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.

(The Onion)   Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out   (theonion.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Colorado Shooting, Colorado  
•       •       •

24368 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:35 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



285 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-21 01:38:55 AM  

babtras: There is still a slight difference between this and the others. Normally the shooter's name is on the last bullet fired. The fact that the "suspect" is still alive, means there are a few new variables.


Only that we'll get an extra 18 months of panic and hysteria as we go through his pretrial hearings, trial, sentencing, and post-sentencing analysis by the media talking heads.
 
2012-07-21 01:48:07 AM  

Oneofthesedays: whatshisname: GAT_00: Renowned transvestite sexologist: United States has a little over 5 people killed in this kind of mass shooting per year.

Well that's OK then!

By that reasoning, 9/11 was just a statistical anomaly. No reason for concern.

Yeah I mean how long has it been since the last Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil? Oh there hasn't been once since the first attack almost 11 years ago? Well obviously Homeland Security is doing their job. Exactly mofos!


I thought it was because of all the magically charmed anti terrorism bracelets we all bought.
 
2012-07-21 01:48:27 AM  

BronyMedic: Have you seen "The Dark Knight?" If you have, that's a pretty good act you're pulling.

What, about the gang bangers?

No, I really think that everyone should get a pass for killing bangers. Like, if you choose to be in a gang, you're basically wearing a sign that says "hunt me".

I also think that bangers killing bangers should also be legal. Give them marksmanship classes. That way they can shoot eachother, rather than the three year old riding her bike.

We could make a television show out of it. I mean, hell, we could take over the Biggest Loser, and have it showcase the fattest banger killed that day.

And, before you ask, I think it should transcend all races, creeds, religions, and nationalities. Cap a few David Dukes along with your Snoop Dogs.


I was honestly just asking if you had watched "The Dark Knight." That's what the person was referencing, and it seemed you didn't get that. I really wasn't insinuating anything.
 
2012-07-21 01:49:21 AM  

GAT_00: Well that's OK then!


I didn't say it's Okay. I would love to have everyone last one of our brothers and sisters we lost to this maniac brought back from death. I also think it's important to have the national conversation about guns and violence from time to time. I'm just pointing out, in terms of actual measurable threats to our lives, maniacs going out on a big murder spree is pretty low on the list of things we are actually going to die from.

whatshisname: By that reasoning, 9/11 was just a statistical anomaly. No reason for concern.


It is a statistical anomaly and a national tragedy. I can be both. I am FAR more likely to die in a car accident than I am to die at the hands of a Islamic Terrorist. We can stop dropping bombs on clay huts and treat it as a intelligence and law enforcement issue without comprising our safety in any meaningful way.
 
2012-07-21 01:50:05 AM  
Hope this doesn't end up making it difficult to carry a flask of alcohol into a theatre.

Most movies would be unbearable without a pint of Bacardi.
 
2012-07-21 01:50:37 AM  

Gyrfalcon: babtras: There is still a slight difference between this and the others. Normally the shooter's name is on the last bullet fired. The fact that the "suspect" is still alive, means there are a few new variables.

Only that we'll get an extra 18 months of panic and hysteria as we go through his pretrial hearings, trial, sentencing, and post-sentencing analysis by the media talking heads.


I'm not the only one that abhors this shiat?!? Hey sponsors! Fark off!
 
2012-07-21 01:52:48 AM  
I, for one, am sick and tired of the world 'alleged'.
 
2012-07-21 01:53:25 AM  

Sid Deuces: Hope this doesn't end up making it difficult to carry a flask of alcohol into a theatre.

Most movies would be unbearable without a pint of Bacardi.


Pre-game. Depending on the length of the movie you may have to drink multiple shots immediately before the movie starts. :D
 
2012-07-21 01:54:28 AM  
The Onion thing was pretty much spot on. I live in Castle Rock CO. 15 minutes away from Aurora. I think they were going more a condemnation of the media circus. I am just sad these young people lost thier lives or were maimed in this attack. I don't have kids but the mere thought of a policeman showing up at someones door at 3AM to say your kid is dead just breaks me up
 
2012-07-21 01:54:36 AM  

Githerax: I, for one, am sick and tired of the world 'alleged'.


