Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WGAL 8)   Just remember, if you're a councilwoman in central Pennsylvania and you suggest that maybe people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to the meeting, you stand the chance that a bunch of people will show up at the meeting with guns   (wgal.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, York  
•       •       •

4059 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2011 at 7:49 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-02-02 07:51:02 PM  
Nice news "article"...
 
2011-02-02 07:51:39 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

It has come to my attention that some of you are stroking guns.
 
2011-02-02 07:54:24 PM  
York county? Shocking.
 
2011-02-02 07:54:48 PM  
Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

Why don't they all drop trou and compare eachother's dicks. That will prove they're the biggest Swingin' Dicks in the district - & will show those damn commie Libruls who's boss.
 
2011-02-02 07:55:07 PM  
I'll start the gun porn :-)

i874.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-02 07:58:02 PM  
i.imgur.comAs cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."
 
2011-02-02 07:59:29 PM  
I'm a hard-left liberal, but I have carry permits (including a PA LTCF) and I approve of their actions.

Banning guns only prevents legally-carried guns. If someone wanted to shoot up a meeting, a ban wouldn't stop them.
 
2011-02-02 07:59:57 PM  
Looking forward to calm and rational debate on this subject.
 
2011-02-02 08:00:27 PM  

TigerStar: As cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."


Unlike those places where people don't have guns and massacres of a dozen or so people are carried out with knives.
 
2011-02-02 08:03:13 PM  

TigerStar: As cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds, the gun control debate is largely settled, the Republicans won - "The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again."


Meh, failing access to guns people will just wire propane tanks to explode or something of that nature, beside even many of the strict gun control nations still allow hunting weapons so you'd just get the crazy with the shotgun instead of the Glock.
 
2011-02-02 08:04:05 PM  
Needlessly bearing firearms at peaceful gatherings is the biggest sign of weakness. Put down the guns and fight like real men, pussies.
 
2011-02-02 08:04:12 PM  

Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?



No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.
 
2011-02-02 08:04:52 PM  
LoL. I knew it was Toni the minute I saw it was York. Though I am surprised so many white people came to that meeting. Most of them won't go downtown after dark even with a platoon of soldiers.
 
2011-02-02 08:05:01 PM  
In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.
 
2011-02-02 08:06:30 PM  

My pr0n name is Tom Seaview: I'm a hard-left liberal, but I have carry permits (including a PA LTCF) and I approve of their actions.

Banning guns only prevents legally-carried guns. If someone wanted to shoot up a meeting, a ban wouldn't stop them.


You can't understand the difference between trying to prevent a nut from shooting up a meeting and the not-so-subtle attempt to influence the democratic process?
 
2011-02-02 08:08:32 PM  
One more...

i874.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-02 08:10:01 PM  

My pr0n name is Tom Seaview: I'm a hard-left liberal, but I have carry permits (including a PA LTCF) and I approve of their actions.

Banning guns only prevents legally-carried guns. If someone wanted to shoot up a meeting, a ban wouldn't stop them.


They were being self righteous pricks. Intimidating people to try to prove a point is low class. I personally never approve of low class shiat, but then again I'm not nitwit either.
 
2011-02-02 08:10:02 PM  

consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.


Unlike the people who don't own or carry guns into public meetings, right? If your elected officials don't 'represent your interests', you vote against them. You don't bring your farking gun into the next public meeting, jackass. What function does the gun serve in that situation?
 
2011-02-02 08:14:02 PM  

theknuckler_33: consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

Unlike the people who don't own or carry guns into public meetings, right? If your elected officials don't 'represent your interests', you vote against them. You don't bring your farking gun into the next public meeting, jackass. What function does the gun serve in that situation?


It seemed pretty clear to me. They are not going to give up their right to carry a gun.
 
2011-02-02 08:14:29 PM  

Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

Why don't they all drop trou and compare eachother's dicks. That will prove they're the biggest Swingin' Dicks in the district - & will show those damn commie Libruls who's boss.


0.01/10
 
2011-02-02 08:15:02 PM  
img220.imageshack.us

You rang?
 
2011-02-02 08:16:48 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.


He never drew his weapon so he could never had pointed it at anyone.

Those of us that carry train just as much if not more than your local police. I myself have worked in law enforcement as well.

