The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
Not sure if trolling or not...
with me if not sure usually not. not subtle am i.
AR stands for ArmaLite
huh... TIL that CoD:MW lied to me
-
huh... TIL that CoD:MW lied to me
That's actually a common problem in the firearms world, there are a lot of newbs who think they know everything because they've played all the Call of Duty games.
Sorry for the tangent, but I've been getting into competition shooting lately, so I've been learning a lot and also learned that there is much more for me to learn. Also been learning that there are a lot of very dumb laws.
-
huh... TIL that CoD:MW lied to me
Expecting CoD (or any game) to accurately represent firearms is TRWTF
-
That's actually a common problem in the firearms world, there are a lot of newbs who think they know everything because they've played all the Call of Duty games.
do i know everything? BELGIUM NO!
but with all the money CoD gets from gun manufacturers to make sure their guns make it into the game for the advertising... i thought it not unreasonable for the names and flavour text to be correct...
Expecting CoD (or any game) to accurately represent firearms is TRWTF
apparently so.
-
California is a "May-Issue" (really a "Probably Won't Issue") state which means unless you're someone famous and powerful, your application for a permit is most likely going to be denied.
There was a recent court case that may have changed this, however...
...the court found San Diego County's restrictive policy in combination with California's denial of open carry ultimately resulted in the destruction of the typical law-abiding, responsible citizen's right to bear arms in any manner in public, thereby violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unless overridden, the decision will force California to become a shall-issue state in regards to concealed carry permits.
-
I'm not really into firearms, but that M1 Garand ping
-
I'm not really into firearms, but that M1 Garand ping
Me neither, but I'd quite like to fire a .50cal rifle, just to feel what it's like...
-
Only thing I've actually shot was a 20 Gauge shotgun
-
Besides, I'd rather have "shall-issue" anyway, as long as the proper courses and checks are there -- "may-issue" leaves too much wiggle room on both sides of the ball.
"Proper" is:
- A basic background check
- A full firearm safety and basic marksmanship course -- this should also include a basic level of training on the "shoot/no shoot" decision
- Final is a run through a tactical shooting range
In other words -- if you want to get a permit, you'll have the know-how to Do It Right(TM) by the time you get it.
-
-
A basic background check
A full firearm safety and basic marksmanship course -- this should also include a basic level of training on the "shoot/no shoot" decision
Final is a run through a tactical shooting rangeThat's pretty much what it is here, though the basic background check is more like 23804743957834 background checks done by the state and the FBI and it takes them 3 months to do it all.
-
That's pretty much what it is here, though the basic background check is more like 23804743957834 background checks done by the state and the FBI and it takes them 3 months to do it all.
Yeah -- and the Unicameral put in the permit system, then eviscerated it, oops.
-
Yeah -- and the Unicameral put in the permit system, then eviscerated it, oops.
Yeah, don't get me started on that, especially living in Omaha. About the only thing a CHP gets you here is the ability to store firearms in your own home without having to register them at the police department.
-
Your concealed carry permit doesn't actually allow you to concealed carry?
-
Your concealed carry permit doesn't actually allow you to concealed carry?
Technically yes, but the list of exclusions has about 100 different items on it, including places that have "No Firearm" signs posted, and someone saw fit to carpet-bomb the city with those signs, so in practice the answer is "not really".
-
places that have "No Firearm" signs posted
Will you unironically be charged with unlawful carry instead of trespassing?
In any normal case (excluding things like banks) that would be trespassing because the owner doesn't want you on their private property with a firearm right?
-
Will you unironically be charged with unlawful carry instead of trespassing?
Yes.
The best (in a WTF manner) part of the permit law is that it is a felony for CHP holders to carry in posted locations. It specifically calls out CHP holders. So your typical thugs/gangbangers who don't have a permit but carry anyway cannot be charged under that law if they get caught in a posted location!
-
So your typical thugs/gangbangers who don't have a permit but carry anyway cannot be charged under that law if they get caught in a posted location!