What are you alleging? ;D
 
2012-07-21 01:54:49 AM  

Oneofthesedays: Sid Deuces: Hope this doesn't end up making it difficult to carry a flask of alcohol into a theatre.

Most movies would be unbearable without a pint of Bacardi.

Pre-game. Depending on the length of the movie you may have to drink multiple shots immediately before the movie starts. :D


This sounds like my plan before going to a night club and have to dance. :)
 
2012-07-21 01:55:04 AM  

X-boxershorts: Oh...fark you


That's all you have? Not some argument to the contrary? In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting the anti-gun portion of the left was trying to ban high capacity magazines. It's not an irrational thing to be concerned with that subset of the left wanting to ban guns after these things. It always happens. Rachel Maddow (who I otherwise enjoy) spends weeks talking about how we should ban things because "if high capacity magazines didn't exist, someone could have tackled Loughner sooner".

So it is an on-going battle. It's not irrational to be defensive on this issue. Gun grabbers are still grabbing at guns.
 
2012-07-21 01:55:13 AM  

Githerax: I, for one, am sick and tired of the world 'alleged'.


Well 'alleged' doesn't mean 'entirely confirmed'. I think we should check the grassy knoll.
 
2012-07-21 01:55:50 AM  

Oneofthesedays: Gyrfalcon: babtras: There is still a slight difference between this and the others. Normally the shooter's name is on the last bullet fired. The fact that the "suspect" is still alive, means there are a few new variables.

Only that we'll get an extra 18 months of panic and hysteria as we go through his pretrial hearings, trial, sentencing, and post-sentencing analysis by the media talking heads.

I'm not the only one that abhors this shiat?!? Hey sponsors! Fark off!


I wish. If we have to have an OJ-style dissection (messy, sloppy, performed by amateur sous chefs) every single time we have a killer's trial, the advertisers should have to put all their funds directly into a victim's restitution pot.
 
2012-07-21 02:01:54 AM  

ZipSplat: X-boxershorts: Oh...fark you

That's all you have? Not some argument to the contrary? In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting the anti-gun portion of the left was trying to ban high capacity magazines. It's not an irrational thing to be concerned with that subset of the left wanting to ban guns after these things. It always happens. Rachel Maddow (who I otherwise enjoy) spends weeks talking about how we should ban things because "if high capacity magazines didn't exist, someone could have tackled Loughner sooner".

So it is an on-going battle. It's not irrational to be defensive on this issue. Gun grabbers are still grabbing at guns.


It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.
 
2012-07-21 02:04:07 AM  

Wayne 985: ZipSplat: X-boxershorts: Oh...fark you

That's all you have? Not some argument to the contrary? In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting the anti-gun portion of the left was trying to ban high capacity magazines. It's not an irrational thing to be concerned with that subset of the left wanting to ban guns after these things. It always happens. Rachel Maddow (who I otherwise enjoy) spends weeks talking about how we should ban things because "if high capacity magazines didn't exist, someone could have tackled Loughner sooner".

So it is an on-going battle. It's not irrational to be defensive on this issue. Gun grabbers are still grabbing at guns.

It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


I would wholeheartedly agree if only we could easily differentiate between maniacs and "us" sane people. ;D
 
2012-07-21 02:04:50 AM  
Sometimes, it seems like people have such incredibly hollow lives that they spend their days looking for that big break when they'll finally be victimized and traumatized like their heroes. And if it doesn't quite happen that way, well, dammit, they'll make it happen anyway, because it's that or the crushing monotony of everyday life.

/Live a little when you're young, you won't feel the need to chase every tragedy with dramatic flair.
 
2012-07-21 02:05:13 AM  
I'm not sure what the point of owning assault weapons for civilians even is, other than you can buy it.
 
2012-07-21 02:05:37 AM  

Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


But then how will we defend ourselves when the government comes marching to force ObamaCare down our throats? durr
 
2012-07-21 02:06:19 AM  

liquidsiphon: I'm not sure what the point of owning assault weapons for civilians even is, other than you can buy it.


They make me a patriot.
 
2012-07-21 02:06:48 AM  

Wayne 985: ZipSplat: X-boxershorts: Oh...fark you

That's all you have? Not some argument to the contrary? In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting the anti-gun portion of the left was trying to ban high capacity magazines. It's not an irrational thing to be concerned with that subset of the left wanting to ban guns after these things. It always happens. Rachel Maddow (who I otherwise enjoy) spends weeks talking about how we should ban things because "if high capacity magazines didn't exist, someone could have tackled Loughner sooner".

