Yukking it up with some beer, dope and an AK-47
Geez, can’t a couple of guys have a little fun with an assault rifle? Apparently not in Montville Township, Ohio. Wednesday, the joy-killing authorities there arrested two guys taking a little target practice with an AK-47 after a bunch of their bullets hit a house in a residential neighborhood about half a mile away. What about their Second Amendment rights? Jiminey, it’s not like anyone got injured or anything.
Watch the video below:
January 17, 2013 - 11:30 AM
2A hit piece alert….
I acknowlegde that the target shooters were negligent in their shooting location.
Please, none of you who drink then drive, whine about their alcohol consumption. They shouldn’t have been drinking, but I don’t want to hear it from hypocrites. Too late.
If the homeowners had been armed they could have defended themselves.
Sounds like one of my wife’s family reunions in the backwoods of South Carolina. You know it’s rough crowd when, on the way to your first gathering, you new wife admonishes you not to leave your wallet unattended.
Several large caliber handguns where produced for target practice after the pork was consumed but before all the liquor was gone. Honestly, I didn’t know you could make handguns that big. Hand cannons. Apparently ammunition for such weapons ain’t cheap, so the subsequent target practice was of quality, not quantity.It made me a bit nervous. Most gun enthusiasts on this blog claim such devices represent no harm at all when in the hands of well trained and responsible citizens. I agree, but I wasn’t associating with that group of people.
Older members of the family recounted the times back in the 60′s when one of the teenage nephews was recruited to pilot a newly required convertible. Not only was it stylish and comfortable, but it allowed the armed adults in the passenger seats better access targets in the form of state road signs. It takes some skill to nail a speed limit sign travelling at 50 mph from the back seat of Buick.
If you think these be tall tales, then you just haven’t spend as much time in redneck america as I have. It’s entirely unnecessary to make up stuff like this.
@Dan Casey: “What about their Second Amendment rights?”
C’mon, Dan, you are better than this. The Second Amendment doesn’t give them the right to shoot in such a way that they endanger others or damage property like this. It’s not a Second Amendment issue at all.
The gun vs. traffic issue to me is a total red herring IMHO, especially as it applies to assault rifles. Cars and drivers, while not regulated enough, again IMHO, are regulated far beyond these weapons. Throw in all the safety features of cars (seat belts, head restraints, front and side air bags, even crash testing), the constant regulation and monitoring by police and the requirements and testing (as limited as they are) to be licensed to drive all reflect an awareness of and response to the dangers of driving a vehicle. None of this applies to an assault rifle. Follow the purchase requirements, which is nothing more than showing your proper i.d., and you’re good to go.
To say we should outlaw cars because they kill more than guns is absurd. In this country we now have more than one passenger vehicle for every licensed driver. The DOT estimates we logged approximately just under 3 trillion vehicle miles in this country in 2012. Nothing that the average citizen does on a daily basis puts his fellow citizen more at risk than driving on the roads. Considering the staggering volume of traffic in this country the number of deaths in auto accidents, just in excess of 32,000 in 2012, is somewhat short of remarkable and reflects the positive impact of regulation. Motor vehicles are essential to the prosperity of this country. Guns? I’ve got no answer as to what their essential function is, but I know for some it is security. Assault rifles? They have one function and that is to kill other people.
Indiana Homeowner Shoots 2 Home Invaders, Captures One, Both End Up in Hospital
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/indiana-homeowner-shoots-2-home-invaders-captures-one-both-end-up-in-hospital/
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/more-americans-killed-by-guns-than-by-terrorists/
Mor Americans die by guns than terrorists manage to kill…around the world. Now that’s efficiency. Who would ever think w have a problem?
#6:
maloof, if you think random anecdotes can prove anything, then:
http://www.dmvfollowers.com/4-year-old-in-richmond-shoots-kills-50-year-old-man/
But if you still want to try to match U.S. violence-by-gun anecdotes with self-defense-by-gun anecdotes, you’ll lose by thousands, year in and year out. Care to try?
Re: anecdotes… does anyone know the relationship between death by legal car owners as opposed to deaths by legal gun owners?
Maybe, for the safety of our children, we should outlaw cars… or at least better control them.
