 7.62x39 round that most AK variants fire isn't more or less deadly than many common hunting calibers (7mm, 30-06, 270, etc etc)
The fact that it was a semi auto rifle is a moot point, 3 police officers were killed, the type of firearm shouldn't matter, it could of just as easily been a hunting rifle, or shotgun, and it would be no less a horrible tragedy.
This was obviously a very troubled individual that could of been just as dangerous using a car as a weapon, as he was with a firearm.

In that situation,...

bOoB comes up one situation and thinks it applies to all situations.

I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to put out a potential grease fire. But one night while I slept an electrical fire erupted in my kitchen and burned my house down. So what good was it to keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen? No one should keep a fire extinguisher in their kitchen because it didn't help me.

bOoB logic strikes again. LOL

The point is--would a gun have made her safer? Put yourself in that woman's position. How was she going to get to her gun? How would having a gun in her house have helped her in that situaltion? When was she going to get the gun? In that situation, having a gun would have been more dangerous to her than the bad guys.

Boy Scout Bob says "Be prepared"...Thanks Boy Scout Bob!

"How would having a gun in her house have helped her in that situaltion?"

Lotsa guns...all loaded and in different locations, even better than a phone and/or alarm panel in every room. Best solution of all is to have one in your belt or apron pocket at all times.
Tell me, do you really teach self defense classes with car antennae?

I'm tellin ya', this Buffalo_Boobster guy is BRILLIANT! Who else could ever have come to that conclusion? It follows then, that the same thing would apply to your telephone...right? Or your knife, baseball bat, car antenna, or whatever. Who woulda thunk it?

#317 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-04-06 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag

Absolutley true. The light is finally starting to come on. The point is--if you can't get to your weapon it is useless.

So far, we have only come up with two scenarios--really the same scenario, just different locations---where you can actually get to your gun and use it for self defense.

1st scenario. You are home and the bad guy breaks in giving you enough time to get to your weapon.

2nd scenario. You are walking down the street and a bad guy gives you enough time to get to your weapon.

The thing is--you are relying on an incompetent bad guy. A serious guy with a gun will shoot you and take your gun if you make a move. Same guy will simply take your gun if you stand there. Same guy wouldn't take your gun at all if your didn't have it on you.

I would like to see the stories.
#309 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 05:26 PM

Bob, I posted this link this morning after searching Google for ~1 minute. There are a series of examples of how guns kept people safe or prevented crime. Check it out.

The thing is--you are relying on an incompetent bad guy. A serious guy with a gun will shoot you and take your gun if you make a move.
#324 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Not if he's focused on robbing others or distracted.

I would choose to have the gun. First, I would punch Bob in the face and grab the antennae out of his hand. I would then poke his eyes out with the antennae, and then hide it in the woods. Then I would take out my gun and shoot Goatman right between the eyes. Then the level of discussion on this thread would instantaneously rise tenfold.

Then the others of you who were still alive would thank me.

You're welcome, in advance.

p.s. In case you did not notice, I just made a threat of physical violence against another. This post should be flagged immediately and repeatedly.

The point is--if you can't get to your weapon it is useless.

In related news:

If there is no food you go hungry.
If you don't have a coat, you will be cold
If you can't swim you drown in the deep end
If you have your frontal lobes removed you end up like da bOoB

Lotsa guns...all loaded and in different locations, even better than a phone and/or alarm panel in every room. Best solution of all is to have one in your belt or apron pocket at all times.

How was he going to get to her guns? She was forced to the floor and tied up immediately--they stuffed her in a closet. Think they didn't search the closet for hidden goodies? They ransacked the house. The closet would have been the first thing they searched. Then they could have loaded up with guns and more guns everywhere. Good thinking Brainiac. We have transisters now.

Tell me, do you really teach self defense classes with car antennae?

Yes--I'll antenna your ass while you fight back with that gun you can't get to. Wrong choice again grasshopper.

#323 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-04-06 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag

Not if he's focused on robbing others or distracted.

#326 | Posted by bartimus at 2009-04-06 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag

Or if an eagle flies down and pecks his eyes out.

Then I would take out my gun and shoot Goatman right between the eyes

Worst place to aim -- I'm too hard headed. Torso's out too. I'm too fat (as your wet fantasies about me indicate). You're only hope is to shoot me in the wrist and hope I bleed to death.

I think it's great that Boob goes on about not being able to get to your weapon in time to respond to an attack, but then suggests an alarm that would allow him time to grab a mace, 3 different tazers, and a baseball bat.

