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 Editorial: Average Americans don't need an AK-47. James Homes Editorial: I did ok without one. Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation   (cnn.com) divider line 315
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 12:23:11 PM  
1. Basing law on the Aurora shoots is a bad idea. He had explosives, was very smart, and was going to kill people regardless of whether he had an assault weapon or not. As a matter of fact, I would have been more scared of the shotgun at that range than an AK.

2. There is no merit to limiting magazine size. If it can easily be removed, it isn't going to put that much of a dent in rounds per minute of someone firing semi-auto.

3. If you want to put a dent in gun crime, you need to be looking at handguns. No one knocks over a quicky mart or car jacks someone carrying an assault rifle. Might as well have a sign over your head saying "I'm up to no good, please call the cops." Handguns, being easily concealable, are the weapon of choice.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:26 PM  

orclover: Fart_Machine: So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?

Its not like we will ever have another riot right?

Ok your trolling, i know I get that i understand believe me, your just doing your job and you are doing well. But outlaw ALL assault weapons, outlaw them and ban anything associated with them and what have you stopped with the top two most recent mass shootings? Nothing. Cho used a couple pistols with impossible to ban hi cap mags, hell ban 10+ round mags, and you just end up carrying more mags. How does it affect sideshow bob? more shotgun use? yea thats so much less lethal. So what would you need to do to stop mass shootings, or hell even slow it down so its not as effective? Ban all guns that cary more than a couple rounds in the chamber? hell revolvers too for that matter. And then go and get ALL those weapons that fall under that catagory out of civillian hands, what are you going to ask nicely?

So pro-nogunz advocates want door to door swat actions on american citizens to remove those weapons from circulation? No, no they dont, because it would lead to daily "gun nut vs. swat rundown" with growing tally of dead that would put todays shooting to absolute shame. But hey they would most ly be conservative gun owners getting killed and conservative cops getting shot doing their job, so maybe thats the goal. Politics by attrition, whatever works amiright?

But no this is a stupid issue, with no solution other than bloodshed. But we all know that right? thats why this is a troll thread with all of us throwing feces at each other like snowballs.


Its funny how you took my simple snark at a stupid analogy to mean outlawing all assault weapons. Lighten up Francis.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:35 PM  
Better to have guns and somewhat more dangerous crime than no guns and no crime.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:51 PM  

Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".


Hey lets do those too!
 
2012-08-01 12:24:17 PM  

No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?


As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.
 
2012-08-01 12:25:28 PM  

tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle.


Plus tanks, fighter planes, battleships, bombers, and oh yeah, a pair of atomic bombs.

Silly example is silly.
 
2012-08-01 12:25:37 PM  

Frank N Stein: Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.

Come on.


Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?
 
2012-08-01 12:25:45 PM  

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


Are you claiming more laws dealing with rape and murder will eliminate those crimes?

Noone is asking for a relaxation of firearms laws....people with common sense don't believe more laws will stop anything.

The way you start losing your shiat in posts and start bolding things and using big fonts leads me to believe you are mentally unstable....why should "mentally unstable" only come into play with firearms....how do we know you're not gonna lose your shiat and plow into a sidewalk full of pedestrians.
 
2012-08-01 12:26:53 PM  

Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.


I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!
 
2012-08-01 12:27:01 PM  

Anenu: Frank N Stein: Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.

Come on.

Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


lol
 
2012-08-01 12:27:29 PM  
Slaves2Darkness:
We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

30 mph might be a bit slow on the highway, given how big the continent is. But that IS the approximate limit in cities, because going faster in those areas is unnecessary and unsafe. So it's actually a pretty good argument.
 
2012-08-01 12:27:32 PM  

dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.


Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:20 PM  

Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!


Glasers.....if they are good enough for the inisde of an airplane they should be good enough for inside apartment buildings.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:23 PM  

neritz: Happy Hours: That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.

Have you ever tried to fire an AK? They're not the most accurate rifle out there.


Fired an Uzi once. About shot my face off. Those things should come with warning labels.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:36 PM  
You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Actually, some good, public mental health legislation (like setting up a public mental health system) would go a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way towards preventing these tragedies from happening.

So you're wrong, subby.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:06 PM  

Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.


That doesn't explain the tanks, or every podunk police force getting Homeland Security money to fight terrorism.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:16 PM  
If terrorists hate us because of our freedoms, then?
 
2012-08-01 12:29:53 PM  

Anenu: Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But full auto weapons are already heavily controlled due to the 1934 National Firearms act and the Hughes amendment in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection act. I kinda sounded like a douchebag with my reply, so I apologize.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:59 PM  

tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.


Hypothetical? We have had riots every time a wall street banker gets a bonus, every time a sports team wins something, and every time a gang banger gets shot by police.
 
