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.

(CNN)   CNN reports that Sideshow Bob had 30 homemade grenades and gasoline in his apartment ready to blow. Naturally CNN gives you big scary gun photos that might kill you if you stare too long   (cnn.com) divider line 346
    More: Stupid, Sideshow Bob, CNN, Colorado, grenades, third floor, FBI Laboratory, gasoline  
•       •       •

11415 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 1:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 03:23:50 PM
I hate to go full internet tough guy, but I would gladly empty my wallet for 3 minutes alone with that guy
 
2012-07-24 03:23:50 PM

griffer: Ad Hominem attacks.

On with my day.

Al_Ed, i'd stick around to help you work though it, but the stench in here is unbearable.


DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEE!
 
2012-07-24 03:24:07 PM

Fliegan: Every time I see this guy and his dopey hair and that spaced-out look on his face, I imagine his thought process when dying his hair only involved how cool and "movie-like" it would look to have orange hair with guns blazing away (he probably even imagined a slight breeze blowing through his curly locks, forgetting that the gas mask would cover up most of his hair).


I'll be in my bunk
 
2012-07-24 03:24:28 PM

Al_Ed: griffer: Ad Hominem attacks.

On with my day.

Al_Ed, i'd stick around to help you work though it, but the stench in here is unbearable.

DON'T LEAVE MEEEEEE!


Hey, do you need sanctuary from this filth?

Your handle looks naked.
 
2012-07-24 03:25:04 PM

stonicus: Fliegan: Every time I see this guy and his dopey hair and that spaced-out look on his face, I imagine his thought process when dying his hair only involved how cool and "movie-like" it would look to have orange hair with guns blazing away (he probably even imagined a slight breeze blowing through his curly locks, forgetting that the gas mask would cover up most of his hair). He never thought about how it would look in a courtroom with 4 days of stubble on his chin and dark circles under his bulging eyes. Or, if he did think about the courtoom, he neglected to consider that every weird-o bad guy in a blockbuster comic-book movie has about three hours of hair and makeup before they start fiming every day; Heath Ledger's Joker had that crazed, smeared look, which was actually carefully applied make-up augmented by professional lighting and costumes. This guy really thought that this event was going to be just like a scene from a movie and he would have that insane yet heroic look that great actors and movie technicians can convey. Pathetic.

I get the idea he planned on killing himself afterwards, then pussied out. He clearly didn't intend on going back to his apartment. Didn't have supplies or ID to run away. He planned on dying... then changed his mind.


I disagree. If indeed he identifies with Joker, he wants to taunt the law. Remember Joker lays down and lets the cops take him so he can confront Batman in jail. This jerkoff surrenders to police without a fight when it would have been really easy to "go out in a blaze of glory" in a cop firefight. THEN he tells the cops, here's my name, here's my address. Go check it out and get a surprize. Big time taunt and he wants to be alive to see them twist and squirm and maybe get blowed up. This guy's big-time psychotic, but unlike your comic book villains he lacks the rational side to keep it together, likewise he lacks the resources and gang of lackeys it takes to crash the bus into the police station and bust him out.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:03 PM

Fliegan: Every time I see this guy and his dopey hair and that spaced-out look on his face, I imagine his thought process when dying his hair only involved how cool and "movie-like" it would look to have orange hair with guns blazing away (he probably even imagined a slight breeze blowing through his curly locks, forgetting that the gas mask would cover up most of his hair).


And helmet.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:56 PM

HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.


How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?
 
2012-07-24 03:30:03 PM
Dimensio, he is just a troll. No better than the shooter in his desperation for attention and a safe 'fight'.


/why not? he made me the gun freak that was abused as a child by a drunken male after being abandoned. whatever, he's a douche
 
2012-07-24 03:30:59 PM

griffer: Hey, do you need sanctuary from this filth?

Your handle looks naked.


I was cast aside like so much refuse...I feel like the new guy in the ward. I..I don't know anyone and have been avoiding eye contact all the while listening to the crazy ramblings...

*sniff*

I'm scared.
 
2012-07-24 03:31:13 PM

stonicus: That is just as plausible... I do think something happened in his mentality when he went back to his car and his mental direction changed, which is why he disclosed the bombs in his apartment. Brief moment of clairty perhaps?


One can only hope. Though I fear it might have been an attempt at getting the cops to his apartment just so they would trigger the bombs.
 
2012-07-24 03:31:32 PM

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.

How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?


Well ideally they would craft something that wouldn't be unreasonable to the majority.

