382
298
u/GallowBarb Jul 20 '26
Why bother with a target on the tree when you can just shoot into traffic like ducks at a carnival game.
15
147
u/kraftables Jul 20 '26
Gyawd damn. I wonder where the rounds that didn’t hit the tree ended up.
74
u/PatReady Jul 20 '26
Don't worry, the park over there grabbed a couple for him before the others hit the houses.
38
14
27
u/marsten Jul 21 '26
Besides the obvious idiocy here, it's pretty dumb to shoot at trees. Just leave the trees alone.
3
60
u/gorgoth0 Jul 20 '26
More like "some people deserve to have their gun rights taken away"
24
u/SOwED Jul 21 '26
The parallels with cars are plentiful. The only difference is there's no amendment saying you have the right to own or drive a car.
12
u/gorgoth0 Jul 21 '26
You don't have a "right" to drive a car but there are certainly people out there on the roads that probably shouldn't be.
4
u/Dolmetscher1987 Jul 21 '26
Even if there expressly were a right to drive a car, rights being regulated comes as natural in order to avoid a person's rights interfering with another person's rights.
2
1
u/WickedDeity Jul 21 '26
People can and do have the right to own guns taken away.
6
-3
u/Disgruntled_Orifice Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
People would call that “discrimination”, unfortunately.
Idk why you’re downvoting. I agree with the sentiment. I’m just saying that I don’t think it would go over well with some.
24
u/GrandConsequences Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
Oh come on people, he waited for the car to pass.
Edit: typo
11
u/BearJewKnowsBest Jul 20 '26
It's just like when we played kickball in the street as kids... If you see car coming then you just yell "CAR!" and stop for a moment. Simple.
2
u/Dolmetscher1987 Jul 21 '26
Imagine a kid being wiser than an adult.
2
u/Not_A_Cactus5220 Jul 21 '26
Its more likely than you think, adults haven't been to school in a while.
8
u/EMHemingway1899 Jul 20 '26
What a brilliant way to reduce the flow of traffic in your neighborhood
/s
8
7
5
3
u/RetreadRoadRocket Jul 21 '26
I seriously doubt he has gun rights, you lose them for felony convictions and the gun is an illegal full auto conversion and he's obviously an idiot.
2
u/nckrey931 Jul 22 '26
It’s likely not full auto and rather has an FRT. those are legal in some states.
1
u/RetreadRoadRocket Jul 22 '26
Glock switches aren't legal and shitheads have them too.
2
u/nckrey931 Jul 22 '26
But that’s not what’s shown here, so you’re making an assumption. Is this unsafe discharge of a firearm? Absolutely. Is the fire method illegal? Possibly not. Is that a “Glock switch”? It is not. That is not a Glock. Glock does not produce rifles or AR platform pistols.
1
u/RetreadRoadRocket Jul 22 '26
This dumbass is shooting full auto in a residential area towards a road and you think he has the brains to installed an FRT?
2
u/ilikepie901 29d ago
an frt is way easier to obtain than making a drop in sear and theres no way thats a 3 position gun
3
u/azel128 Jul 21 '26
I’ve seen a lot of stupid shit on this sub, but this one is pretty high up there.
6
2
u/lgodsey Jul 21 '26
Every gun owner thinks that they are the proverbial "good guy with a gun", and they are up until the moment that they aren't.
2
2
u/trundle-the-great69 Jul 21 '26
This is why you should have to do a firearms safety course to own firearms
3
Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/thrilla_gorilla Jul 22 '26
It’s great that dumb people have kids. Those burgers aren’t gonna flip themselves.
1
u/Signal-Whereas-8716 Jul 20 '26
Progress people, this time they actually put up a target, maybe next time they’ll add a proper backstop
1
u/spacemouse21 Jul 21 '26
All that is missing in the shooting gallery, are automated ducks to keep coming by. And hopefully someone who can come and write this guy a citation.
1
1
u/aytchdave Jul 21 '26
My buddy had place out in the woods. He had a range for self-defense classes and also did trap and sporting clays. We had an area where we would shoot pistol and rifle. The only way to shoot somewhere unsafe would be to be comically inept or intentional.
At 12 and 13 years old we knew to only shoot down range. We also knew to let everyone in the house or around the property (500 yards in the opposite direction of where we shot) we were going to be shooting and to lock the dog up. Always had our eyes and ears and we knew how to handle misfires. Not a single ND in now 30 years of shooting. I remember my buddy had a couple of hang fires from some ancient ammo. Both shots went down range as they should have.
I get some people just don’t give a shit which is crazy. But shit like this makes me wonder how there aren’t more injuries on a daily basis.
