10 mm

7/25/2012 2:01:03 PM

Fair enough... and I should know better than to try in this section

7/25/2012 2:01:10 PM

no 10 mm for the top of page 10?

7/25/2012 2:03:21 PM

^nope...too expensive compared to .40 S&W

7/25/2012 2:05:32 PM

.45 acp is the way to go for home protection

7/25/2012 2:07:36 PM

BlackJesus, have you ever shot a gun before?

7/25/2012 2:09:19 PM

I own a glock 21 and browning 12 gauge.

wdprice3 have your ball's dropped?

7/25/2012 2:11:25 PM

dddumbass

7/25/2012 2:11:58 PM

7/25/2012 2:13:13 PM

dude's balls have dropped, and they are magnificent

7/25/2012 2:13:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/us/california-anaheim-violence/index.html?hpt=us_c1

see another story of gun violence.

7/25/2012 2:22:01 PM

Only well-trained, sensible, hard-working police officers can be trusted with guns.

7/25/2012 2:27:10 PM

^sounds like we need a ban on the destructive forces of rocks and bottles....
Poor windows...

7/25/2012 2:28:54 PM

Unfortunately the video of those LEOs shooting people just sitting around and "losing control of their K9" while attacking a mother and child enjoying a sunny day has been removed from YouTube. Looks like The Man got them.

7/25/2012 2:39:06 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/obama-takes-on-gun-violence-in-new-orleans-speech/?hpt=hp_c1

Quote :

""I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.""

And it starts say bye bye to your AR-15's

7/26/2012 8:03:11 AM

He clearly said AK-47s

7/26/2012 8:08:07 AM

I think AK-47s should be in the hands of approved persons/parties.

However, he is creating an argument based on a non-existent problem. Criminals, and even law abiding citizens, aren't running rampant with AK-47s. So little crime occurs with assault rifles that to base a political stance on them, on the promise of reducing violent crime, is disingenuous and fear-mongering.

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 8:11 AM. Reason : /]

7/26/2012 8:10:33 AM

yep.... an ak would have sucked ... because it wouldn't have failed to feed.

7/26/2012 8:11:05 AM

Quote :

"However, he is creating an argument based on a non-existent problem. Criminals, and even law abiding citizens, aren't running rampant with AK-47s. So little crime occurs with assault rifles that to base a political stance on them, on the promise of reducing violent crime, is disingenuous and fear-mongering. "

100% Spot on. I will also add to the mix that he said it just to get votes, capitalizing on the movie shooting. Didnt he say he would reform the assualt weapons ban this time 4 years ago? The answer is yes, he didnt reform crap.

7/26/2012 8:24:14 AM

Oh yeh, it's an election speech. Just trying to drum up votes. And yes, 4 years ago he was talking about the AWB, which is another disingenuous and fear-mongering ploy (it was such back in the 1990s and it's the same now - legislation based on lies, myths, misconceptions, incorrect information, and a lack of understanding).

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 8:28 AM. Reason : .]

7/26/2012 8:27:21 AM

BlackJesus, I know you've never shot a gun before but you're welcome to come shoot my AR if you want

As a side note, I bought a new M&P-9 Pro in your honor last night, I'm pretty excited about it's arrival

7/26/2012 9:07:28 AM

Big gun right there. A 9mm dude man up and at least get a .357.

My Glock 21 laughs at you.

7/26/2012 9:23:00 AM

Wait till you see my .22LR collection

7/26/2012 9:24:58 AM

9mm = .354 inches

7/26/2012 9:27:18 AM

woot

7/26/2012 10:15:49 AM

I fully realize that I've become the guy who posts a ridiculous amount of articles from The Atlantic, but fuck it, it's easily some of the best writing out there (and always has been)

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/some-constitutional-amendments-are-more-equal-than-others/260322/

Quote :

"Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others And, since 9/11, no amendment has been more equal than the Second Amendment. As the political debate about gun violence finally sounds out across the country in the wake of last week's Colorado theater massacre, as President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney begin to stake out their positions, I keep coming back in my mind to the ways in which America has treated gun rights differently from other rights since September 11, 2001. On paper, all constitutional amendments may be equal. But in practice, some amendments are more equal than others. And no amendment has been more equal in the past 11 years than the Second Amendment. There is a financial component to this, expressed in the vast difference we spend to counter the threat of terrorism as opposed to the threat of gun violence. There is a practical component to it: in the wake of last week's shooting, the Denver Post reported that local gun sales were up 41 percent and that firearms instructors were seeing more requests for training for concealed-carry permits. And then there is the legal component -- the constitutional contrast, you could say -- expressed in how our Bill of Rights has been molded since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Since the terror attacks nearly 11 years ago -- a period in which 14 Americans were killed domestically by Islamic extremists and approximately 334,000 Americans were killed domestically by gun violence -- there have been significant changes in the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by government. In virtually every one of those instances -- I can't name an exception, can you? -- the guarantees of individual liberty and freedom contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution have been narrowed or undermined in the name of safety and national security. From the TSA to drones to warrantless domestic surveillance, from water-boarding to secret prisons to law enforcement officials having access to your online accounts, the Bill of Rights has been winnowed since September 2001 as Americans have consented to re-shift the balance between security and liberty, between safety and privacy. Name a relevant amendment and some expert somewhere will tell you how all three branches of government have sought to expand State power over individual conduct (or even, as we saw in some of the hokier terror conspiracy cases, over individual thought). Except for the Second Amendment. Bucking the trend, it has been a fabulous decade for the Second Amendment and those who cherish it. Since September 2001, the United States Supreme Court has twice (in Heller in 2008 and in McDonald in 2009) endorsed the concept that the Second Amendment contains an individual right to bear arms. In 2003, Congress attached to funding legislation the Tiahrt Amendment, a rider designed to restrict the use of federal gun-trace information. And in 2004, the federal ban on assault weapons was allowed to expired. Today, despite statistics that tell us that approximately 33,000 Americans are killed each year by gun violence, and despite statistics that reveal that states with tougher gun restrictions have lower body counts from such violence, the Second Amendment is more broadly interpreted than it has ever before been. By contrast, in the name of fighting the war on terror, here is how the past 11 years have treated the other nine amendments that comprise the original Bill of Rights: The First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As First Amendment Center scholar David Hudson, Jr. has pointed out, the weighty USA Patriot Act "directly implicated First Amendment freedoms." Hudson offered this analysis last year on Patriot Act provisions which enable government officials to obtain library records, health-care records, and business records. Meanwhile, in 2010 the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, endorsed the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's "material support" provision, which criminalizes a broad range of associative conduct. More recently, President Obama's National Defense Authorization Act has implicated the first amendment rights of journalists. The Second Amendment. 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. See above. The Third Amendment. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. I could not find any links between America's prosecution of the war on terror and the Third Amendment, but I did find an excellent law review article suggesting that the individual rights contained in the Third Amendment may have been violated by National Guard troops sent to Louisiana and neighboring states in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM. Reason : /////]

7/26/2012 1:42:24 PM

continued:

Quote :

