[Edited on April 4, 2009 at 9:22 PM. Reason : this double post brought to you by fucking time warner]

4/4/2009 9:21:13 PM

http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html

Quote :

"Gunmen Kills Three Pittsburgh Police Officers PITTSBURGH (KDKA/AP) ? A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns. Three officers were killed. Police planned to release more details at a 3 p.m. news conference Saturday. Poplawski was arrested after a several-hour standoff. One witness reported hearing hundreds of shots. The shootings occurred just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot March 21 in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001. Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns. 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." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama." Perkovic, a 22-year-old who said he was Poplawski's best friend, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, "Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you." Perkovic said: "I heard gunshots and he hung up. ... He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot." Vire, 23, said Poplawski once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn't successful. Vire said his friend had an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum. Another friend, Joe DiMarco, said Poplawski had been laid off from his job at a glass factory earlier this year. DiMarco said he didn't know the name of the company, but knew Poplawski had been upset about losing his job. The officers were called to the home in the Stanton Heights neighborhood at about 7 a.m. Tom Moffitt, 51, a city firefighter who lives two blocks away, said he heard about the shooting on his scanner and came to the scene, where he heard "hundreds, just hundreds of shots. And not just once - several times." Rob Gift, 45, who lives a block away, said he heard rapid gunfire as he was letting his dog out. He said the neighborhood of well-kept single-family houses and manicured lawns is home to many police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other city workers. "It's just a very quiet neighborhood," Gift said. "

fucking quacks. wonder if glen beck, hannity, michelle bachmann et al will continue with their insane rhetoric that seemingly feeds shit like this.

4/4/2009 11:59:23 PM

I am totally pissed and saddened that 3 more cops got killed, but I still support the fundamental right of honest citizens to own guns.

4/5/2009 12:15:31 AM

Quote :

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

my dad has friends who are in the county gun club who have been buying "gun tubes" for months - since the election. They are essentially big PVC pipes, sealed on both ends, that you put your guns in and bury, so Obama can't tuk yer guns.

^ no shit. that's not in question here

[Edited on April 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2009 12:17:05 AM

Even if the reasoning is retarded, it's not harmful. Their reasoning however, is not completely unfounded. There is zero question that a lot of the folks running the show right now would have no qualms about eliminating gun ownership altogether, and this "assault weapon" nonsense is just the first step in that direction. Not that it will probably happen, it's not even in the cards for the near future, but being prepared for the worst is never a bad thing.

Some people, like yourself, obviously don't care about political issues affecting gun owners, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean you are the final word on what's okay and not okay. To those of us that do stay abreast of these kinds of issues, it's a little less "paranoia" and a little more "preparedness" than it may seem to you.

Would I do it? No. Would I fault someone else for doing it? No.

4/6/2009 9:06:27 AM

Quote :

"There is zero question that a lot of the folks running the show right now would have no qualms about eliminating gun ownership altogether"

please provide some evidence of "a lot of folks" who are "running the show" who have this viewpoint.

Furthermore, what is the evidence that any politician would go beyond banning the sale of certain guns, and would actually mandate the seizure of guns like hunting rifles, shotguns, and basic handguns.

4/6/2009 9:42:45 AM

^you mean there are people in the government that would ban honest citizens from owning the same firepower as government forces or criminals?! What honest person in their right mind would think they are less safe

4/6/2009 11:26:56 AM

.... what the hell was that about

4/6/2009 11:39:32 AM

Quote :

"owning the same firepower as government forces"

i hope you mean same type weapons because noone will ever have the same firepower...ever.

4/6/2009 1:01:33 PM

A TANK IN EVERY GARAGE!

4/6/2009 1:21:41 PM

^^^^^ NO post Katrina, police and other government agents went door to door confiscating all guns. To this day, many citizens have not been able to get themback

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : dhshdg]

4/6/2009 1:23:36 PM

^^ yeah, but not even the same types of weapons too.....
tanks, ICBMs, RPG Launchers, Patriots Missiles, etc are within the financial reach of some individuals and certainly many private corporations, but that doesn't mean they have, or should have the right to own and use them.

4/6/2009 1:24:06 PM

^ the fuck they shouldn't be able to own them. That is, you know, kind of the point of keeping and bearing arms. To be able to keep the government in check. If all the people can own is a slingshot while the government has tanks, then do you REALLY think that keeps the government in check?

4/6/2009 2:15:46 PM

in burroland i can own "the bomb"?

sweet

imma drop it

4/6/2009 2:20:05 PM

^ Not if you're brown.