And are you one of those people that suddenly has a strong opinion on mental health services in the wake of this? Because it's sounding like it.
 
2012-07-24 03:32:26 PM

griffer: Dimensio, he is just a troll. No better than the shooter in his desperation for attention and a safe 'fight'.


/why not? he made me the gun freak that was abused as a child by a drunken male after being abandoned. whatever, he's a douche


I thought we were playing psychologist. One thing about you gun nutters, you don't like return fire.
 
2012-07-24 03:32:37 PM
Lots of Stupid in this thread!
 
2012-07-24 03:33:57 PM
Aaaaaand he takes the safety.

The harsh regs will be perfect and palatable to the majority.


Riiiiight, I will call these the Unicorn Regs of Harshness.
 
2012-07-24 03:34:02 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.

How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?

Well ideally they would craft something that wouldn't be unreasonable to the majority.


I have yet to observe any legislator who wished to author new legislation restricting firearms ownership who did not suggest fundamentally unreasonable legislation. Typically, such legislators lack a fundamental understanding of firearms technology, resulting in legislation based wholly upon ignorance, such as an attempt to prohibit "barrel shrouds" despite the legislation author admitting ignorance as to the definition of the term.


And are you one of those people that suddenly has a strong opinion on mental health services in the wake of this? Because it's sounding like it.

Have I previously issued statements expressing apathy toward the poor condition of mental health services in the United States of America?
 
2012-07-24 03:35:07 PM

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.

How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?

Well ideally they would craft something that wouldn't be unreasonable to the majority.

I have yet to observe any legislator who wished to author new legislation restricting firearms ownership who did not suggest fundamentally unreasonable legislation. Typically, such legislators lack a fundamental understanding of firearms technology, resulting in legislation based wholly upon ignorance, such as an attempt to prohibit "barrel shrouds" despite the legislation author admitting ignorance as to the definition of the term.


I said ideally.


And are you one of those people that suddenly has a strong opinion on mental health services in the wake of this? Because it's sounding like it.

Have I previously issued statements expressing apathy toward the poor condition of mental health services in the United States of America?


I have no idea, that's why I asked.
 
2012-07-24 03:35:09 PM

kvinesknows: if this guy was any kind of real mastermind he would have frozen the gasoline into bullet shapes, packed his own rounds and fired gas bullets at everyone


Gas bullets?
I fire those off after Taco Night.
 
2012-07-24 03:35:14 PM
Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.
 
2012-07-24 03:35:32 PM
You don't return fire, you asshat.

You just slobber.

You didn't rebutt anything I posted.


Well, maybe a 1st grader thinks 'You're Stupid' style replies are a rebuttal.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:44 PM

stonicus: I do think something happened in his mentality when he went back to his car and his mental direction changed, which is why he disclosed the bombs in his apartment. Brief moment of clairty perhaps?


That did strike me as weird. He thinks this whole bomb and shooting plot up, goes in and shoots a bunch of people, and then when he walks out and the cops see him, he just gives up. It's a bit odd.

That being said, the cops haven't released exactly what he told them, have they? I still think one of the reasons for the bombs in his apartment were to have someone trip them, blowing the place up and distracting first responders while he's shooting up the theater. It makes me wonder if he told the cops he was also responsible for the bombing, thinking it had already gone off.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:09 PM

quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.


The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:24 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.

How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?

Well ideally they would craft something that wouldn't be unreasonable to the majority.

I have yet to observe any legislator who wished to author new legislation restricting firearms ownership who did not suggest fundamentally unreasonable legislation. Typically, such legislators lack a fundamental understanding of firearms technology, resulting in legislation based wholly upon ignorance, such as an attempt to prohibit "barrel shrouds" despite the legislation author admitting ignorance as to the definition of the term.

I said ideally.


Then you did not address my initial question: how will we be "better off" through implementation of unreasonable regulation that fails to address the fundamental causes of mas murder?

And are you one of those people that suddenly has a strong opinion on mental health services in the wake of this? Because it's sounding like it.

Have I previously issued statements expressing apathy toward the poor condition of mental health services in the United States of America?

I have no idea, that's why I asked.


I have never denied that mental health services in the United States are lacking.
 
2012-07-24 03:39:07 PM

griffer: You don't return fire, you asshat.


I threw your shiat back in your face and you can't stop crying about it.

You didn't rebutt anything I posted.

You were trying to rebut me, remember? Then you decided that you were Freud or something, I don't know.
 