I don't care that you don't trust me. I know what it is like to point a loaded firearm at another person. I know how tunnel vision and adrenaline kicks in and yes I know how hard it is to hit a moving target when all that happens but again this is why we train and train some more.

I carry for my protection and the protection of my daughter and I don't care if you don't like it.
 
2011-02-02 08:20:14 PM  

consciousNOT:

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.


If they're packing heat to make the point that it's legal, I disagree with that but understand their view.

If they're using a gun to make officials 'represent their interests' then it's really about intimidation. They (that means YOU,consciousNOT) are uncivilized a**holes. They (YOU) get ONE vote per person. If that's not enough for them, then they should set up a commune somewhere where they can choose their own king. The USA is a Democracy. Respect the system or Fark off.
 
2011-02-02 08:21:15 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.


I'm a gun owner and I am legal to conceal carry, but I don't. Your reasons are part of it, I wonder if someone who carries regularly can come up with the other drawbacks?

I started to type them up, but the list got a little long.
 
2011-02-02 08:25:20 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:


I'm not a 'gun carrying farker', but I generally support gun rights and your argument is specious at best. It's a rare occurance where someone who carries a gun is in a situation where he/she might actually have to use it... it is far more rare for that situation to occur in front of your house. You are also complaining about a guy who DIDN'T SHOOT ANYONE but just drew their weapon. In other words, a person who was responsible about pulling the farking trigger. That is exactly the kind of person you DO want carrying guns. Not willing to be "yippi-kai-yay muther-farker" with their gun. If I were unfortunate enough to be in a situation where some nut was gunning down people indiscriminately, I'd be damn glad if someone were around with a concealed-carry permit with their gun handy to stop that person quicker than they would be otherwise. Unless you have any evidence whatsoever of legal gun owners shooting people by accident in the process of trying to prevent some OTHER person from killing people with their gun, then your argument is totally hypothetical and, frankly, ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of guns myself and I agree that there should be a complete ban on guns from public meetings, but your post was pretty dumb.
 
2011-02-02 08:28:03 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you.


You should really look into what the trained professionals shot to hit ratio is before putting too much trust in them. The ratio usually hovers between 9 and 40 percent.

Link
 
2011-02-02 08:30:24 PM  

Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?


For one thing, they proved that exercising your rights doesn't automatically make you a threat. I didn't see anything in the article about anyone being shot. Quit freaking out over inanimate objects. You are more of a threat to my safety when you are driving your car than I am to your safety when I am carrying a gun.
 
2011-02-02 08:30:39 PM  

consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.



And it takes showing off a gun to achieve that? Damn.
 
2011-02-02 08:30:54 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.


pussy
 
2011-02-02 08:31:10 PM  

theknuckler_33: Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I'm not a 'gun carrying farker',


He meant a Farker (ie, a person who uses this website) who also uses guns. It was not a derogatory label that needed to be put into quotation marks =)
 
2011-02-02 08:31:57 PM  

badhatharry: theknuckler_33: consciousNOT: Thagnut:

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

No. Maybe the just want their elected officials to follow the law and represent their interests.

Unlike the people who don't own or carry guns into public meetings, right? If your elected officials don't 'represent your interests', you vote against them. You don't bring your farking gun into the next public meeting, jackass. What function does the gun serve in that situation?

It seemed pretty clear to me. They are not going to give up their right to carry a gun.


Not sure if that was snark or serious, but I was under the impression that people want the right to carry a concealed weapon for an actual purpose, not just for the sake of being able to carry it. I was also under the impression that that purpose was for personal protection and, if I'm not mistaken, most public meetings take place with a police presence, so the need for personal protection at those meetings is pretty minor. Finally, considering that having your weapons at a public meeting, presumably visible to the voting members of the council (or whatever), the purpose of having those guns there is meant more for intimidation purposes rather than just 'exercising your rights'. So, thanks for your input, but in the circumstance (at a public meeting), I find the reason to be utterly ridiculous. For some reason, gun owners don't get their panties in a bunch when they can't bring their guns to the farking office when they go to work, but being prevented from bringing them into meetings with politicians is some kind of outrageous infringement on their 'rights'... even though their 'right to bear arms' has not actually been infringed upon at all since noone is forcing them to go the public meeting and they are allowed to own and possess their gun in the first place. Noting in the Constitution says that you can bring your gun wherever the fark you want.
 
