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.

(Huffington Post)   Noted political strategist and gun rights lobbyist Ice-T says "America is no place to be without a gun...the country is based on guns"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 144
    More: Dumbass, Ice T, ice, United States, Jason Alexander, judicial district, centennial, Andy Richter, political consulting  
•       •       •

1745 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:24 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 12:42:14 PM
EyeballKid: Fark It: Eapoe6: So, according to anti-gun people, the only people with guns should be those paid by the state to make us do stuff?

That's a lot of power to have over a population. That won't do. The anti-gun people need to rethink their position.

They're incapable of doing so, they're on emotional auto-pilot right now.

Really? I thought it was that the pro-gun people are sociopathic and unable to look past their own childish wants and fears. But, hey, you're the one willing for 12 strangers to die for your right to buy toys. I'll sleep just fine.


Case in point.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:02 PM
MayoSlather: Wait...who's on emotional auto-pilot? The majority of anti-gun folk like myself are saying that we shouldn't allow weapons for sale that allow for the unchecked slaughter of dozens before they have to reload so someone can tackle a would be shooter. That is emotional? Sounds pretty pragmatic.

What is your opinion on CCW and how it would have played out in Aurora, CO? Just out of curiosity.

As opposed to those that believe that the sale of these weapons should continue because in your tinfoil hat world you're going to stand up to an organized military with these pea shooters. And they are pea shooters vs a tank, plane, or helicopter. Furthermore most of these people ironically support a larger military. Let's think again who is on emotional auto pilot.

I support slashing the military. You seem to be the one who's jumping to political conclusions that people who support the 2nd Amendment are automatically right-wingers. An emotional stereotype. And tyranny comes in many forms, not just from the government. Where do you live that isn't subject to natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc? Or civil unrest?
 
2012-07-24 12:51:37 PM
factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime?


I was about as effective at lowering crime as it was at banning assault weapons. The AW Ban was nothing other than a bone to gun opponents that wet their pants at the sight of anything that looks remotely "tactical." It was the worlds largest legal no-op. In practical terms, it didn't ban a damn thing.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:56 PM
factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime? Answer: not measurably. Massacre killers are crazy; the clown in Colorado not only had a clean record but passed a background check for his research position. Without diving deep into the rights of the law-abiding, stopping a man like that from getting handguns and shotguns would be impossible. The M4 clone, with the drum feeder that falls into the category of "really; people need this?" Thank god it jammed... fairly predictable. But an M4 while scary looking is just a semi-automatic rifle.

If you want to stop massacres, a cultural change on mental illness and treatment should be the priority. They're very rare but such a shift would benefit millions with unrelated/non-violent maladies. Perhaps this killer would have headed to the University counseling department instead of Bass Pro Shops.

If you want to stop criminals from being armed, figure out how to thwart straw purchasers. That, in general, is what feeds weapons into the hands of those that cannot legally buy them.


The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:27 PM
MayoSlather: factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime? Answer: not measurably. Massacre killers are crazy; the clown in Colorado not only had a clean record but passed a background check for his research position. Without diving deep into the rights of the law-abiding, stopping a man like that from getting handguns and shotguns would be impossible. The M4 clone, with the drum feeder that falls into the category of "really; people need this?" Thank god it jammed... fairly predictable. But an M4 while scary looking is just a semi-automatic rifle.

If you want to stop massacres, a cultural change on mental illness and treatment should be the priority. They're very rare but such a shift would benefit millions with unrelated/non-violent maladies. Perhaps this killer would have headed to the University counseling department instead of Bass Pro Shops.

If you want to stop criminals from being armed, figure out how to thwart straw purchasers. That, in general, is what feeds weapons into the hands of those that cannot legally buy them.

The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.


Define semi-automatic. Explain why they are unnecessary.

Explain how whatever restriction you're supporting or proposing would pass strict scrutiny.
 