So it is an on-going battle. It's not irrational to be defensive on this issue. Gun grabbers are still grabbing at guns.

It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


So you're saying something like a National healthcare plan where everyone can get metal health help and drugs if needed.
/It couldn't possibly be the type of society we're in that isolates people and makes them feel like outcast.
 
2012-07-21 02:07:05 AM  
Even sadder is that this shooter knows exactly how this aftermath will play out.

/a trial, verdict, and sentencing within 30 days of today would fark up his timeline.
 
2012-07-21 02:07:41 AM  

evil saltine: Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.

But then how will we defend ourselves when the government comes marching to force ObamaCare down our throats? durr


Lol. Let my flattop AR-15 destroy my ebil government's Apache! That's the ticket. Stupid 0bama.
 
2012-07-21 02:09:11 AM  
The Onion. Goddamn national treasure. It's satire bitingly and sadly, not really, satire.
 
2012-07-21 02:09:22 AM  

ZipSplat: X-boxershorts: Oh...fark you

That's all you have? Not some argument to the contrary? In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting the anti-gun portion of the left was trying to ban high capacity magazines. It's not an irrational thing to be concerned with that subset of the left wanting to ban guns after these things. It always happens. Rachel Maddow (who I otherwise enjoy) spends weeks talking about how we should ban things because "if high capacity magazines didn't exist, someone could have tackled Loughner sooner".

So it is an on-going battle. It's not irrational to be defensive on this issue. Gun grabbers are still grabbing at guns.


It's always interesting how things get re-framed. For instance, the Glock 17 was designed for a magazine that could hold 17 rounds (just a coincidence, not the derivation of its model number). Therefore, 17 rounds is a "normal capacity" magazine. How, then did it become "high capacity"?

That is the sort of thing that happens when one party says that something could never happen so it's not worth paying attention to. In the meantime someone re-frames the debate, cashes in on it, and you're left wondering what the hell just happened that you're now sucking hind tit.

It happens with everything and everybody, someone is always trying to set you up for something. With guns, however, people are wise to it thanks to the efforts of thousands of normal, law-abiding people who have been burned one time too many. Looks like we're up for another few rounds of it after this tragedy, too.
 
2012-07-21 02:11:39 AM  

Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


Drunk drivers kill FAR more people per capital per year than sociopathic mass murders do in the United States. Perspective, get some.

Unlike the person you were responding to, I'm okay with "Gun Control". I just believe that if you're going to an argument, don't make a weak and meaningless one. You're arguing from an emotional response, not reason.

If your going to make an argument for or against gun control, do it from the FULL stats on gun deaths in the United States. Then, make an argument for or against how a specific regulation will lower a measurable and preventable trend in gun deaths.

If the magazine is smaller, the person brings more guns that have full magazines. Sociopathic killers are kind of like that. I propose that as long as guns are legal in the United States, Sociopathic mass murders will continue to use them to kill a high number of people per incident no matter what regulations you put on gun sales.

If the gun is out of reach when your having an argument with your wife, you just may be less likely to kill her. That's an argument to be made.
 
2012-07-21 02:11:43 AM  

whatshisname: GAT_00: Renowned transvestite sexologist: United States has a little over 5 people killed in this kind of mass shooting per year.

Well that's OK then!

By that reasoning, 9/11 was just a statistical anomaly. No reason for concern.


Correct. Now give me back my freedom to move about the country without being molested. And if Al Qaeda is such a threat, why is the West backing their efforts in Syria? Assad has chemical weapons and you want to let those guys get a hold of them? Great policy choice.
 
2012-07-21 02:14:31 AM  

Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


Like I said earlier, pre-crime is against the Constitution. I suppose we can change that if you'd like to, but you probably won't like how it works out. I understand that gulags aren't especially nice places.

That's really it. Either people can buy weapons with a clean record or they can't. This guy was clean as a whistle, so barring some future-seeing women floating in a pool there was nothing that could have stopped this short of an outright ban, bringing us back to that pesky Constitution again.

Innocence until guilt is proven. It's a biatch sometimes, but it's far better than the alternative.
 