Hmm, why not get an alarm, and use the advanced warning to go get your gun?

"Same guy wouldn't take your gun at all if your didn't have it on you."

I got it, Boob, I got it! You're saying that you should venture out WITHOUT your gun! Bruilliant! I'm going to take it a step further. NEVER go out with your wallet, jewelry, money, shoes, jacket...or ANYTHING. That way NOTHING can be taken from you. Why haven't others thought of that?

How much do you charge for the car antenna defense classes?

"The thing is--you are relying on an incompetent bad guy. A serious guy with a gun will shoot you and take your gun if you make a move. Same guy will simply take your gun if you stand there. Same guy wouldn't take your gun at all if your didn't have it on you.

#324 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-06 06:02 PM"

See, the rest of you are missing the brilliance of Bob's plan. The bad guy would see Bob's antennae, but he would have no idea that it was really a lethal weapon disguised as a common car antennae. The bad would you therefore let his guard down and just start shooting the breeze with Bob as he robbed his house, and Bob could then sneak up behind him and beat him silly with his car antennae.

Fuck, Bob is so way smarter than the rest of you, it's not even funny.

"transisters"

Is that like black transvestites or what?

This Bob idiot needs 100 lashes, keelhauling and three days on the yard arm.

~The beatings will continue until morale improves.

JPW

I pick the first one. Put a gun in the house and tell me how things change except the bad guys get a gun plus the jewelry.

Show how a gun is used to save a life. I know home invasions happen. Show me a gun saving someone.

As I said--a gun only helps if the bad guy gives you enough time to get to it.

Goatman

Gee--I thought you would be on my side--you being against dogpiling and all.

;-)

"The bad guy would see Bob's antennae, but he would have no idea that it was really a lethal weapon disguised as a common car antennae."

Well, he might fool the bad guy, but I happen to know that he receives all his instructions from the mothership with that antenna. Consequently, it would be the FIRST thing I'd take from him and leave him a shivering blob not knowing whether to shit or go blind.

"Also Bob, I don't know if you actually live in Buffalo, but here in Houston home invasions and burglaries while residents are home are on the rise. I've stopped reading the local news because it's depressing as hell that someone is shot or beaten in their own home nearly on a weekly basis."

That was the point, Bob. Don't confuse arguments now.

I'm saying that home invasions and burglaries with the residents home do happen and they happen frequently. Sure you can find instances where a gun wouldn't have helped, but what about all the ones where it would have or better yet, when it did?

"You're only hope is to shoot me in the wrist and hope I bleed to death.

#332 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 06:09 PM"

I suppose that may be a better plan. I did see a cop shoot a gun in the hand of a bad guy the other day, on purpose. True story. The bad guy then took a look at the gun, saw it was fucked up, and threw it down.

funny. many of you see a right-winger with a gun "exercising his second amendment rights". i see a wacko murderer who blames everthing on Jews and Israel. funnier. drop the muderer part, and that describes at least 50% of you wackos that want to take away 2nd amendment rights.

bOoB -- It might rain if you go on a picnic, so I hope you don't own a picnic basket.

What if I someone ran a red light and your car got t-boned and you were killed, bOoB? OOPS. Better not buy a car.

I can think of 'what if' scenarios until the cows come home and if I based my life on them, I would own nothing.

I think it's great that Boob goes on about not being able to get to your weapon in time to respond to an attack, but then suggests an alarm that would allow him time to grab a mace, 3 different tazers, and a baseball bat.

Hmm, why not get an alarm, and use the advanced warning to go get your gun?

#333 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag

You can use the time to get to your gun--or knit a sweater, or make balloon animals. You can use the time to do whatever you like. The point is, you will have some warning that you might not have otherwise had, and you could arm yourself. Those things were mentioned because it was asked for alternatives to a gun for self defense. It helps if you read more than one post at a time and put things in context. The man asked for alternatives to a gun, so saying a gun was an alternative to a gun wouldn't make much sense would it? HMMMMMMMM?

The alarm is better than gun since it is always there as a threat to a bad guy. If your house were one of many on a street, the bad guy would go to an easier mark.

I can think of 'what if' scenarios until the cows come home and if I based my life on them, I would own nothing.

#343 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-06 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Then how come you can't think of a scenario where your gun is good for self defense only if the bad guy gives you enough time to get to it?

How come that is Sparky? You making things up again? Spanky spanky.