2012-07-24 01:06:13 PM
Fark It: MayoSlather: Wait...who's on emotional auto-pilot? The majority of anti-gun folk like myself are saying that we shouldn't allow weapons for sale that allow for the unchecked slaughter of dozens before they have to reload so someone can tackle a would be shooter. That is emotional? Sounds pretty pragmatic.

What is your opinion on CCW and how it would have played out in Aurora, CO? Just out of curiosity.

As opposed to those that believe that the sale of these weapons should continue because in your tinfoil hat world you're going to stand up to an organized military with these pea shooters. And they are pea shooters vs a tank, plane, or helicopter. Furthermore most of these people ironically support a larger military. Let's think again who is on emotional auto pilot.

I support slashing the military. You seem to be the one who's jumping to political conclusions that people who support the 2nd Amendment are automatically right-wingers. An emotional stereotype. And tyranny comes in many forms, not just from the government. Where do you live that isn't subject to natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc? Or civil unrest?


Oh come now let's not play the I'm a naive babe in the woods game. It's evident in our society that the majority that supports gun rights also supports a larger military even if you personally do not.

As for your natural disaster scenarios...the last time I checked what typically happens in America is there is an outpouring of support in these situations not unchecked chaos. Yes looting does occur, but how is a revolver or a hunting rifle not enough? It's also quite a stretch down the road in fear filled "what if" -ville.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:09 PM
MayoSlather: Oh come now let's not play the I'm a naive babe in the woods game. It's evident in our society that the majority that supports gun rights also supports a larger military even if you personally do not.

Citation needed.

As for your natural disaster scenarios...the last time I checked what typically happens in America is there is an outpouring of support in these situations not unchecked chaos. Yes looting does occur, but how is a revolver or a hunting rifle not enough? It's also quite a stretch down the road in fear filled "what if" -ville.

The AR is one of, if not the most common hunting platform in the United States.
 
2012-07-24 01:14:30 PM
MayoSlather: factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime? Answer: not measurably. Massacre killers are crazy; the clown in Colorado not only had a clean record but passed a background check for his research position. Without diving deep into the rights of the law-abiding, stopping a man like that from getting handguns and shotguns would be impossible. The M4 clone, with the drum feeder that falls into the category of "really; people need this?" Thank god it jammed... fairly predictable. But an M4 while scary looking is just a semi-automatic rifle.

If you want to stop massacres, a cultural change on mental illness and treatment should be the priority. They're very rare but such a shift would benefit millions with unrelated/non-violent maladies. Perhaps this killer would have headed to the University counseling department instead of Bass Pro Shops.

If you want to stop criminals from being armed, figure out how to thwart straw purchasers. That, in general, is what feeds weapons into the hands of those that cannot legally buy them.

The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.


Cars are unnecessary. Cell phones are Unnecessary. Cars are deadly, even more so when combined with cell phones. To be completely honest Im far less scared of the average gun owner than I am of you yapping on your iproduct while driving your Prius.
 
2012-07-24 01:15:20 PM
Fark It: MayoSlather: factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime? Answer: not measurably. Massacre killers are crazy; the clown in Colorado not only had a clean record but passed a background check for his research position. Without diving deep into the rights of the law-abiding, stopping a man like that from getting handguns and shotguns would be impossible. The M4 clone, with the drum feeder that falls into the category of "really; people need this?" Thank god it jammed... fairly predictable. But an M4 while scary looking is just a semi-automatic rifle.

If you want to stop massacres, a cultural change on mental illness and treatment should be the priority. They're very rare but such a shift would benefit millions with unrelated/non-violent maladies. Perhaps this killer would have headed to the University counseling department instead of Bass Pro Shops.

If you want to stop criminals from being armed, figure out how to thwart straw purchasers. That, in general, is what feeds weapons into the hands of those that cannot legally buy them.

The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.

Define semi-automatic.


Semi-auto I suppose in my terms is any clip fed gun.

Explain why they are unnecessary.