2012-07-24 03:40:16 PM

Dimensio: Then you did not address my initial question: how will we be "better off" through implementation of unreasonable regulation that fails to address the fundamental causes of mas murder?


I did answer that. You just won't accept that there is a such thing as reasonable in this case.
 
2012-07-24 03:40:51 PM

killershark: stonicus: I do think something happened in his mentality when he went back to his car and his mental direction changed, which is why he disclosed the bombs in his apartment. Brief moment of clairty perhaps?

That did strike me as weird. He thinks this whole bomb and shooting plot up, goes in and shoots a bunch of people, and then when he walks out and the cops see him, he just gives up. It's a bit odd.

That being said, the cops haven't released exactly what he told them, have they? I still think one of the reasons for the bombs in his apartment were to have someone trip them, blowing the place up and distracting first responders while he's shooting up the theater. It makes me wonder if he told the cops he was also responsible for the bombing, thinking it had already gone off.


farking kids these days are too lazy to stick to anything. I'm surprised he didn't put his hands up for a "timeout"
 
2012-07-24 03:42:24 PM

redmid17: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.


Fair enough then, so I'm talking about an actual ban on assault weapons... as in anything semi-automatic, instead of the AWB of the past.

Yes, I'm aware semi-auto includes machine pistols. If you're defending yourself and need semi-auto, your aim sucks and you shouldn't have a gun.
 
2012-07-24 03:42:37 PM
re"but"....huh huh...huh huh huh...
 
2012-07-24 03:42:56 PM

Raharu: Ah, the guy with theory that the President is secretly working the black panthers is ordering thousands of rounds. Do you get free shipping on your tinfoil hats? Is it more expensive to buy the hats pre-made, or do you make them yourself to keep your money out of the hands of big tinfoil?


How is that relevant to this thread? Don't be a douchebag... stay on topic or I'll cock slap you over the 'net

 
2012-07-24 03:43:17 PM

killershark: stonicus: I do think something happened in his mentality when he went back to his car and his mental direction changed, which is why he disclosed the bombs in his apartment. Brief moment of clairty perhaps?

That did strike me as weird. He thinks this whole bomb and shooting plot up, goes in and shoots a bunch of people, and then when he walks out and the cops see him, he just gives up. It's a bit odd.

That being said, the cops haven't released exactly what he told them, have they? I still think one of the reasons for the bombs in his apartment were to have someone trip them, blowing the place up and distracting first responders while he's shooting up the theater. It makes me wonder if he told the cops he was also responsible for the bombing, thinking it had already gone off.


That's a curious point, how did he word the "bombs in my apartment" statement. As a warning or confession, as you say, thinking it had already happened? I could easily see if he thought it had gone off, him being all "yeah, that was my bomb too". Or, him having a brief 2 second moment of clairty going "oh shiat, wtf?!? bombs are in my apartment!" before the crazy slips back in.
 
2012-07-24 03:43:50 PM

quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.


If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
 
2012-07-24 03:44:01 PM

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: It's a pendulum. Do you really think people and politicians are going to sit around and let this happen every few months in perpetuity? Harsh regs are coming, and we'll all be better off for it.

How will be "better off" in the presence of unreasonable regulations that will not actually address the fundamental causes of mass murder?

Well ideally they would craft something that wouldn't be unreasonable to the majority.

I have yet to observe any legislator who wished to author new legislation restricting firearms ownership who did not suggest fundamentally unreasonable legislation. Typically, such legislators lack a fundamental understanding of firearms technology, resulting in legislation based wholly upon ignorance, such as an attempt to prohibit "barrel shrouds" despite the legislation author admitting ignorance as to the definition of the term.

I said ideally.

Then you did not address my initial question: how will we be "better off" through implementation of unreasonable regulation that fails to address the fundamental causes of mas murder?

And are you one of those people that suddenly has a strong opinion on mental health services in the wake of this? Because it's sounding like it.

Have I previously issued statements expressing apathy toward the poor condition of mental health services in the United States of America?

I have no idea, that's why I asked.

I have never denied that mental health services in the United States are lacking.


www.review.net
 
2012-07-24 03:45:33 PM

quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.


The AR-15 platform is popular amongst hunters and target shooters. Your claim that no valid reason exists to own one is therefore a lie.

Please explain why you should be considered credible following your demonstrable use of lies.
 
2012-07-24 03:45:52 PM

quiotu: redmid17: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.