RCade - if you send $5 to the Paypal account I don't have, I will make the point that more people are accidentally killed with guns in the home than criminals are killed in legitimate self-defense. The argument about whether that is really true will easily push this thread over 1,000 posts.

I will check my account in one hour.

mOntecOre

oh, btw: i may love my 2nd amendment, but i think the body armor bit is B.S. No one but law enforcement or active/reserve military should be allowed to own those.

#91 | Posted by Lisa

Clarity Award of the Week....

CC--too funny on the car antennaes!

Red is a fibber on the #269 post--not anything I posted--

"but i think the body armor bit is B.S. No one but law enforcement or active/reserve military should be allowed to own those."

My understanding is that it IS only legal for law enforcement to own body armor.

This guy was a super whacko--people can think that Obama is going to take way or ban guns, but when does that give someone the motive to shoot three cops?

The guy was crazy--beats his women--without regard, kicked out of the Marine boot camp (now that is scary).

His mother is a real peach too--likes to spit at his girlfriend's face.

Guess he learned from her how to treat people.

He won't make it to trial.

---------------

Feel for the families of the officers he killed. How many kids without a father?

The killing in Oakland left 10 kids without a father when that asshole killed four officers.

"Red is a fibber on the #269 post--not anything I posted--

#349 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-04-06 06:35 PM"

Yeah, "Never in a million years" would you post something like that.

Flag: Slow on the uptake

The real question is whether you want a +2 Antenna of Smiting or a +2 Antenna of the Moon...

If you have the second, you can use your telekinesis powers to get the gun and shoot the motherfucker.

#350 by JPW.

That was my understanding too (unless you were a licensed arms dealer). but this article said everything was legally obtained -- sounds erroneous. but that doesn't suprise me. the media almost always jacks up the facts about things they don't understand completely. we're all human i guess...but it's the job of these people to fact-check.

See, the rest of you are missing the brilliance of Bob's plan.

#335 | Posted by mOntecOre

Lots of personal attacks against Bob, but nothing has made a counter point to what he said. Instead, you guys keep coming back to the one scenario he laid out. Surely someone can step up to the challenge?

#167 | Posted by YAV

Yav hasn't missed it. Yav has seen the brilliance that the jubly from Buffalo.

Chronology, LoD. You can use those post numbers you supplied for help with the timeline.

He was a neo Nazi. Conservative.... LOL!

Then how come you can't think of a scenario where your gun is good for self defense only if the bad guy gives you enough time to get to it?

Because obviously if I don't have my gun, it's no good. That's why I can't think of one.

Are you really that stupid, bOoB?

Unbelievable.

From the article:

".....and was convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday."

A man is worried about having his guns taken away, so he kills a cop? I guess the article never said this was a man of any sort of intelligence.

i own several assault rifles too....some locked up others not.... i like to shoot and i like toys too......as most of my family...get use to it....or leave....either your job...or America....no matter what i will still be armed....and if pushed i will donated my time and money to any organistion to ensure im armed

#28 | Posted by judas at 2009-04-04 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You try to paint others as 'pants pissers' all while hiding behind a gun? Typical.

The assualt rifle ban idea is a bunch of bull shit. I grew up around guns and own many hand guns. I think if you are crazy you don't need an assualt rifle. bunch of cheap 9mm will do the job (ie the crazy bastard at virginia tech)... so we should ban semi-autos too right? but hell revolver is pretty quick if you learn to use it so hey, we should ban those too right? oh and then something all you gun haters seem to over look or don;t give a shit about: CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT GUN LAWS!!!! so what you end up with is an un-armed public at the mercy of criminals and cops. fuck your gun bans, fuck all of them and if I decide I need a bullet proof vest in my house to defend my family then so be it. The last time my alarm went off in the house it took over 40 minutes for a cop to knock at my front door... fuck that "the police will take care of me shit"!!!! I feel bad for the officers and have much respect for cops and i hope that fucker fries who did it...

Hi Celisary

As a liberal, I have stated several times that I am in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. However, that doesn't alter the facts that guns suck as self defense. In every case, the defense relies on the bad guy being incompetent, and allowing you to get to your gun.

The only scenario where a gun comes in handy for home protection is if the bad guy makes enough noise to give you time to get to your gun. Other than that, the gun will be used against you.

Same with walking down the street. The only time your gun will protect you is if the bad guy is stupid enough to let you get to it. It is pretty useless for defense. I have asked for scenarios where the gun would protect other than the scenarios I mention, and none--zero--nada have been shown.

Jaybay555

You sound like the guy this thread is about. A whacked out nut job.