Didn't I just say the burden of proof should be on pro gun people to prove why they are necessary? The logic behind this goes that my stance allows for less slaughter of human beings. This is like asking why are bazookas unnecessary? ummm because they are unnecessary.

Explain how whatever restriction you're supporting or proposing would pass strict scrutiny.

Be more specific...Scrutiny of what or whom?
 
2012-07-24 01:18:35 PM
Sultan Of Herf: MayoSlather: factoryconnection: MayoSlather: I don't think we should institute a criminalization for possession of these weapons, but having them readily available for sale certainly is not helping things.

So how did banning assault weapons in the 90s affect crime? Answer: not measurably. Massacre killers are crazy; the clown in Colorado not only had a clean record but passed a background check for his research position. Without diving deep into the rights of the law-abiding, stopping a man like that from getting handguns and shotguns would be impossible. The M4 clone, with the drum feeder that falls into the category of "really; people need this?" Thank god it jammed... fairly predictable. But an M4 while scary looking is just a semi-automatic rifle.

If you want to stop massacres, a cultural change on mental illness and treatment should be the priority. They're very rare but such a shift would benefit millions with unrelated/non-violent maladies. Perhaps this killer would have headed to the University counseling department instead of Bass Pro Shops.

If you want to stop criminals from being armed, figure out how to thwart straw purchasers. That, in general, is what feeds weapons into the hands of those that cannot legally buy them.

The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.

Cars are unnecessary. Cell phones are Unnecessary. Cars are deadly, even more so when combined with cell phones. To be completely honest Im far less scared of the average gun owner than I am of you yapping on your iproduct while driving your Prius.


Poor logic. I'm not going to type out a long winded diatribe about how this is a ridiculous argument...just know that it is.
 
2012-07-24 01:20:10 PM
MayoSlather: Semi-auto I suppose in my terms is any clip fed gun.

So, you have no idea what you're talking about then?

Be more specific...Scrutiny of what or whom?

Strict Scrutiny is a legal standard that courts apply to laws that affect Constitutional rights.
 
2012-07-24 01:21:34 PM
MayoSlather: Poor logic.

Says the guy who wants to ban any "clip fed gun."
 
2012-07-24 01:21:45 PM
Fark It: MayoSlather: Oh come now let's not play the I'm a naive babe in the woods game. It's evident in our society that the majority that supports gun rights also supports a larger military even if you personally do not.

Citation needed.

As for your natural disaster scenarios...the last time I checked what typically happens in America is there is an outpouring of support in these situations not unchecked chaos. Yes looting does occur, but how is a revolver or a hunting rifle not enough? It's also quite a stretch down the road in fear filled "what if" -ville.

The AR is one of, if not the most common hunting platform in the United States.


Citation needed? really?

And what exactly are people hunting that requires 10+ rounds of ammo fired in rapid succession being pumped into it to kill it? Unnecessary.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:26 PM
Sultan Of Herf: Cars are unnecessary. Cell phones are Unnecessary. Cars are deadly, even more so when combined with cell phones. To be completely honest Im far less scared of the average gun owner than I am of you yapping on your iproduct while driving your Prius.

Well, sure, but then again, you're a pussy.
 
2012-07-24 01:25:37 PM
The US will never do away with anything that is a commodity again, as long as they can exercise control over its profit. Drugs, too hard to control. Guns, cigarettes, booze, oxy, etc are controllable. These things all lead to dead citizens in the wrong, or incapable hands. Do you think a country that discusses outlawing costumes but not cigs is going to do away with any profitable industry? We are less citizens at this point and more consumers and that is how we are treated. They need us working on, and consuming, products to keep the structure as it is in place.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:18 PM
Fark It: MayoSlather: Poor logic.

Says the guy who wants to ban any "clip fed gun."


You sir are a master of debate. Continue, I'm enthralled.
 
2012-07-24 01:33:05 PM
MayoSlather: Fark It: MayoSlather: Poor logic.