Cars, at speeds over 25 mph certainly kill more people “in accidents” than those traveling faster, therefore we should have a law that no car can travel over 25 mph; or better yet, get rid of them altogether
Is there a constitutional right to the car ownership that kills so many of our citizens? I can not find it.
I hope all, who have any concern for our children, join me in banning this weapon of death of “those most vulnerable” in our society, and outlaw these vicious vehicles of destruction.
Wonder why Maloof never posts links to stories about folks who kill their relatives or friends by accident.
Seriously Dan?
You have the right to print what you will, as long as it’s not libelous. Where’s your 1st Ammendment Right? You’re really grasping here…
“Seriously Dan?
You have the right to print what you will, as long as it’s not libelous. Where’s your 1st Ammendment Right? You’re really grasping here…
–Comment by 1%er
1%er, perhaps you’d better bone up on the definition of libelous. Just sayin’ . . .
Mike O,
I’ve been calling for a ban on those deadly machines for a while now. They kill so many more people than guns, but the fact of the matter is that it is not about safety, it is about guns and control, plain and simple.
We have done many, many things to make cars and drivers safer, including restricting the activities we may do while using a car. We also do not allow “monster trucks” or “race cars” or “tanks” on the roads. When we ban guns, I will march with you to ban cars too! Call it a pact.
Just another legal gun owner using their spare time wisely. Yippee!
Good lord, mike o and Jack, could you please come up with something that makes sense.
No, I didn’t think so.
O Geez.. mike o and the false equivalence argument: cars kill more than guns.
I can explain this for you. Cars provide a pervasive and necessary service in the implementation of our lives. For better and worse, they are an essential part of our routine, providing transportation to earn a living, or better, the means to enjoy life in a greater manner than would otherwise exist without them. While most folks don’t calculate the risk involved in using these devices. It does, admittedly entail risk. On the whole, we accept them because they provide greater service than a life without them.
Simply comparing deaths from car, to deaths from guns doesn’t take into account the usefulness of devices, does it? One device provides a living, the other sits idle for some vague and improbable event that exits in the mind of the paranoid waiting for its purpose. Cars and guns have little in common.
The other aspect of cars that differs from guns is that the people that make them seem to have taken heart in the idea that they can make them safer. This was not always the case. At the behest of government, and perhaps even with some benevolence on the part of the manufacturers, they have figured out how to make driving them a less risky enterprise. Heck, they even advertise on the methods they have constructed to provide features to make this so.
The gun lobby is like the auto-mobile industry in the 1950′s. Scared to admit they have a problem and fighting any solution to deal with it.
Sandi and Mike, as usual, you speak with reason and common sense. I am also just flat tired of the comparison between guns and cars as co-equal instruments of death. But, there is hope on the horizon, albeit about two years away:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html
This article decribes how vehicle deaths are decreasing and gun deaths are rising. If they stay on the same angles of elevation and depression, gun deaths per 1000 folks will surpass vehicle deaths per 1000 folks in about 2015 or so. Will that reality quell the drone of cars and guns as equivalents? Look, then, for hammers to become the new tool of false
equivalency.
“This article decribes how vehicle deaths are decreasing and gun deaths are rising. If they stay on the same angles of elevation and depression, gun deaths per 1000 folks will surpass vehicle deaths per 1000 folks in about 2015 or so. Will that reality quell the drone of cars and guns as equivalents?”
–Comment by Jason Perdue
When/if gun deaths surpass car deaths, the argument won’t change. The silly members of the gun crowd will keep spouting it.
Re: Dan Casey @ 12:18 am
The silly members of the gun crowd will keep spouting it.
——————
Hum? Pot v. kettle time?
Rather like silly members of the pro-prohibition crowd who are already posting the switch over as being significant while them or other prohibitionists are simultaneously denying that any such equated of cars to guns is not valid.
Is it or is it not valid the make car v. firearm analogies / compare car v. firearm data?