4/6/2009 2:21:44 PM

It is almost as if people think you can go out and buy full auto AK-47s, RPGs, Tanks and the like the same way one might go to walmart and buy a shotgun.

4/6/2009 2:25:12 PM

^^^ actually, according to the US Constitution, you can own "the bomb."

4/6/2009 2:27:09 PM

IMMA DROP IT

4/6/2009 2:27:56 PM

Sweet let's be legalists about a really old document that always works out.

4/6/2009 2:29:21 PM

actually, it does work out. thanks for playing.

hey, why do we have to follow murder laws? they were made so many years ago.

4/6/2009 2:34:18 PM

Holy shit you are mind bendingly stupid. If you can't see the difference between the two cases (hint: maybe murder is still relevant in today's context) then I don't know what to say to you.

4/6/2009 2:35:42 PM

hint: government tyranny is STILL RELEVANT today.

4/6/2009 2:36:09 PM

Yes so clearly citizens should be able to own the bomb. Let the free market sort it out. If you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.

If governments don't want to be nuked they should conform to people who can afford nukes. I mean come on people, the market will sort it out.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 2:39:16 PM

give me a fucking break. The free-market has nothing to do with the Constitutionally-protected right to own weapons.

People in the 1700s owned GRAPE-SHOT, the 18th-century equivalent of a WMD.

4/6/2009 2:41:45 PM

The 18th century equivalent of an WMD! Holy shit that means we should give people in the 21st century the 21st century equivalent of an WMD!

I mean it's my constitutional right to own these things, okay? So if I can afford it I should be able to buy it.

Anybody with the money should be able to buy an ICBM and arm it. Anything less violates *******************MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS**************************

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : THEY HAD GRAPE SHOT FOR FUCK'S SAKE]

4/6/2009 2:47:33 PM

Quote :

"NO post Katrina, police and other government agents went door to door confiscating all guns. To this day, many citizens have not been able to get themback"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act

4/6/2009 2:47:41 PM

Quote :

"The 18th century equivalent of an WMD! Holy shit that means we should give people in the 21st century the 21st century equivalent of an WMD!"

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If they didn't limit the most destructive weapons known to man then, then it stands to reason that they didn't intend to limit more destructive weapons down the line.

Remember, simply OWNING them doesn't mean you have the right to USE them at a whim. it also doesn't absolve you of responsibility for using it. Just like shooting someone isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment. So stop being an idiot.

^ doesn't change the fact that it was DONE. IE, the gov't had no qualms about, you know, ignoring the fucking Constitution when it deemed fit. Moreover, they still haven't, you know, returned those weapons

4/6/2009 2:49:14 PM

Quote :

"If they didn't limit the most destructive weapons known to man then, then it stands to reason that they didn't intend to limit more destructive weapons down the line."

Invalid arguments don't stand to reason.

Quote :

"Remember, simply OWNING them doesn't mean you have the right to USE them at a whim. it also doesn't absolve you of responsibility for using it. Just like shooting someone isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment. So stop being an idiot."

Oh okay cool we'll just arrest the guy after he sets off the bomb.

4/6/2009 2:52:36 PM

Quote :

"Invalid arguments don't stand to reason."

That's why your arguments are wrong

Quote :

"Oh okay cool we'll just arrest the guy after he sets off the bomb."

And we'll take all his money in order to do a cleanup. Hooray for responsibility! I know that liberals really don't like the idea of being responsible for one's actions, but it does actually work. Shocking, I know.

4/6/2009 2:55:58 PM

Too bad for the fallout and the scores of people that die in the explosion. It was all worth it to support one man's RIGHT TO OWN A NUCLEAR WEAPON. IT'S REALLY ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY LIBERALS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND *PUTS ON A BIG DAWG GOES FISHIN SHIRT*

4/6/2009 2:59:07 PM

OMG!!! WE MUST PLAN FOR THE OUTLIERS!!! OMG!!! YOU COULD DIEEEEEEE IN A CAR CRASH, SO LET'S BAN CARS AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! A TREE COULD FALL ON YOU AND YOU COULD DIE, SO LET'S BAN TREES AAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

You seem to think that the kind of person who could afford a nuke would also be the kind of person who would flippantly use it. Thanks for showing your ignorance. How many of the privately owned tanks have we seen rolling down the street, shooting things up? Right, none. QFT


But, by all means, let's just ignore the fucking basis of law. Let's just ignore the founding document of our country. What's that? Oh, you don't need your free speech now. You don't need your right to a trial. That's just outdated shit.