2011-02-02 08:34:43 PM  

Emperorsteele: theknuckler_33: Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I'm not a 'gun carrying farker',

He meant a Farker (ie, a person who uses this website) who also uses guns. It was not a derogatory label that needed to be put into quotation marks =)


I knew that. I was just quoting his phrasing. Either way, it doesn't change what I wrote. I guess my use of quotes was... specious.
 
2011-02-02 08:34:51 PM  

Duyogurt: I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense.


Statistically speaking that's a rather baseless concern but we'll take it one at a time:

I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency.

Hit rates do tend to be low when it is a very high stress encounter. Even LEOs do no better than 40% (hits) in a good year. That acknowledged you can probably count on one hand the number of innocent bystanders harmed by a civilian defender's rounds. Ever.

My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead.

Again - an entirely unwarranted concern, as she has a higher probability that a plane will fall out of the sky and smash your house with her in it.

Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you.

Civilians on average have higher hit percentages than the LEOs in their own community. Believe it or not most civilians, especially those who carry concealed, tend to get a lot more range time than their LEO buddies.

All of your concerns are, on their face, valid... but it's a lot like being concerned about planes falling out of the sky on top of you.

Sure, it could happen - but it happens so exceedingly rarely that it is almost a statistical impossibility.
 
2011-02-02 08:35:01 PM  
I support their right to do that. Of course I also support the rights of everyone else to call them enormous douchebags. It should be an unwritten rule that you don't carry weapons to city council meetings.

Notice it's always guns too. It does say "bear arms", so why doesn't someone come in with a samurai sword. Or a halberd. I would laugh at the halberd guy.

The funny part is I'm pretty sure you can get arrested for carrying nunchucks.
 
2011-02-02 08:36:23 PM  
Yeah, what jackasses! I can't believe they would protest against the government (new window)!

/I'm glad I live in a country where we can biatch about things like this.
 
2011-02-02 08:36:36 PM  

WTF Indeed: LoL. I knew it was Toni the minute I saw it was York. Though I am surprised so many white people came to that meeting. Most of them won't go downtown after dark even with a platoon of soldiers.


Can I move in with you? Seriously. This town is batshiat crazy.
 
2011-02-02 08:37:13 PM  

theknuckler_33: Noting in the Constitution says that you can bring your gun wherever the fark you want.


Nothing in the constitution says you can speak wherever the fark you want.

Nothing in the constitution says you can freely assemble wherever the fark you want.

Nothing in the constitution says you can worship wherever the fark you want.

Do you see how farking stupid you sound? Probably not.
 
2011-02-02 08:38:07 PM  

umad: Thagnut: Those people are all jackasses.

What are they trying to prove? That they can intimidate and subtly threaten public officials?

For one thing, they proved that exercising your rights doesn't automatically make you a threat. I didn't see anything in the article about anyone being shot. Quit freaking out over inanimate objects. You are more of a threat to my safety when you are driving your car than I am to your safety when I am carrying a gun.


It's harder for a half-dozen people to drive their cars into a meeting room, though.

Y'know, usually.

Also, guns are used for 2 things: Killing (or threatening someone with the threat of killing them), and being displayed as collectibles. So unless it was show-and-tell day, i'd be a little nervous about a bunch of people coming into a town meeting armed with weapons.

Everyone's just lucky one of those weapons didn't accidentally go off and hurt someone.... okay, a minor injury woulda been hilarious, but that's beside the point.
 
2011-02-02 08:38:10 PM  
Guns don't kill people, 158 grains of lead traveling at 1860fps kill people.

Only a gun nut will truly appreciate this post.
 
2011-02-02 08:40:16 PM  

Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you. I used to target shoot for sport [never owning a weapon] and I know the chances of hitting a moving target at 20 feet are way tougher than you think, particularly when someone is returning fire. I don't trust a single one of you. I despise the argument that you are carrying "just in case."