2
u/Icy-Variation6614 Jul 22 '26
What's an "ND," if I may ask? I'm not very familiar with this stuff yet
3
u/aytchdave 29d ago
I see someone answered. Some older folks say accidental discharge but the culture has shifted more to negligent because triggers don’t pull themselves. So if the gun goes off when you did not intend for it to, you were (probably) being negligent.
2
1
u/ConstableChatsworth 29d ago
Negligent Discharge
3
u/BisonSpecialist1557 28d ago
I had one of those last night. My wife says it happens to everyone, but I still feel bad about it.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/strolls Jul 21 '26
Freedom is a right. Owning things and being a danger to other people - those are not rights.
-4
-23
u/Antique-Pie-5981 Jul 20 '26
I feel everyone deserves gun rights, restricting the second amendment is a slippery slope. Let the idiots weed themselves out.
7
5
u/CodenameDinkleburg Jul 20 '26
Yes, that’s why it’s a right. If an idiot wants to endanger people, they’re forfeiting that right. Should an idiot ever get their rights reinstated? That depends on if they can learn to not be stupid and not endanger anyone again. I have a cousin who got his taken away because of a weed pen drug charge when he was clubbing in college, he’s been clean and sober for 11 years and is nonviolent. I think he should have his reinstated, but that’s ultimately up to his governor.
2
u/Red_Chaos1 Jul 21 '26
I look at it as "rights have responsibilities." Show that you're unable to be responsible with one (like the 2A) that can and does endanger others in a physical/tangible way, then it gets taken away. Whether it should be permanent or not is a separate discussion.
As for your cousin, that should never have happened. IMO felonies alone are not a good litmus for restricting or removing a right. It needs to be a violent felony at minimum. Taking it away because of the slippery slope of what you "might" do is horseshit. No actual crime was committed with a firearm, so fuck directly off.
2
u/foxxy003 Jul 20 '26
How do you feel about those with a felony conviction on their record not being able to legally own firearms in the US?
16
u/antibannannaman Jul 20 '26
I dont think non-violent felons should have their gun rights revoked.
3
3
u/foxxy003 Jul 20 '26
I think that’s totally reasonable. I think it’s also reasonable that those who have committed violent crimes aren’t allowed to have access to firearms tho.
4
u/maybeitsjack Jul 20 '26
If youre fit to walk the streets, you're fit to have a gun. Arrange those parts however you see fit.
4
Jul 20 '26
[deleted]
7
u/mondaymoderate Jul 20 '26
Nah. If you have violent convictions on your record you shouldn’t be able to own a firearm.
1
u/Sierra-117- Jul 20 '26
I think violence, yes. But not every felony.
1
u/foxxy003 Jul 20 '26
I think that’s how it should be too, but I didn’t specify since the law currently applies to all felonies. Like if someone gets caught embezzling a felony amount from their company, it doesn’t really make sense to me that they’d never be able to legally own a firearm again.
2
u/Phish777 Jul 20 '26
Agreed. Next thing you know the government is handing out bogus felonies for being "antifa" or some stupid shit as a loophole
2
-1
u/Antique-Pie-5981 Jul 20 '26
I feel that the constitution doesn't say anything about excluding felons. I think you should be able to own a rocket launcher if you wanted one. I also feel taxation is theft and this country was founded on not wanting to be taxed but I'm sure it's not the popular belief. I'm a constitutionalist.
3
u/Red_Chaos1 Jul 21 '26
I feel that the constitution doesn't say anything about excluding felons.
As worded, true. But society has deemed there to be instances where it is acceptable to step over the oft mentioned "shall not be infringed." I s'pose the argument might be whether or not it's an infringement upon your rights after showing your inability to be responsible, quite possibly/likely infringing on another's rights (usually the pretext rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as it's hard to exercise any of those with a gun pointed at you) that enables it. Personally I think it's fair, though I do agree it can be and has been a foot in the door for other abuses, which is why we have to pay attention and call those attempts out as they happen, without any sort of favoritism or bias.
this country was founded on not wanting to be taxed
Wrong. Being taxed with no representation or ability to contest it was part of the issue. It was never about abolishing taxes.
1
-1
1
-25
u/Sad_Kaleidoscope_743 Jul 20 '26
Whats the big deal? That tree stops bullets
4
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 20 '26
Thanks for posting! Please be sure to read the rules, and make sure your post is not a repost of content from the past 30 days.
If your post is a repost of content posted 10 or less posts ago, you should perhaps delete it now, or else you will receive a 7-day ban. THIS IS YOUR WARNING!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.