Is there an equivalent thing to charge them with, though?
-
-
huh... TIL that CoD:MW lied to me
Call of Duty games use fictional weapons and always have.
EDIT: no that's not true; I think the WWII ones used actual weapon names. CoD games set in the modern era use fictional weapons.
So does the Battlefield series. Because a bunch of weapon manufacturers had the "bright" idea of starting to charge video game companies a fee to use their trademarks, and so Activision and EA removed all actual trademarked weapon names/images from their games, replaced them with near-identical replacements, and the weapon manufacturers don't get their fee and also don't get the free advertising they had before. Idiots.
-
Call of Duty games use fictional weapons and always have.
the ones i played (COD2 and COD:MW) had guns that were named the same and looked the same (within limits) as real guns.
of course the performance of the guns was completely unrealistic, but i expected that.
-
the ones i played (COD2 and COD:MW) had guns that were named the same and looked the same (within limits) as real guns.
No; it'll be something like the real weapon is a Akaban AN-94, and CoD will call it a "Alakazam AN-92". And it'll look almost identical. Instead of a Baretta ARX 160, it's an ARX 140. Etc.
EDIT: nope I think I'm wrong. Looks like Activision did use real weapons in the Modern Warfare series and just sucked it up and paid for the rights. Well shit.
-
fine. if you say so.
i played those games (the M1 Garand was my favorite in CoD2)
maybe they've started that with the newer games. but whatever.
blakey is right as always! all glory to the
hypnotoadblakeyEDIT: whoops. forgot the </sarcasm> tag.
-
blakey is right as always!
Blakeyrat is right even in his wrongness.
For while the specific trivia might have been incorrect for the specific game, it is still correct for the vast majority of games.
Blakeyrat must be careful, for if he declares his rightness to forcefully, the universe will bend and twist to correspond to his words. It's like the Cosmic Force in Wizardry 8.
-
Blakeyrat must be careful, for if he declares his rightness to forcefully, the universe will bend and twist to correspond to his words.
Don't worry, the Universe still has Chuck Norris to keep @blakeyrat in check.
-
Technically yes, but the list of exclusions has about 100 different items on it, including places that have "No Firearm" signs posted, and someone saw fit to carpet-bomb the city with those signs, so in practice the answer is "not really".
In South Carolina--and some other states--those signs are meaningless unless they are in a format specified in detail by the law. For example, the circle has to be at least 7" tall and the stroke at least 1" thick and so on. If the format doesn't meet all the requirements then it doesn't count. The guy I took my concealed carry class from said that he'd never seen a bank with the right sign. He figures that way, businesses could put up a meaningless sign, and hoplophobes would think they were safe from icky guns, but people with permits could still legally carry, and everybody wins.
Some state recently passed a concealed carry law, or a change to same, that was even more so: the sign has to meet all the particulars, including being a silhouette of a particular pistol. Make up your own version with a revolver? Tough, the sign doesn't count.
In call cases, trespass laws still apply so a business can still ask you to leave.
-
In South Carolina--and some other states--those signs are meaningless unless they are in a format specified in detail by the law.
Right and if there's a gold fringe on the flag in the courthouse, it means US Law doesn't apply. WELL KNOWN FACT!!!
-
Sometimes you actually don't know what you're talking about.
This was told to me by the instructor, in an officially-approved CWP class. Everything in such a class in South Carolina has to be approved by the state police.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx
"Please note the above images are not sized in accordance with statutory requirements and should be used as visual representation only. These images are not suitable for printing or use as actual signage. Please review Section 23-31-235 of the S.C. Code of Laws for sign requirements. "
If a sign doesn't meet 23-31-235, it has no legal force. (SLED is the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, aka the state police.)
-
There is no uniform signage law here, and some businesses attempt to hide their signs in order to prosecute. A common case is to put a small sign at one of the least-used entrances. Carries the full force of law, but nobody knows it's there. Some of the local gun rights groups are trying to change that but haven't had any success yet.