That being said, this tragedy in Tucson almost was way worse, not only because that bag of dicks almost got off more rounds before being tackled, but also because an armed citizen heard the shots from inside a store and came out ready to take down whoever was shooting. By the time he pulled aim, someone wrestled the gun away from said bag of dicks. Mr. armed citizen aimed at the wrong guy before deciding that he could aid in calming the situation non-violently. In other words, he almost shot the wrong guy. At that point, what's to stop someone else from shooting him? This isn't the farking OK Corral. I don't want to be inflammatory, so I apologize in advance, but I really want to know why I should trust a gun toting farker to hit his target and not drop my kid on accident.


If this isn't serious, it's an 11/10 trolling attempt.

I'll respond as if you're serious, and let the followup determine if I've been had.

1) You claim to trust "the trained professionals, not you." Who decides what makes someone a trained professional versus me? At what point do you consider a private citizen who has gone through training "professional", what about practice, and what do you do to ensure that the "trained professionals" have more skill or practice than the enthusiast or even hobbyist who shoots regularly?

2) You despise the argument. Why? An ex-police officer who hasn't been one for twenty years is given more rights to carry than any fellow citizen, yet there's nothing that dictates they have to upkeep their skills. They often carry "just in case", but nothing dictates that their skill is any better than another citizens'.

3) Doesn't the very fact the armed citizen DIDN'T shoot the wrong guy demonstrate that the blood on the streets/people accidentally murdered scenario you paint is bogus? In all these discussions, I've seen claims of "well if you have a guy you'll be shot as the bad guy," yet here we have a clear case where the person waited to be certain before firing, and didn't shoot the good guy. I can't say the police have done as well as citizens in this regard.

4) Why the comparisons to the OK Corral? Is that the only story you can come up with/anecdote you can draw? Something popularized by western movies and fictionalized television?
 
2011-02-02 08:40:31 PM  

umad: theknuckler_33: Noting in the Constitution says that you can bring your gun wherever the fark you want.

Nothing in the constitution says you can speak wherever the fark you want.

Nothing in the constitution says you can freely assemble wherever the fark you want.

Nothing in the constitution says you can worship wherever the fark you want.

Do you see how farking stupid you sound? Probably not.


Not at all. You CAN'T speak wherever the fark you want. You CAN'T freely assemble wherever the fark you want. You CAN'T worship wherever the fark you want. Do you realize how farking stupid YOU are. Clearly not or would not have posted something so farking stupid in the first place.
 
2011-02-02 08:41:02 PM  

Gary_Malibou: Duyogurt: In all honesty, I would love for a gun carrying farker to explain to me one thing:

I feel less safe knowing citizens are carrying guns in self defense. I do not, under any circumstance, trust you to hit your target in the event of an emergency. My wife plays piano every day after work in front of our windows. If some shiat were to go down on our block and you miss, there is a chance you hit her instead. Sorry, I trust the trained professionals, not you.

You should really look into what the trained professionals shot to hit ratio is before putting too much trust in them. The ratio usually hovers between 9 and 40 percent.

Link

 
2011-02-02 08:41:25 PM  
The Asshole Guy 2011-02-02 08:16:48 PM

Just make sure when the shiat hits the fan that you shoot your kids and not mine. Thank you.
 
2011-02-02 08:48:41 PM  

kapaso: Guns don't kill people, 158 grains of lead traveling at 1860fps kill people.


images1.memegenerator.net

mmmm.... tooooassst
 
2011-02-02 08:51:37 PM  
So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?
 
2011-02-02 08:57:34 PM  

Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?


Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.

i22.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-02 08:59:13 PM  

Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?


If they are supposed to, I'm quite pissed I didn't get mine.
 
2011-02-02 08:59:16 PM  
This is typical.

It may be counterintuitive but every time someone suggests banning guns results in a tripling or quadrupling of weapon sales here at my gun store.

Conversely sales are depressed when Republicans are in office.

Oh how the money rolled in in the month before Obama was inaugurated. People came with shopping carts for ammunition. I sht you not.
 
2011-02-02 09:00:41 PM  

The Asshole Guy: Old enough to know better: So do they issue cowboys hats and spurs with those 'carry' permits?

Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.


LOL! Thats great!
 
2011-02-02 09:00:48 PM  

The Asshole Guy: Yes, they do and yes, that really is me. A younger me but still me.


www.doyoufeelloved.com
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report