Says the guy who wants to ban any "clip fed gun."

You sir are a master of debate. Continue, I'm enthralled.


"Debate" assumes that two parties are equally informed. An argument is what you have with someone who is guided by their emotions and/or ignorance.

It's hard to debate guns and Constitutional rights with someone who can't define a "semi automatic weapon" and doesn't know what strict scrutiny is.
 
2012-07-24 01:33:08 PM
MayoSlather: Fark It: MayoSlather: Poor logic.

Says the guy who wants to ban any "clip fed gun."

You sir are a master of debate. Continue, I'm enthralled.


Obviously. I must commend your skills, you've drawn the guy through numerous replies with a few minor responses from other posters. All without the use of logic, reasoning or citations.
 
2012-07-24 01:33:40 PM
thanks for the awesome lyrics, one of the few things that can cheer me up!
 
2012-07-24 01:37:50 PM
MayoSlather: Fark It: MayoSlather: Poor logic.

Says the guy who wants to ban any "clip fed gun."

You sir are a master of debate. Continue, I'm enthralled.


It's a magazine, not clip is what he means. You want to ban magazine fed guns not clip fed guns. Or just ban all guns for people that don't have a legitimate reason to own one. If you want to shoot, go to a gun range and rent.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:56 PM
Nana's Vibrator: vernonFL: Midnight chillin' at A.M-P.M
Coolin', drinkin' apple juice in Evil's BM
The sound's up loud to attract attention
Armored tires on a lowered suspension

I believe it's Armor-All. Thanks for taking us back to the OG school.



vernie is nothin' but ol' sk00l when kicking it proper.
 
2012-07-24 01:53:37 PM
MayoSlather: Fark It: Eapoe6: So, according to anti-gun people, the only people with guns should be those paid by the state to make us do stuff?

That's a lot of power to have over a population. That won't do. The anti-gun people need to rethink their position.

They're incapable of doing so, they're on emotional auto-pilot right now.

Wait...who's on emotional auto-pilot? The majority of anti-gun folk like myself are saying that we shouldn't allow weapons for sale that allow for the unchecked slaughter of dozens before they have to reload so someone can tackle a would be shooter. That is emotional? Sounds pretty pragmatic.

As opposed to those that believe that the sale of these weapons should continue because in your tinfoil hat world you're going to stand up to an organized military with these pea shooters. And they are pea shooters vs a tank, plane, or helicopter. Furthermore most of these people ironically support a larger military. Let's think again who is on emotional auto pilot.


The protracted insurgent warfare of the 20th and 21st centuries makes the assumption that citizens could not fight back against tanks, planes, and helicopters somewhat dubious.
 
2012-07-24 01:56:36 PM
So how is he wrong?
 
2012-07-24 02:05:26 PM
MayoSlather: The potential for harm is the issue not crime statistics. It's not as if people need semi-automatic weapons to live. These guns are unnecessary. The burden of proof for the need for them is on pro-gun people to prove not for anti-gun people to disprove.

Crime has a measurable and widespread impact on our lives, which is why I asked its effect on the crime rate. Applying your restrictions in order to stop massacres like this is dubious logic, because (as the police found in his apartment) the unhinged lunatic can just resort to making bombs in a one-off attempt to murder a bunch of strangers. Like I said, without punishing the vast majority of gun owners for the sins of an extreme few, you can't take death out of the hands of the motivated psychopath.

Do I agree that there is little use for high-capacity magazines other than having a lot of fun at the range? Yes, but then who am I to say what everyone's home-defense needs are. Even in my safe, white-bread world I know several people that have had to brandish or even use their firearms to defend their homes.

Why are bazookas outlawed? Because they're for destroying military vehicles, not any practical hunting, sport, or personal defense. Actually, like machine guns and full-auto rifles, you may be able to get a bazooka with a FFL and tax stamp; I don't know. I don't even own a firearm.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:57 PM
MayoSlather: And what exactly are people hunting that requires 10+ rounds of ammo fired in rapid succession being pumped into it to kill it? Unnecessary.