It was so easy in my previous state. The signs were not enforceable and there was no legal penalty if you got caught as long as you left when the business owners/managers asked you to.
-
Look, the point is, if the sign is up, and you go against its wishes, you are a fucking dick. You are a dick regardless of whether what you are doing is technically illegal. Don't be a dick.
But it still sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me.
-
But it still sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me.
Worse: legislation.
EDIT: hmm...conspiracy against the citizenry?
-
Look, the point is, if the sign is up, and you go against its wishes, you are a fucking dick. You are a dick regardless of whether what you are doing is technically illegal. Don't be a dick.
Those who put the signs up are usually the bigger dicks.
inb4 obligatory "Faux News" bashing
-
Those who put the signs up are usually the bigger dicks.
Even if you consider them dicks (and I don't-- the right to control the use of your own property is one of the most important rights ever for civilization to function), dick + dick != non-dick.
In any case, that article has NOTHING to do with a property owner putting up a sign. The gun was banned by State Law. Her beef is with the Tennessee State Legislature, not the business-owner.
-
In any case, that article has NOTHING to do with a property owner putting up a sign. The gun was banned by State Law. Her beef is with the State legislature, not the business-owner.
Potato, pot-ah-to. Wouldn't have mattered why it was a no-carry zone, the problem is that it was a no-carry zone. In this case the state legislature were the dicks.
-
Worse: legislation.
In another thread, it was brought up that once you start having to make laws, stuff sucks. So, if people could agree to carry or not in a place, great. But if you must enforce things with the law, it's only fair to make sure potential violators have fair warning.
Well, you don't want some dickhead to put up a tiny sign and then trap otherwise legal carriers. Now you have to define what constitutes fair warning, and it's been codified and it's in the hands of the government now, so reason and common sense gets you nowhere.
And explaining the law in common sense / normal terms just exposes everything for the crazy that it is.
-
There is no uniform signage law here, and some businesses attempt to hide their signs in order to prosecute. A common case is to put a small sign at one of the least-used entrances.
Texas and South Carolina don't allow that shit. Most states that I'm aware of make a point to specify that the signs are required to be posted conspicuously at every entrance.
-
In this case the state legislature were the dicks.
Look; I own a property. A house or a store or whatever. I put up a sign that says, "please don't do X while on my property." And you do X. YOU ARE A DICK. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not making a gun control argument. I don't give a flying shit about gun control. I'm making a "don't be a dick, you asshole" argument.
Ironically, normally the kind of people who are against gun control are also for strong property rights. So FrostCat is some kind of weird political mutant here.
-
Look, the point is, if the sign is up, and you go against its wishes, you are a fucking dick. You are a dick regardless of whether what you are doing is technically illegal. Don't be a dick.
No. The point is to placate scaredy-cats.
But it still sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me.
Yeah, maybe you should read what other people post. Or you could choose to believe a guy whose livelihood depends on the cops' approval would make up something like this and cause people to run the risk of spending years in jail.
-
No. The point is to placate scaredy-cats.
It doesn't matter why the sign is there. Don't be a dick.
-
Even if you consider them dicks (and I don't-- the right to control the use of your own property is one of the most important rights ever for civilization to function),
I totally agree with you about their right to do so. Their right to be a dick doesn't make them not a dick.
Look; I own a property. A house or a store or whatever. I put up a sign that says, "please don't do X while on my property." And you do X. YOU ARE A DICK. That's all I'm saying.
True, but that doesn't mean you aren't being a dick right back.
Ironically, normally the kind of people who are against gun control are also for strong property rights. So FrostCat is some kind of weird political mutant here.
Dude, he was talking about the law, which we all know is a ass. And following the law is no guarantee of not being a dick.
-
Look; I own a property. A house or a store or whatever. I put up a sign that says, "please don't do X while on my property." And you do X. YOU ARE A DICK. That's all I'm saying.