There is a deeper problem here that no one seems to grasp. You guys are all trying to engineer a legislative fix for stupidity and a lack of personal responsibility. How about we try blaming the person for their bad acts instead just accepting it as a given. The problem with the current single-track approach is that once the partisans have their gun control laws, they will fawn all over themselves, slapping each other on the back proclaiming success and the actual problem will remain. This will be the liberals “Mission Accomplished” moment.
Dave Hicks, the comparison is not valid.
Actually Chuck, I don’t see anyone presenting a 1 track solution to gun crime, especially the President.
I will have to agree that there is absolutely “a deeper problem here that no one seems to grasp”. Sadly, I do not think it is the same one Chuck always sees. What, besides a “legislative fix” (i.e. a law) does a civil society of laws have to counter “stupidity” and engender “personal responsibility”? Should we just lock ‘em up and throw away the key when they hint at “abnormal”?
If just “blaming the person for their bad acts” would stop mass shooting and terrorism of children, sure, we could roll with that. So far, not so much.
There is no “single-track approach” and it will be closer to “Mission Accomplished” if we can rein in some dangerous weapons than when the banner first unfurled! You betcha!
Dave Hicks..
“Is it or is it not valid the (to) make car v. firearm analogies / compare car v. firearm data?”
Let’s be clear in the language, it’s not cars vs. firearms, it’s the deaths resulting from the use of each, and the data can be compared only as death statistics. Nothing more.
Any argument that implies blindness or willful ignorance in regard to car deaths compared to those caused by firearms fails to also take into account a multitude of differences in how both the automotive and gun industries have responded to public concern about fatalities. To be sure, the public has always been concerned with the risk of using either device and have been receptive to government involvement that attempts to ameliorate the problem.
In regard to the auto industry, pick “Unsafe at Any Speed” as the starting point for serious consideration of features of cars that were unsafe. Even if Ralph Nader’s expose on the Corvair was biased and rigged, it raised awareness on the part of the public as to what the automotive industry should be doing to create safer vehicles. Enter seat belts, collapsible steering wheels and dashboards made of materials that wouldn’t scatter a brain in minor wreck. When the public viewed the safety of a vehicle as part of the choice they made in purchasing a car, that characteristic became a marketable commodity. Look also at the statistical outcome of the safety improvements. More people drive; less people get killed.
Socially, the country also approached the problem of drunk driving through social and political reforms and demanded that people who operate cars do so while sober. Again, such actions have saved lives.
Contrast that with action on firearms. The NRA has made every effort to stifle the conversation. You yourself use the word prohibition, yet the preponderance of the discussion is not about the prohibition of all firearms. The gun lobby reminds of the automotive industry in the 1950′s. They denied they had safety problems and had to be dragged kicking a screaming into the development of a safer product. When they resisted efforts, public opinion became the catalyst for change and legislation born from that opinion accomplished the modest goal of decreasing deaths in a measurable way. I think the same can happen in terms of guns.
Cars are not made to purposely kill or injure someone, guns are.
“Cars are not made to purposely kill or injure someone, guns are.”
As we keep pointing out, Debbie. But it’s just about all the gun toters have.
they are also made for protection against crazy lunatics deb, much like the one you voted for
And how do you protect yourself from danger with them pammala, lock your doors and ride your gun to the police station? Thank you for proving my point.
Pammala, just to clarify, by “the one you voted for,” do you mean the president? So, do you think you need a gun to protect yourself against that crazy lunatic, the President of the United States?
Pammalala, let Cletus man the meth lab for a while.
strangely enough, not a single liberal blamed the alcohol.
and why was alcohol made again? it’s sole purpose is to intoxicate. It can’t save you from a home invader, rape, or robbery. There’s not a single social redeeming value. Nothing good can come from it.
26.Cars are not made to purposely kill or injure someone, guns are.
Comment by Debbie — January 18, 2013 @ 1:45 pm
———————-
And what was the purpose ABORTION was made for again???
2012 planned parenthood received $542 Million in TAX dollars and killed over 311,000 CHILDREN yet you will defend it until your vocal chords bleed. Like YOUR president, Oblamer, said “The safety of our children is how we will be judged.”
Nobody ever protected their kids lives with an abortion hook.
(o\ ! /o),
How about giving us some links to a credible source on those numbers you referred in your 8:25 p.m. comment.