2012-07-21 02:16:03 AM  

elguerodiablo: Some poor neighboor almost went in when she noticed the door was unlocked.


I bet she was afraid she was going to walk in and find a dead body. I've read stories where neighbors hear loud music blasting, and they knock and no one answers, so they go inside and find someone dead on the floor. I bet that thought crossed her mind, so she decided not to open the door.
 
2012-07-21 02:22:11 AM  

Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.


If Jared Loughner didn't have a high capacity magazine, what would be the next logical "could've banned" thing? And the next? And the next?

My belief is (as someone else mentioned) that we should have a reasonable healthcare system that fully treats people with mental illness, at the cost of the state. Banning shiat is dumb. It's a weak response that removes liberties from the hundreds of millions of people not even involved because of incidents that do not reflect general trends in behavior, and it has no end. Ban high capacity magazines. Did this guy in Colorado use high capacity mags? No? Ban whatever novel item he may have used.

When the Loughner incident happened, I was very angry at the left for using the event to try to ban guns instead of trying to improve our healthcare system. It's a profoundly stupid reaction from the left every time something like this happens to think that we need to take away everyone's toys instead of improve their living conditions.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. There are other variables in play. Almost every time people knew something wasn't right. In Loughner's case he was an actual schizophrenic. Despite all of the goddamn warning signs nobody got that motherfarker help other than to kick him out of school and say "see a shrink".

That is a much more valid and important issue than "OMG, ban the tools that crazy people use when they decide to kill people."
 
2012-07-21 02:23:08 AM  

Renowned transvestite sexologist: Wayne 985: It sounds like Rachel Maddow had a good point. I'm fine with gun ownership, but Jesus. Things should probably be a little more regulated and restricted when maniacs can buy those kind of weapons.

Drunk drivers kill FAR more people per capital per year than sociopathic mass murders do in the United States. Perspective, get some.

Unlike the person you were responding to, I'm okay with "Gun Control". I just believe that if you're going to an argument, don't make a weak and meaningless one. You're arguing from an emotional response, not reason.

If your going to make an argument for or against gun control, do it from the FULL stats on gun deaths in the United States. Then, make an argument for or against how a specific regulation will lower a measurable and preventable trend in gun deaths.

If the magazine is smaller, the person brings more guns that have full magazines. Sociopathic killers are kind of like that. I propose that as long as guns are legal in the United States, Sociopathic mass murders will continue to use them to kill a high number of people per incident no matter what regulations you put on gun sales.

If the gun is out of reach when your having an argument with your wife, you just may be less likely to kill her. That's an argument to be made.


I just don't think you need to have high capacity magazines. What would be the use? If you are hunting you aren't going to fire 30+ rounds at a target. There's no point to high capacity magazines that I can think of. Not trying to mock or anything, I just don't see the point.
 
2012-07-21 02:26:18 AM  

RanDomino: Did you hear The Dark Knight was a comedy? Yeah, it had people rolling in the aisles.


I nearly died laughing (at your quip).

/window seat, please
 
2012-07-21 02:29:00 AM  
This must have been outrage at how silly Bane's and Batman's first fight was...

/windmill cookies
 
2012-07-21 02:32:34 AM  

liquidsiphon: I just don't think you need to have high capacity magazines. What would be the use? If you are hunting you aren't going to fire 30+ rounds at a target. There's no point to high capacity magazines that I can think of. Not trying to mock or anything, I just don't see the point.


1) To not have to reload all the time for sport shooting.
2) To not have to reload all the time if you're killing people, which is what the 2nd Amendment's protection is intended for.

We live in a country that has as one of its founding principles the preservation of your ability to have a gun for the express reason of defending yourself or the country - which means killing other human beings.
 
2012-07-21 02:33:46 AM  
I wonder what's going to happen with the theater? Nobody is going to want to go into the one where the shooting happened. But I doubt they'll do anything like tear the building down. Maybe they'll renovate the inside so it doesn't look the same. I think that's what they did at Columbine. They renovated the parts where the shootings took place.
 
2012-07-21 02:36:09 AM  

liquidsiphon: I just don't think you need to have high capacity magazines. What would be the use? If you are hunting you aren't going to fire 30+ rounds at a target. There's no point to high capacity magazines that I can think of. Not trying to mock or anything, I just don't see the point.