It's a balancing act for sure. Just realize if you put up a sign, you're intentionally excluding one of the least-likely demographics to commit crime while doing nothing to actually stop crime.
Texas and South Carolina don't allow that shit. Most states that I'm aware of make a point to specify that the signs are required to be posted conspicuously at every entrance.
Our problem is we have ONE guy in the unicameral who shuts all that stuff down. The guy is a total clown, he was one of those guys who tried to go to court and sue God for all the bad stuff that's ever happened in the world. Nebraska even passed term limit laws to get the guy kicked out, and he found a loophole and remained in office (the term limits reset if he took a break from office).
-
Dude, he was talking about the law, which we all know is a ass. And following the law is no guarantee of not being a dick.
He was talking about being a dick, and then justifying it by saying "well it's not technically illegal." That's like double-dick.
-
It's a balancing act for sure. Just realize if you put up a sign, you're intentionally excluding one of the least-likely demographics to commit crime while doing nothing to actually stop crime.
It doesn't matter why the sign is there. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Utterly irrelevant. Don't be a dick.
-
He was talking about being a dick, and then justifying it by saying "well it's not technically illegal." That's like double-dick.
Maybe, but it's for the greater good. And the other dick will never know. Fortune for dicks passes everywhere!
-
I put up a sign that says, "please don't do X while on my property." And you do X. YOU ARE A DICK. That's all I'm saying.
If you actually don't want someone carrying on your property, put up a legally-binding sign. Is that too hard for you to understand?
Let me make this clear: the banks all know this too! If they actually didn't want people carrying concealed, they would put up a legally-binding sign. Are you telling me you think for a second that the lawyers and execs at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and so on don't know this?
-
Let me make this clear: the banks all know this too! If they actually didn't want people carrying concealed, they would put up a legally-binding sign. Are you telling me you think for a second that the lawyers and execs at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and so on don't know this?
This is one of the funny things about local politics here. Some bank was partly responsible for getting the uniform signage law shut down. They claimed signs were "too expensive". The same bank had just spent some $100,000+ on new security cameras but couldn't afford the $15 to put a new, easily-seen sign at the front door.
The key point here is that the sign should be easily-seen. Those who are intentionally hiding signs in order to trap those who carry are being dicks. They shouldn't be dicks.
-
It doesn't matter why the sign is there. Don't be a dick.
It does when the sign's meant to not count.
I'm not talking about some mom and pop here, although the percentage of those in SC that would ban guns is vanishingly small. Banks are risk-averse. They're not going to not know they're putting up signs that aren't legally enforceable.
-
It's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Your point is stupid and you're being deliberately stupid. The sign's not there to keep people with CWP out.
-
Those who are intentionally hiding signs in order to trap those who carry are being dicks.
In SC that wouldn't count. You hide the sign, it's not conspicuous, and doesn't meet the law's requirements. You wouldn't be able to press charges or sue someone.
-
If you actually don't want someone carrying on your property, put up a legally-binding sign.
No; the onus here is on the visitor to respect the wishes of the property owner. That's obvious to anybody over the age of 5. I think it's obvious to you, also, you are just pretending it's not so you can justify being a dick.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
I understand it perfectly. You're the one in this thread saying it's ok to be a dick as long as it's not technically illegal.
Let me make this clear: the banks all know this too! If they actually didn't want people carrying concealed, they would put up a legally-binding sign. Are you telling me you think for a second that the lawyers and execs at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and so on don't know this?
Now you're diving head-first back into conspiracy theory territory.
It does when the sign's meant to not count.
Hey here's an idea: why don't you just leave your gun in your trunk, walk into the bank, and ask the security guard about it. You know, resolve the issue like a civilized human being? By talking it over?
Instead of just ignoring the sign, then when the police show up whining like a little baby, "but the sign isn't legal! The font size isn't at least 36 point and the background is the wrong shade of green! Whine!"
Peruta v. San Diego County - Wikipedia
Denied A Chance: How gun control helped a stalker murder my husband