Fair enough then, so I'm talking about an actual ban on assault weapons... as in anything semi-automatic, instead of the AWB of the past.

Yes, I'm aware semi-auto includes machine pistols. If you're defending yourself and need semi-auto, your aim sucks and you shouldn't have a gun.


Well now you're talking about outlawing guns that make up about 70% of guns sold in 2006. Banning everything semi-auto means you'll have probably tens of millions (at the very least) of illegal guns in the hands of civilians. How do propose on addressing that?

* Grandfathering in that many guns is pointless
* Buying those guns at fair market price would take a lot of money
* Seizing those guns from people would really piss off a large chunk of society and would be severely impractical to say the least
 
2012-07-24 03:46:05 PM

HotWingConspiracy: He murdered people with guns.


Actually, at least from the reports I've heard, he murdered people who didn't have guns.
 
2012-07-24 03:46:17 PM

Bontesla: The Stealth Hippopotamus: ourbigdumbmouth: Isn't it a little disrespectful to the legal process and to the victims to call this guy Sideshow Bob?

No. It's disrespectful to him. And that's kinda the point.

And when are we going to hear the calls for more bomb laws?!

Why didn't his apartment blow skyhigh? If he ready wanted to kill a lot of people and he really is as smart as people are saying he would have to know they would find where he lived. And the odds of him getting away were long. So why wouldnt he place a time triggered bomb in the apartment? Somewhere between 12 & 24 hours everyone and their mother will be crowded around that pace. Cops, reporters and looky Lous will be right there. And on the off chance you do get away you could deactivate it. Doesnt make sense.

And if he had bombs why didn't he use them in the attack??

I think we're still unclear on his intention and whether or not he accomplished his goal.


Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.
 
2012-07-24 03:47:37 PM

quiotu: redmid17: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

The AWB was retarded because it banned cosmetic features, not guns with the functionality you are talking about.

Fair enough then, so I'm talking about an actual ban on assault weapons... as in anything semi-automatic, instead of the AWB of the past.

Yes, I'm aware semi-auto includes machine pistols. If you're defending yourself and need semi-auto, your aim sucks and you shouldn't have a gun.


Ban something that Boy Scouts use to earn merit badges? Lol, yeah that's gunna happen.
 
2012-07-24 03:48:02 PM

CapeFearCadaver: James!: He was probably hoping to kill some cops with it.

Except that he told the cops about the bomb threat in his apartment. That part of this doesn't make sense to me... I remember reading one article where his downstairs neighbor said that at midnight techno-music started blasting from his apartment (and turned off at 1am), she went upstairs against recommendations from her boyfriend to bang on his door about turing the music off... there was no answer so I guess she said screw it. But that kind of makes me think this scenerio had played out between them before and perhaps she was the target of that one...

/conjecture


What, she had a history of entering uninvited?
 
2012-07-24 03:48:09 PM

Giltric: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.


That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?
 
2012-07-24 03:51:20 PM

brigid_fitch: Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.


Seems rather complicated. Why not just put the explosives on a timer, that'd be more reliable than the off-chance someone comes a-knockin', or calls cops who'll bust in the door.
 
2012-07-24 03:51:35 PM

sirgrim: vegasj: actually CNN...

[a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x544]

You don't know the difference between thousand and thousands do you?


i.imgur.com

/better?
 
2012-07-24 03:52:09 PM
I see the bootlickers who use Drew, Drew & beer, or Duke sucks in every headline to get greenlight are already forcing the SIdeshow Bob thing at Drew's behest.

Drew needs the same thing Lucas did on the new trilogy...a "no" man.
 
2012-07-24 03:53:32 PM

stonicus: That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?


I know, I hate that argument. If the government becomes "formidable to the liberties of the people", you gun nuts aren't going to do a damned thing and you know it.
 
2012-07-24 03:53:50 PM

quiotu: I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.


Defintionally, that's hard.

That gun is like so many other magazine fed, semi-automatic hunting rifles firing .223 Remington civilian round.

What exactly made that particular model gun more deadly? Nothing. How do write legislation that works?

Oh, it LOOKS like a military weapon?

From the wiki article-

Assault Rifle-
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire; (fire modes including single shot, or multiple or full auto fire)
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
-And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Assault Weapon- It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

These are AESTHETIC things that don't make a weapon more deadly, they just make it look 'scarier'.

Did you know rifles used in the Winter Olympics qualify as assault weapons?


I am not saying no regulation, rather I am asking that we sponsor legislation that makes rational sense and isn't motivated by fear.

