Ravenwood - 03/30/07 07:30 PM
Kudos to Bitter who came up with the right answer. It's the Hollywood double standard once again, in that a convicted felon is allowed to handle a gun with no uproar from the antis. The ATF has the power to determine that he's no longer a threat to society and give Mr. Wahlberg his gun rights back, but the anti-gun lobby and members of Congress removed ATF funding for that function.
Buttstock isn't in his shoulder, bad/no cheek weld, head too high to look through the scope, left hand in the wrong position, not using the sling, front rest looks sucky, no ear or eye protection...
What have I missed?
Posted by: Kevin Baker at March 30, 2007 8:13 PM>What have I missed?
The point. None of that is the correct answer.
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 30, 2007 8:19 PMI assume they are trying to zero the scope on the target, but the shooter's eye is not lined up with the scope. And why is the individual adjusting the scope looking down range at the target?
Posted by: joated at March 30, 2007 8:36 PMThat and no ear portection.
Posted by: joated at March 30, 2007 8:37 PMIt's much more nuanced than that...
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 30, 2007 8:48 PMIt better not have anything to do with Dirk Diggler and schlong jokes.
Posted by: Thibodeaux at March 30, 2007 9:12 PMThe scope looks like it might be on backwards?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam at March 30, 2007 10:14 PMI do believe there's some debate over the status of one Marky Mark as a disqualified individual.
Posted by: Bitter at March 30, 2007 10:45 PMThe guy looks like he has his finger on the trigger, and he's obviously not ready to shoot it.
Unless he wants to break his collarbone.
Posted by: Adam Lawson at March 31, 2007 12:59 AMDing, ding, ding... we have a winner. Congrats Bitter on your keen eye and cynical mind.
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 31, 2007 9:22 AMAre you sure that the gun shaped object in the photograph is, in fact, a firearm?
Posted by: The Comedian at March 31, 2007 7:36 PMTrick question! It would have been a lot easier if I knew (or cared) which 1 of these 2 idiots was the infamous felon Marky Mark.
Posted by: Joe at April 1, 2007 11:19 PMHe's not a felon, because of a strange quirk of Massachusetts law (coincidentally the same one which allows Ted Kennedy to serve in congress).
In MA, if one does not receive a sentence of 24 months or more, in a prison not a jail; no matter the crime, one is not counted as a felon.
Mark Wahlberg only received an 18 month sentence which was suspended, plus 45 days confinement in a county jail, for assault and attempted murder, because he was only 16 and 17 when the crimes occurred.
He would be disqualified from a CCW in most states, but he is not officially a felon according to the FBI or ATF.
Chris,
This is where the law gets a little nuanced. Not all felonies and some misdemeanors will get you disqualified of your rights to own/purchase/possess a gun. 18 U.S.C. ยง 921 provides that any crime that COULD be punishable by more than one year in jail (even if that sentence was not meted out). Then there's this:
The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include:
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
That's why Bitter said Mr. Wahlberg's right to possess a firearm was up to "debate". So I guess it was kind of a trick question.
Posted by: Ravenwood at April 2, 2007 8:04 AMmark does not have his shirt off he is way to sexy to have it on
Posted by: britt at May 5, 2007 5:05 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