There's no need for everyone to able to own a chainsaw and no one proposes banning them because they feel they aren't "needed" by the general population.

I'm sympathetic, really man. I'm not a fan of guns, I really see no reason to own a gun for "protection". It's more likely to kill someone who lives in my house than it is to actually save me from being killed by an intruder.

That being said, I still try to be intellectually honest when I think about Gun Control. Without going through a civil war, guns will not be banned in the United States. That's the starting point, guns are here to stay. Anything proposal for "Gun Control" has to be thought about with that as a starting point.

Getting rid of high capacity magazines will just make sociopathic killers can an additional fully loaded gun. Even the high school killers carry multiple weapons when they go on their rampage. It's the modus operandi of sociopathic mass murderers. It won't stop them from shooting up a movie theater. If they really want to be prepared, they'll spend a few months practicing magazine reloads.

Just because you see no reason for them to exist does mean you are actually helping by banning them.

If you want to actually help, solve the problem of house gun being used to kill someone living in the house.
 
2012-07-21 02:36:30 AM  
Just when this news was breaking last night, here in Australia there was an "Onion news update" on ABC tv lampooning a mall shooting doing a breakdown of the deaths by political affiliation .

either it was incredible timing , or someone at the ABC is a superb troll.
 
2012-07-21 02:38:25 AM  
So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed?

ZipSplat: liquidsiphon: I just don't think you need to have high capacity magazines. What would be the use? If you are hunting you aren't going to fire 30+ rounds at a target. There's no point to high capacity magazines that I can think of. Not trying to mock or anything, I just don't see the point.

1) To not have to reload all the time for sport shooting.
2) To not have to reload all the time if you're killing people, which is what the 2nd Amendment's protection is intended for.

We live in a country that has as one of its founding principles the preservation of your ability to have a gun for the express reason of defending yourself or the country - which means killing other human beings.


So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed? Or is because you need more round to kill other people who you feel are a threat? This isn't the wild west. We actually have police to handle it and 100 round AR-15 mags are definitely going to be used more by the psychos than people defending their homes.
 
2012-07-21 02:40:39 AM  
Edge.bot: Just when this news was breaking last night, here in Australia there was an "Onion news update" on ABC tv lampooning a mall shooting doing a breakdown of the deaths by political affiliation .

either it was incredible timing , or someone at the ABC is a superb troll.


You mean this one? It's from 2008. DArk and funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eSPWaUsgY
 
2012-07-21 02:44:57 AM  

liquidsiphon: So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed?


No, they are (not should be, are) allowed because there is no reason to ban them other than your opinion.
 
2012-07-21 02:45:23 AM  

Renowned transvestite sexologist: liquidsiphon: I just don't think you need to have high capacity magazines. What would be the use? If you are hunting you aren't going to fire 30+ rounds at a target. There's no point to high capacity magazines that I can think of. Not trying to mock or anything, I just don't see the point.

There's no need for everyone to able to own a chainsaw and no one proposes banning them because they feel they aren't "needed" by the general population.
I'm sympathetic, really man. I'm not a fan of guns, I really see no reason to own a gun for "protection". It's more likely to kill someone who lives in my house than it is to actually save me from being killed by an intruder. --- With you here.

That being said, I still try to be intellectually honest when I think about Gun Control. Without going through a civil war, guns will not be banned in the United States. That's the starting point, guns are here to stay. Anything proposal for "Gun Control" has to be thought about with that as a starting point. --- I agree. That's why I'm not proposing banning guns. High capacity mags and assault weapons aren't all guns. I'd be happy to leave assault weapons if they'd quit the high capacity mags.

Getting rid of high capacity magazines will just make sociopathic killers can an additional fully loaded gun. --- Maybe. The problem is we won't even try to see if banning huge mags to start with. Even the high school killers carry multiple weapons when they go on their rampage. --- Yes, but that isn't going to mean we have to ignore the possibility that banning big mags might reduce the problem. Believe it or not, reloading takes some time. Maybe they will buy tactical vests with magpuls to make reloading fast. Doesn't mean they will though. Maybe is the key word. Trying can't make it worse.