"The Fourth Amendment.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The war on terror has had the most effect of all upon Fourth Amendment rights. Bush Administration officials concluded early on in the process that the Fourth Amendment should be applied differently during a time of war. This is why you may be searched without probable cause at airports and why government agents may be listening in to your telephone conversations even if they have no judge's warrant to do so. It is why so many men after 9/11 were picked up on "material witness" warrants and held for months without trial. Read this for a sense of the debate on Capitol Hill on this in 2003. The Fifth Amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This is the Amendment that was neutered so broadly after 9/11 that federal lawyers and, initially, the courts, willingly detained U.S. citizens (like Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi) without giving the men access to their lawyers. It is this amendment which mainly impacts the still-addled military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Today, meanwhile, overseas drone strikes, which have targeted even U.S. citizens, represent the most invasive and permanent intrusions upon due process rights. The Sixth Amendment. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. We saw the Sixth Amendment's implication in the war on terror during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in federal court in Virginia. He sought to call as a witness fellow Al Qaeda member Ramzi Binalshibh. When the federal government refused to make Binalshibh available, the courts brokered a compromise in which "summaries" of Binalshibh's testimony were made available to the defense. The Sixth Amendment's guarantees, you now may say, are some of the biggest reasons why the feds generally refuse these days to prosecute more terror suspects in federal court. The Seventh Amendment. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The Seventh Amendment has taken a beating since 2001, in case you were wondering, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the nation's terrorism policies. The Eighth Amendment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The simulated-death practice of water-boarding of course implicated whatever Eighth Amendment rights are possessed by terror suspects. So did lesser forms of torture we now know was conducted by U.S. personnel against terror suspects (and others, like the prisoners at Abu Ghraib In Iraq). Many of the subsequent civil cases against government officials (like John Yoo) focused upon allegations that they authorized "gross physical and psychological abuse." The Ninth Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I did not not find any instances where the Ninth Amendment has yet been directly impacted (in terms of a court ruling, for example) by the war on terror. The Tenth Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Tenth Amendment activists have claimed that the government's terror detention policies, contained in the National Defense Authorization Act, implicate state powers under the Tenth Amendment. But there has been little litigation on this topic. The point of this litany? The threat of terrorism since 9/11 has prompted government to dramatically narrow the range of our individual freedoms under the Bill of Rights. But despite the shocking toll of gun violence over the past 11 years, the Second Amendment offers more protection today than it did in September 2001. Surely this contrast, this contradiction, is worthy of being part of the national conversation that is taking place in the wake of the latest mass shooting. Are Second Amendment rights more precious than Fourth Amendment rights or Fifth Amendment rights? Are they more important than First Amendment rights or Eighth Amendment rights? I'd love the president and Mitt Romney to answer those questions and to explain why the War on Terror seems to have bypassed the Second Amendment even as it has redefined the ways that many other constitutional amendments apply to our lives."

7/26/2012 1:42:49 PM

Quote :

" vulcan's balls have dropped, and they are magnificent"

lol I have to admit this one got me. I was frantically searching through the thread like "holy fuck I don't remember even opening this thread before much less posting in it"

7/26/2012 1:48:42 PM

The point? Because the government has shat on the other amendments, the 2nd amendment shouldn't be immune? Some would argue that the second amendment was/is the most important because that's what separates America; that's "what separates government from the people".

Quote :

"Today, despite statistics that tell us that approximately 33,000 Americans are killed each year by gun violence, and despite statistics that reveal that states with tougher gun restrictions have lower body counts from such violence"

is this number accurate? sounds inflated. more than twice the total number of homicides according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

And the second part is misleading. Several states with strict laws have higher crime/homicide/gun violence rates.

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM. Reason : add another note]

7/26/2012 1:48:55 PM

TLDR

7/26/2012 1:58:06 PM

Is that number accurate? *cites Wikipedia*

7/26/2012 1:59:12 PM

meh, wiki isn't a horrible source for something on the fly. if you'd like to dig up other results have fun. it was the first link on a google search and appeared to be the most useful.

also, this is chit chat and there's a reason I'm not very active in TSB. Too damn lazy to track down shit.

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : add another note]

7/26/2012 2:01:40 PM

Quote :

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,""

I fully agree with this statement. I don't want criminals having ANY firearms of any sort.

Let's take a closer look at Obama's statement, shall we?

You aren't a criminal unless convicted. In this country and in the court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, if you've done no wrong and there is no proof of intention against you to do harm to others (outside the definitions of self defense of course), then why are you judged as a criminal?

So how the hell can you ban, say an AK-47, from a citizen who is otherwise law-abiding and innocent?

Are you, Wolf2Ranger suggesting that we are all criminals? You cannot and do not have to give up your freedoms to be safe. Believing the state will protect you from domestic disputes is naive. You maybe at the top of the food chain, but life is dangerous. Stop feeling invincible, quit being lazy, and start teaching yourselves to be self-sufficient. That includes properly protecting yourself. The options and knowledge are there to do so adequately. In this day and age, it's a shame that more people don't capitalize on what's available to them. I'm sure people of the 17th century and before would have loved to capitalize on flashlights as small as pens, pocket knives, lighters, and proper protection such as firearms, pepper spray and mace, etc. These things are affordable and available to you to use as tools.