4/6/2009 3:06:04 PM

Quote :

"Moreover, they still haven't, you know, returned those weapons"

Do you have any proof to, you know, back that up?

Quote :

"Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes. The agreement calls for the city to post a notice on its website that explains how gun owners can claim their firearms. Gun owners must sign an affidavit claiming ownership of a gun but don't need to present written proof, such as a sales receipt or serial number. A background check also is required to certify that someone claiming a gun can legally possess a firearm."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 3:07:27 PM

sounds to me like they haven't given them back if they still have them. Thanks for my proof

4/6/2009 3:09:08 PM

Because they were abandoned or stolen and no one has claimed them yet.

I guess they should be put in gift baskets and mailed to the last registered owner with some cheese straws and chocolate turtles.

4/6/2009 3:12:40 PM

oh, so the government felt the need to enter someone's home, without a warrant, when no one was there, and steal the person's property? And, they did so without fucking labeling where they acqired said property? And you are DEFENDING this?

Every officer involved in this should be fired.

4/6/2009 3:14:19 PM

Is it really stealing if you know that I have it and I've agreed to give it back to you when you come to pick it up?

If there were ever a natural disaster and I left my guns behind amidst widepsread looting, I'd rather be able to pick them up at the police station than know that I would never see them again because they were being used in street crime. The N.O. police went around to collect stolen weapons and secure unsecured ones.

OMFG!!!! GOVERNMENT TYRANNY!!!!

4/6/2009 3:27:45 PM

Hey, I'm gonna come into your house tomorrow and take whatever the fuck I want. But, you can come get it back any time you would like by filling out this form. And maybe I'll give it back to you. Would you NOT call that stealing?

Quote :

"If there were ever a natural disaster and I left my guns behind amidst widepsread looting, I'd rather be able to pick them up at the police station than know that I would never see them again because they were being used in street crime."

That's fine. SIGN A WAIVER to that effect. That is YOUR personal preference, but it is, you know AGAINST THE LAW. If you would like to give up YOUR rights, then by all means, do so. But, don't force every one else to do so at the same time.

4/6/2009 3:37:06 PM

It's not about taking whatever you want, it's about taking dangerous items that can be used in crime that you left unsecured in your house.

As a responsible individual, I would take most of the valuable stuff (guns included) with me when I abandoned my home in the face of a natural disaster. I know that liberals really don't like the idea of being responsible for one's actions, but it does actually work.

4/6/2009 3:44:42 PM

it is, however, being done without a warrant and without due process.

ergo, it's illegal. and you support it.

4/6/2009 3:47:36 PM

Collecting stolen firearms is really fucked up.

4/6/2009 3:50:32 PM

que? How were said firearms stolen? they were in the house of their owners at the time they were "collected." unless, of course, you are admitting that the police stole them

4/6/2009 3:54:33 PM

Quote :

"Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes."

Do you need a warrant for an abandoned home?

4/6/2009 3:55:43 PM

ahhhh. And how are they defining "abandoned?" Vacated due to an impending hurricane?

btw, police also said they didn't use excessive force on Rodney King.

4/6/2009 3:57:56 PM

It was the same cops right?

4/6/2009 3:59:23 PM

does it matter? The point is that police have abused power in the past. To think they won't do so in the future is absurd.

4/6/2009 4:00:39 PM

I had a bad steak at Outback once. To think that all Outback steak won't be bad in the future is absurd.

4/6/2009 4:03:06 PM

but, it's also equally absurd to think that no future steak at Outback would be bad.

We have a situation where the police have possibly broken the law. And you suggest that we take their word? riiiiiight

Btw, I can't exactly point to this police force being the most professional, given that so many of its officers deserted during the middle of a crisis where they were needed

4/6/2009 4:03:58 PM

Did I suggest that? I'm just very amused that you brought up Rodney King.

4/6/2009 4:06:56 PM

Quote :

"i hope you mean same type weapons because noone will ever have the same firepower...ever."

Alright, let me discuss this further. I was talking about local government more-so than the military. Citizens are allowed to have guns in this country for a number of reasons..#1 is to provide a check on government.

Quote :

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Anyone care to discuss the first few lines of the declaration of independence above that states the peoples right to alter and abolish government? Does anyone here object that regulating gun ownership would severely limit the power of the people and dramatically increase the power of government.

Its good to see that aaronburro gets it.


[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 4:10:52 PM

Why yes it's reasonable to trust anybody who can afford a nuclear weapon.

4/6/2009 4:11:52 PM