If you're taking out pests (skunks, small deer, etc) it can take four or five shots over as many seconds.

Nobody competent fires in "rapid succession" unless they're being attacked, shooting a semi requires a measured pace (1 shot every 1-2 seconds at fastest) or you ain't hitting shiat.

But yeah, "anything you just need to kill rather than wanting to eat it" is the answer to your question. The majority of animals you shoot in a rural setting aren't "hunting", they're pest control. Deer, raccoons, coyotes whatever, if it eats your garden or kills/harasses your stock, it needs to die.

//Gonna go with "the more you know(TM)" instead of calling you a farking moron on this one, I assume you come by your ignorance honestly and are shoving it in our faces through internet incompetence rather than genuinely being too stupid to know what a semi-automatic is for.
 
2012-07-24 02:53:51 PM
Tank Girl sucked.
 
2012-07-24 03:06:49 PM
This far into an Ice-T thread and only one Coco post. Son, I am disappoint.

/I am also at work, son, otherwise I'd post some too.
 
2012-07-24 03:14:20 PM
CognaciousThunk: This far into an Ice-T thread and only one Coco post. Son, I am disappoint.

/I am also at work, son, otherwise I'd post some too.


www.onlineworldofwrestling.com

My safesearch at work was disappointing
 
2012-07-24 03:19:46 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com

And rope. Let's not forget rope.
 
2012-07-24 04:19:13 PM
PanicMan: Eapoe6: So, according to anti-gun people, the only people with guns should be those paid by the state to make us do stuff?

No. No one is seriously proposing that. All people are saying is it sucks when lots of people get killed, and maybe there's some stuff we can all agree on that will reduce the chance of this happening again.


Random nuts have always existed. You can do nothing about them. The TSA is useless and demoralizing. Cowards should stay home and not clamor for more frisking in public places. They may also move to the UK and enjoy that jack booted kick squads they have there.
 
2012-07-24 04:21:44 PM
BroVinny: Tank Girl sucked.


True, but "Surviving the Game" was great.
 
2012-07-24 04:25:11 PM
rudemix: The US will never do away with anything that is a commodity again, as long as they can exercise control over its profit. Drugs, too hard to control. Guns, cigarettes, booze, oxy, etc are controllable. These things all lead to dead citizens in the wrong, or incapable hands. Do you think a country that discusses outlawing costumes but not cigs is going to do away with any profitable industry? We are less citizens at this point and more consumers and that is how we are treated. They need us working on, and consuming, products to keep the structure as it is in place.


So let me get this straight.....drugs are hard to control, but booze is controllable?

Ever heard of Prohibition?

Oh....and let me take this opportunity to recommend "Boardwalk Empire".
 
2012-07-24 04:32:12 PM
The_Sponge: BroVinny: Tank Girl sucked.


True, but "Surviving the Game" was great.


Amen to that. Maybe my favorite Ice-T movie. New Jack City was good, too. I even liked Trespass.
 
2012-07-24 04:40:35 PM
rufus-t-firefly: Now that the man who recorded "Cop Killer" has said this, I expect conservatives to come out in favor of gun control. Perhaps restricting their sale to minorities. "Original intent" and all that.

You should hang out on some gun forums. A lot of those posters really, really don't like cops.
 
2012-07-24 05:03:43 PM
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
~Mao Tse-Tung
 
2012-07-24 05:12:07 PM
MayoSlather: Fark It: MayoSlather: Oh come now let's not play the I'm a naive babe in the woods game. It's evident in our society that the majority that supports gun rights also supports a larger military even if you personally do not.

Citation needed.

As for your natural disaster scenarios...the last time I checked what typically happens in America is there is an outpouring of support in these situations not unchecked chaos. Yes looting does occur, but how is a revolver or a hunting rifle not enough? It's also quite a stretch down the road in fear filled "what if" -ville.