It's the modus operandi of sociopathic mass murderers. It won't stop them from shooting up a movie theater. If they really want to be prepared, they'll spend a few months practicing magazine reloads. --- This is an assumption. Many sociopaths prepare, but are set off by a moment. When they do their deed they might falter due to pure adrenaline and emotion. I don't know that's right anymore than you know their preparations will make them do it perfect. They are green when it comes to it.

Just because you see no reason for them to exist does mean you are actually helping by banning them. --- I'd like us to try at least.


If you want to actually help, solve the problem of house gun being used to kill someone living in the house./i>

 
2012-07-21 02:46:59 AM  
Oof.. don't know Fark's formatting yet. Apologies folks.
 
2012-07-21 02:47:37 AM  

liquidsiphon: So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed? Or is because you need more round to kill other people who you feel are a threat? This isn't the wild west. We actually have police to handle it and 100 round AR-15 mags are definitely going to be used more by the psychos than people defending their homes.


Oh no, I'm not threatened at all. I live in a low crime community in a state with strict gun laws. I don't even own a gun. I was in the Marine Corps for five years and I hated going to the range. I don't even sport shoot, it's lame.

The United States has been around for ~240 years, depending on when you want to start counting. In that time we had a revolution, a civil war, two world wars, and countless riots and little insurrections. In the next 250 years that the United States exists, do you expect that the situation will remain for everyone that follows you as it is right now for you?

You're not just taking away your own right to own guns and accessories that can kill people. You're telling the rest of U.S. history that they cannot own capable guns or inherit the knowledge and tradition of weapons handling.
 
2012-07-21 02:49:40 AM  

liquidsiphon: Oof.. don't know Fark's formatting yet. Apologies folks.


Play it through. Never show weakness. No retreat no surrender.
 
2012-07-21 02:50:37 AM  

liquidsiphon: Oof.. don't know Fark's formatting yet. Apologies folks.


LAWLERCOPTER HE CANT EVN USE COMPUTER SO DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
2012-07-21 02:50:47 AM  

ZipSplat: liquidsiphon: So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed? Or is because you need more round to kill other people who you feel are a threat? This isn't the wild west. We actually have police to handle it and 100 round AR-15 mags are definitely going to be used more by the psychos than people defending their homes.

Oh no, I'm not threatened at all. I live in a low crime community in a state with strict gun laws. I don't even own a gun. I was in the Marine Corps for five years and I hated going to the range. I don't even sport shoot, it's lame.

The United States has been around for ~240 years, depending on when you want to start counting. In that time we had a revolution, a civil war, two world wars, and countless riots and little insurrections. In the next 250 years that the United States exists, do you expect that the situation will remain for everyone that follows you as it is right now for you?

You're not just taking away your own right to own guns and accessories that can kill people. You're telling the rest of U.S. history that they cannot own capable guns or inherit the knowledge and tradition of weapons handling.


Gah! No! I just don't think we need high capacity rounds and assault weapons. I have no problems with people owning guns. I just don't think guns with high capacity rounds whose purpose is to kill people are guns that need to be available to citizens. Buy one of these, I have no problem with it.

Browning Bar
 
2012-07-21 02:51:10 AM  

liquidsiphon: So the hassle of reloading is why high capacity magazines should be allowed? Or is because you need more round to kill other people who you feel are a threat? This isn't the wild west. We actually have police to handle it and 100 round AR-15 mags are definitely going to be used more by the psychos than people defending their homes.


Please don't take my toys away. I want to feel like a man.
 
2012-07-21 02:52:07 AM  
Replace high capacity rounds with high capacity mags. Long night it seems.
 
2012-07-21 02:54:03 AM  

liquidsiphon: Replace high capacity rounds with high capacity mags. Long night it seems.


It's going to be even longer if you keep acting like a little biatch
 
2012-07-21 02:55:11 AM  

liquidsiphon: Gah! No! I just don't think we need high capacity rounds and assault weapons. I have no problems with people owning guns. I just don't think guns with high capacity rounds whose purpose is to kill people are guns that need to be available to citizens. Buy one of these, I have no problem with it.

Browning Bar


el oh el. Note my statement.

You're telling the rest of U.S. history that they cannot own capable guns...

A semi-automatic hunting rifle is not a capable gun for the purposes of combat. Anything without some kind of magazine is absolutely not a capable gun for combat unless you're the designated marksman as part of an organized team.
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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