"The only scenario where a gun comes in handy for home protection is if the bad guy makes enough noise to give you time to get to your gun."

As has been explained to you countless times, the same holds true for any weapon. Are all weapons therefore useless? What can you grab faster than a gun?

"Other than that, the gun will be used against you."

Now your imaginary situation has gotten to the point where the gun is more accessible to the intruder than the homeowner? LOL.

I can see your next scenario: "An intruder walks in the door and he already has your gun. Wouldn't you rather have not bought that gun?"

Joe

Let's hear your scenario.

"The last time my alarm went off in the house...

#362 | Posted by jaybay555 at 2009-04-06 10:16 PM"

Alarm? What a pussboy.

"Let's hear your scenario."

I don't need to create phony scenarios to support my argument. I say, a gun is just as accessible and lethal as any other weapon. The only way for you to "prove" otherwise is to create obnoxious scenarios where the gun is out of reach, ignoring that any other weapon of choice could just as easily be out of reach.

Real men deal with it: Do you feel lucky, punk?

btw -- As for the article I linked about the woman in the Houston area being attacked in a home invasion? I never leave my doors unlocked. That's where she made her big mistake -- leaving her doors unlocked for 20 minutes after she got home. Dumb move.

In Los Angeles (a city of almost 4 million people) and the surrounding suburbs, crime rates have continued to climb especially as the economy has worsened. And particulary if you are the only one in the house (as was the woman in Houston at the time of her home invasion) leaving one's doors unlocked -- even for such a short time -- can be a foolish decision, as she unfortunately found out the hard way.

I'm kind of curious. Do any of you in other areas of the country think nothing of leaving your house unlocked all day while you're home?

Sounds simple, but one deterrent is your panic button on your car remote....will start honking from most anywhere in your home....or parking lot.

where the gun is out of reach, ignoring that any other weapon of choice could just as easily be out of reach.

#369 | Posted by JOE at 2009-04-07 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag

I wasn't ignoring that at all. You are simply mistaken. You can carry mace or a stun gun in your hand. To use either is a danger with a gun in the bad guys hand, but you might be able to get away from a knife attack. The idea is to survive--not kill the other guy. Since the bad guy gets to decide when, where, and how, the attack will go down, any weapon will probably be useless, unless, as stated, your criminal allows you to reach it. Then the question becomes--which weapon would you like to have used against you? It's kind of like that old Steven Seagal Movie Out For Justice, where whatever the bad guy picks up to bang Seagal with gets taken away and used against him.

To think your gun is good for self defense is delusional. The proof is in your inability to describe a likely scenario where your gun would be more helpful than harmful.

Now, if you know somebody is coming for you, that's different. The guy on this thread knew the cops were coming--but considering the circumstances--was he using his gun for defense--or offense?

Califchris

A gun in the situation you linked to would not have made a difference, except to give the bad guys a gun in addition to the rest of the stuff they stole.

Now your imaginary situation has gotten to the point where the gun is more accessible to the intruder than the homeowner? LOL.

#366 | Posted by JOE at 2009-04-07 01:27 AM | Reply | Flag

Yes---unless the bad guy makes enough noise and gives you enough time to get to your weapon.

If you have a gun and I have a gun, whoever pulls their gun first will have access to both guns, and the other guy will have zero access.

how about telling us why 3 different tazers is superior to a firearm. Just for laughs.

#282 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-06 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one said they were superior--they were put forth as alternatives to a firearm---and you forgot the mace. Your strawman is in flames. You also forgot the 120DB alarm shrieking in the whole neighborhoods ears. I doubt you would need the tazers or stun guns. I doubt the guy would have done anything once he saw the security signs.

You seem to think that leaving stun guns around the house is dangerous, but leaving firearms around the house is A-OK.

How do you know he was afraid of Obama?
#67 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-04 05:44 PM

He slept with a gun under his pillow in a basement room filled with firearms and ammunition, convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday.

Of course he was an Obama supporter. I even saw him going door to door campaigning for him.

keep pulling automatic weapons on police officers while wearing body amour and OF COURSE people are going to ask the president to ban these weapons

I've heard of several police chiefs advocating gun control but I haven't heard of any rank and file police officer associations (i.e. PBAs) advocating gun control. Since it is the police officers and not the chiefs of police that are confronting armed gunmen, you would think that the rank and file police officers would be strong advocates for gun control.

If not then you should be charged as an accessory after the fact!

Since it doesn't seem possible to legislative the ownership of guns, this could be a way of legislating responsible gun ownership.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.