The AR is one of, if not the most common hunting platform in the United States.

Citation needed? really?

And what exactly are people hunting that requires 10+ rounds of ammo fired in rapid succession being pumped into it to kill it? Unnecessary.


Teddy Roosevelt qualifies... just sayin'.
 
2012-07-24 07:44:12 PM
Tyrone Slothrop: browser_snake: Guns Militias were the #2 thing on the founding fathers' minds when they drafted the Constitution. He's got a point.

Fixed


mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

In other words, armed private citizens.
 
2012-07-24 08:14:53 PM
MayoSlather: Revolvers

Something like 80% of murders are committed with revolvers. Turns out people watch CSI and aren't stupid... ejected shell casings = evidence. Just pointing out the fallacy of your argument there.

Anyways, not a gun nut fantasy or anything (I don't own any handguns and don't have a CC permit) - but if a few people in that theater had been allowed to have concealed weapons, they may have been able to stop things before he managed to shoot 70 people. These mass killings always occur where the shooters know no one will be shooting back...

Movie theaters ban concealed carry on premise - Aurora, CO
Federal Government Bans guns on college campuses - Virginia Tech
Federal Government Bans guns on high school campuses - Columbine

There are examples where people breaking these laws have stopped shootings, but I'm sure I've seemingly trolled enough for now and others can begin flaming me for not wanting to put my trust in the cops to protect me... All I can say is that it's a good thing the authorities showed up in Aurora to file all the reports that needed filling out after it was all over.
 
2012-07-24 09:03:05 PM
The guy in Aurora rigged his apartment to blow up, but his neighbors were really lucky that nobody barged in there like a retard.

He could easily have blown up the theater, found other means to commit mass murder that didn't involve guns. He planned it out deliberately, and did it "well".

It's completely stupid to think that a ban on "military assault weapons (OMFG THINK OF TEH CHILDRENS)" would have stopped him from killing a bunch of people. People that want to break your laws find a way to get around your dumb laws.
 
2012-07-25 01:58:38 AM
you're gonna need guns in every house to shoot down all the drones coming to your airspace in the next few years. the biggest affront to freedom and liberty in 200 years and barely a peep from anybody.
are you libs ok with this in the name of government control? or what?
 
2012-07-25 10:38:16 AM
I don't post here very often, but exactly what part of this comment makes him a "dumbass" as indicated in the tag? Seems like a simple "pro-2nd amendment" stance that is shared by 50% of the country or more. I don't get it.
 
2012-07-25 04:37:33 PM
Ecliptic: MayoSlather: Revolvers

Something like 80% of murders are committed with revolvers. Turns out people watch CSI and aren't stupid... ejected shell casings = evidence. Just pointing out the fallacy of your argument there.

Anyways, not a gun nut fantasy or anything (I don't own any handguns and don't have a CC permit) - but if a few people in that theater had been allowed to have concealed weapons, they may have been able to stop things before he managed to shoot 70 people. These mass killings always occur where the shooters know no one will be shooting back...

Movie theaters ban concealed carry on premise - Aurora, CO
Federal Government Bans guns on college campuses - Virginia Tech
Federal Government Bans guns on high school campuses - Columbine

There are examples where people breaking these laws have stopped shootings, but I'm sure I've seemingly trolled enough for now and others can begin flaming me for not wanting to put my trust in the cops to protect me... All I can say is that it's a good thing the authorities showed up in Aurora to file all the reports that needed filling out after it was all over.


I'm no advocate for gun control but there is no way MORE people shooting guns in a pitch black theater would have improved anything.
 
2012-07-26 04:02:26 PM
Better start the list of things to ban. Once that's completed wait until you see how the crazy knuckle draggers resort to using chemistry to do their dirty work.

Zn + 2HCl -----> ZnCl2 + H2 - and that's nothin'

Thank God we have already outlawed lawn jarts!
 
2012-07-27 04:01:50 PM
i1240.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report