One last point about the specific weapon, the M&P15 and other AR-15 style weapons. The M&P15 is designed as a tactical weapon. That means its intended to be used against people. Let's not be blind to that point. But I know many property owners in the wake of Katrina were very happy to have tactical rifles in their possession to defend their property.

As stable as out society is, there are place and points in time where the police can't help you, and if you are facing large numbers of hostiles, this weapon is for that.
 
2012-07-24 03:57:11 PM

griffer: Defintionally, that's hard.

That gun is like so many other magazine fed, semi-automatic hunting rifles firing .223 Remington civilian round.

What exactly made that particular model gun more deadly? Nothing. How do write legislation that works?

Oh, it LOOKS like a military weapon?

From the wiki article-

Assault Rifle-
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire; (fire modes including single shot, or multiple or full auto fire)
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
-And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Assault Weapon- It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

These are AESTHETIC things that don't make a weapon more deadly, they just make it look 'scarier'.

Did you know rifles used in the Winter Olympics qualify as assault weapons?


I am not saying no regulation, rather I am asking that we sponsor legislation that makes rational sense and isn't motivated by fear.

One last point about the specific weapon, the M&P15 and other AR-15 style weapons. The M&P15 is designed as a tactical weapon. That means its intended to be used against people. Let's not be blind to that point. But I know many property owners in the wake of Katrina were very happy to have tactical rifles in their possession to defend their property.
...


Ex-f*cking-actly! Close your eyes and let me shoot you with a single shot bolt action hunting rifle and then with a M4 semi-automatic assault rifle with optics, laser sight, folding stock, bayonet, and fuzzy dice hanging off the ventilated foregrip.

Which one hurts or kills more readily?
 
2012-07-24 03:57:51 PM

stonicus: Giltric: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?


Ask the Vietnamese what level of weaponry you need to grind American forces to a halt.
 
2012-07-24 03:58:14 PM

stonicus: Giltric: quiotu: Of all these threads about NRA and gun control, I still haven't seen a very valid argument about why a ban on assault weapons would be so bad. Not all guns, just stuff like the AR-15 this guy was using.

It's the only type of gun procurable in the US that doesn't have a valid reason for a civilian to own one. 'Because I can' and 'it's fun to shoot' don't count, either. It's not like you can argue that lack of guns cause more deaths. Most civilized countries other than the US with strict gun laws have extremely low firearm deaths per capita. The issue clearly isn't more guns, since around 80% of Americans already own one. Hasn't exactly helped the ratio any.

So... someone explain to me again the downside to an AWB, other than one of your toys becomes illegal to own.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

That made sense in Hamilton's time because it was actually possible. That isn't possible anymore. Do you know what it would take for the civilian population to compete with the military? Do you know what we'd have to be able to be allowed to own, to even have a miniscule chance in hell of competeing with the military?


A Mosin-Nagant?

www.mikescampfire.com
 
2012-07-24 03:58:56 PM
To those that think an armed citizenry cannot over throw the government: You won't sound so smug when Tea Baggers take over the country and you have armored hover rounds rolling down your street

/In actuality a citizenry that can properly shoot would be very important in a time of nation crisis/invasion/draft.
//Shooting clubs taught future WW2 GIs how to operate the M1 before they entered service
 
2012-07-24 03:59:37 PM

brigid_fitch: Don't know if this was posted yet but someone on CNN this morning suggested that he set up the booby traps as a diversion prior to him gunning down theater patrons. He put on some techno music full-volume before leaving for the theater. The guess is he expected a neighbor to complain & someone, either the superintendent or the cops, to open the door, triggering a bunch of bombs & gasoline, and blow the building sky-high. That would give him more time for his rampage while first-responders were dealing with an apartment building on fire.


Makes more sense than anything else I've heard regarding that tidbit.
 
2012-07-24 04:00:35 PM
All Katniss needed was a bow.
 
2012-07-24 04:00:37 PM

Frank N Stein: To those that think an armed citizenry cannot over throw the government: You won't sound so smug when Tea Baggers take over the country and you have armored hover rounds rolling down your street

/In actuality a citizenry that can properly shoot would be very important in a time of nation crisis/invasion/draft.
//Shooting clubs taught future WW2 GIs how to operate the M1 before they entered service


The US Army ran a civilian marksmanship program for almost 100 years AND sold surplus rifles to the members of said program until 1996, but guns are bad so we can't do that anymore.
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report