Fuck, I've rambled and I don't know what for.

OH YEAH, in case you missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

[Edited on July 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2012 2:01:40 PM

you win thread

thread/

7/26/2012 2:06:01 PM

Quote :

" Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store. Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people." Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms." Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him." By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time." Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me." Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.) So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun. Copyright 2012 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

7/27/2012 12:32:31 PM

Quote :

"According to news-press.com, a door-to-door steak salesman was shot and killed Thursday in Cape Coral, Florida. Thirty year old, Nicholas Rainey knocked on the door of Kenneth Bailey Roop, 52, but he got no answer. As Rainey made his way down the driveway, Roop pulled up in his pick up truck and question Rainey on why he was at his house. Gene Snyder, a neighbor and witness, claims that after Rainey told Roop about the steak he was selling, Roop pulled out his hand gun and shot Rainey. While Rainey was on the ground holding on for his life, Roop shot him one more time, directly in the head. Once the police made it to the scene, they arrested Roop and charged him with second degree murder. Roop said that he was "in fear" and that he shot Rainey an extra time for "effect." Gene Snyder, a former volunteer firefighter, attempted CPR on Rainey, but he was too late. According to another local neighbor, Alex Pevida, Rainey had been going door-to-door selling steak and seafood and seemed like an average guy just doing his job."

STFU

7/27/2012 12:36:42 PM

~14k murdered with guns every year. ~2 million used in self defense. What was that you said? Oh yeah..

STFU

7/27/2012 12:45:46 PM

Quote :

"a door-to-door steak salesman "

That's the life.

7/27/2012 12:50:12 PM

sorry, libtards.

you can hate all you want, but guns are going nowhere.

7/27/2012 12:51:02 PM

Quote :

"That's the life"

Was the life until he met a man with a gun that wanted pork chops.

7/27/2012 12:51:35 PM

not all liberals hate guns, just putting that out there.

7/27/2012 12:51:47 PM

Quote :

"sorry, libtards retards"

7/27/2012 12:52:49 PM

you will die from a gunshot wound.

7/27/2012 12:54:12 PM

you will die helpless and defenseless

7/27/2012 12:55:09 PM

pwned

7/27/2012 1:00:36 PM

Quote :

"One week after Colorado's movie theater shooting, Maryland cops arrested a heavily armed man who told his employer he was a "joker" who was going to "blow everyone up." Police said today they believe they "thwarted a massacre." The suspect was being dismissed from his job and twice gave threatening statements to his supervisor, police said. He was quoted as telling his employer, "I'm a joker, I'm going to load up my guns and blow everyone up," police said. Law enforcement sources tell ABC News that he is from Crofton, Md. He is under arrest for allegedly making threats against an employer and co-workers at Pitney Bowes. The suspect had about 25 firearms at his residence, including semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, law enforcement sources said. Police also said he had thousands of rounds of ammunition. The man was facing termination from his job with a company doing contract work for Pitney Bowes, a leading company in producing postage meters and machines. The company released the following statement: "The suspect arrested is an employee of a subcontractor to Pitney Bowes. At Pitney Bowes we have clear security protocol and when we had concerns about this individual, we contacted authorities." The Prince George Police Department declined to comment, but said they will be sharing more information at a 1 p.m. news conference. On July 20, shooting suspect James Holmes allegedly opened fire in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater during a midnight showing of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises." Twelve people were killed and 58 were wounded. Holmes told police he was The Joker, a villain in the Batman movies, police said."

7/27/2012 2:08:00 PM

25 guns?! No one should have 25 guns unless they have 25 trigger fingers!!

7/27/2012 2:28:35 PM

Damn, look at how scary those guns look!!

7/27/2012 4:35:35 PM

Why the fuck am I in this?

7/27/2012 4:48:40 PM

Brandon1 dominated by the script

7/27/2012 4:50:05 PM