(o\ ! /o), – you may want to stop parroting Limbaugh – you both sound ridiculous.
January 14, 2013 10:00 AM
Rush Limbaugh – regarding proponents of responsible gun safety laws:
“They’re good people. They’d never use a gun to kill kids. They use abortion for that.”
“Nobody ever protected their kids lives with an abortion hook”
Inflammatory ignorance from bugeyed
Spoken like a truly medically ignorant dittohead, and of course a male one. The fact is there have been numerous cases where the children a woman has had are only possible because an earlier problematic pregnancy the mother experienced was terminated with medical efficacy that preserved the mother’s ability to bear children. Those kids lives were indeed protected by a termination procedure.
The idea that abortion as a medical procedure evolved simply as a convenience to anyone is medically inaccurate and intellectually despicable, Mr. bugeyed, and it’s yours.
(o\ ! /o) save the melodrama, Planned Parenthood is not allowed to kill CHILDREN no matter how big you can type it. There is no end to the things you all want legislated in the arena of women’s reproduction over a fetus and no end to the things you fight being legislated in the arena of interactive violence over children who are here and actually alive outside of their incubator.
Even if you have judged us on the safety in utero, is that an excuse to not protect live children with laws and controls?
Abortion has no more to do with this than asparagus does. Why do the low information folks continue to babble about women’s rights?
(o\ ! /o), even using your own numbers and designations, “311,000 killed CHILDREN” is what percentage of our population? If we cannot take control of your guns, how do you figure we get control of women’s wombs?
Democrats want to regulate guns. Republicans want to regulate a woman’s uterus….
that appears to be the only correlation between a gun and a uterus…
31.Pammalla, let Cletus man the meth lab for a while.
Comment by Kristen
Funny that.
If women took up arms to protect their rights, the GOP would be in favor of gun regulation.
42 uh no they wouldnt, they are intelligent enough to actually understand 2 amendment honnie booboo
” Planned Parenthood is not allowed to kill CHILDREN”
they absolutely do kill children, what in hell do you think a fetus in a humans womb is sandi, it isn’t a puppy
“is that an excuse to not protect live children with laws and controls?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 18, 2013 @ 9:54 pm”
just showing you’re a hypocrite thats all…
“you need a gun to protect yourself against that crazy lunatic, the President of the United States?”
ABSOLUTELY !!
“Pammalala, let Cletus man the meth lab for a while.
Comment by Kristen — January 18, 2013 @ 5:15 pm”
thats ok, you have a good handle on it yourself, cook up yo’stuff giirrllllll
“thats ok, you have a good handle on it yourself, cook up yo’stuff giirrllllll”
Given your last five posts, I’d say you must be the one consuming the product, pammala.
Pammala, do you have nightmares about President Obama showing up at your house and attempting to kill you? Just wondering.
Contrasuzie #42…Women HAVE taken up arms to protect themselves. I know alot of women that carry concealed weapons. Godspeed to them.
pammala, the first we need you to do is stop murdering the English language before you start grappling with the topics of abortion or Presidents trying to shoot you.
Baby steps, pammy, baby steps. As soon as you are able to communicate like an adult we’ll let you sit at the big kids table.
pammala, if you real want to make yourself useful this morning, by far the most productive thing you’ll be able to accomplish (other than enrolling in a Pimsleur English as a second language course) is to go fetch me a couple of those delicious maple pancake sausage rollers and put some wings on it! Chop, chop!
Carpe diem!
Sounds like pammala has been fantasizing about using a weapon on the president.
It appears that pammala got snowed in at the store and spent the night sampling the goodies in the wine cooler. That MD 20’20 has fried her brain.
that fried brain belongs to barry soetoro, your god
pammie, you are one sick, sick, sick individual.
Re: Jason Perdue 2013 @ 1:20 am, Debbie @ 1:45 pm, and gdad @ 2:43 pm
So, why did #5 @ 3:18 pm introduce it in this thread?
I have no idea why #5 introduced it, Dave Hicks. I was responding to this question from you.
Is it or is it not valid the make car v. firearm analogies / compare car v. firearm data?
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 18, 2013 @ 12:38 am