2012-08-01 12:30:40 PM  

Giltric: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

Glasers.....if they are good enough for the inisde of an airplane they should be good enough for inside apartment buildings.


Two layers of drywall and you are in the next apartment...
 
2012-08-01 12:31:02 PM  
America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.
 
2012-08-01 12:31:07 PM  

CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......
 
2012-08-01 12:31:19 PM  

CPennypacker: Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".

Hey lets do those too!


Great idea! the problem as i see it is the government is limited in time, will and resources. I think we should take care of all the low hanging fruit that will save hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives before fighting a long protracted war against gun ownership.

Yes, the government can do more than one thing at a time (in theory) but they can't do it all at once. If people are clamoring for new gun laws ( best number I could find was rifles killed 358 people in 2010) than they aren't writing their representatives and pushing for things like the HPV vaccination (expected to pass smoking as one of the leading causes of cancer) or mental health (30k-35k suicides a year). Without people complaining about it it will never get done.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:06 PM  

tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.


That situation never happened during the LA Riots either. Looters didn't care about the capacity of ammo. They didn't want to get shot. It wasn't like they were holding off zombie hordes.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:09 PM  

dittybopper:
This does:

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x400]

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.


Except not one of them is using an assault rifle. I see a likely semi-automatic rifle, 2 shotguns and one handgun in that picture. None are set up to fire more than one round at a time. If you're protecting your house/store wouldn't it make more sense to go for accuracy than to just shoot up your entire neighborhood?
 
2012-08-01 12:32:42 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: [i286.photobucket.com image 850x708]

/obligatory


The flint pistol always cracks me up.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:51 PM  
Legalize drugs and watch gun violence drop.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:00 PM  

odinsposse: Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.

That doesn't explain the tanks, or every podunk police force getting Homeland Security money to fight terrorism.


Yea, I don't think they need tanks, drones, or APCs but I have no problem letting them have reasonable access too special weapons to combat likely threats in the area. Even if it is regulated to a specific department like another farker said.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:17 PM  
Every time I look into one of these threads I get the impression many of the anti gun control people are actually living in Somalia and not in the US. Are you really in serious danger of being attacked by a small army in your home so you need a huge gun with plenty of ammunition for self-defense?

(Don't really understand where the Second Amendment says you have the right to own any gun you want, it just says you have the right to bear arms...)
 
2012-08-01 12:33:24 PM  
Anyone who says you need a hi-cap magazine for hunting is an unsportsmanlike cock. Better men than us hunted bigger game armed with an inaccurate single-shot rifles - and they didn't have a Safeway nearby with a deli case if they missed.

How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:47 PM  

No Such Agency: Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


We like to fantasize about Wyatt Erp and the Hatfields and McCoys and we are really defeatist about gun violence to the point of considering it the acceptable cost of living in today's crazy world. And then we refuse to recognize that there might be a problem with sending people to war for 5 - 10 years and then having em be totally cool when they're done. And we also refuse to recognize that mental healthcare is inadequate and overpriced in this country.

And we're only capable of thinking about one thing at a time. So it's Guns OR mental health, never both.

Hope that helps.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:57 PM  

Jacko8x: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,).


We've had this discussion. The Supreme court has had this discussion. Look up Heller v DC, then get back into the conversation.
 
2012-08-01 12:34:25 PM  

Carth: CPennypacker: Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".

Hey lets do those too!

Great idea! the problem as i see it is the government is limited in time, will and resources. I think we should take care of all the low hanging fruit that will save hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives before fighting a long protracted war against gun ownership.

Yes, the government can do more than one thing at a time (in theory) but they can't do it all at once. If people are clamoring for new gun laws ( best number I could find was rifles killed 358 people in 2010) than they aren't writing their representatives and pushing for things like the HPV vaccination (expected to pass smoking as one of the leading causes of cancer) or mental health (30k-35k suicides a year). Without people complaining about it it will never get done.


Maybe if we weren't voting on repealing healthcare or limiting abortions every day we'd HAVE SOME FKING TIME FOR IT ALL
 
2012-08-01 12:34:30 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.


Except it's more like, let's put governing devices to limit speeds to no faster than 30MPH in all the NEW cars, but all the old ones will stay legal. You can still have the old cars, and drive them as fast as you like, but you can't buy a new one that'll go over the limit.
 
2012-08-01 12:34:42 PM  

Carth: But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.


Like what? North Hollywood? The one where the only two people killed were the asshole bank robbers? The one where if the police had deer rifles in .308 Winchester or .30'06 Springfield in their cars like they used to have back in the 1950's, they could have stopped them cold?

Actually the typical 1950's patrol rifle would have been a Winchester or Marlin lever action in .30-30 Winchester, with pump and bolt action rifles a distant second, but even those probably would have been effective against the bank robbers in North Hollywood.
 
2012-08-01 12:35:54 PM  

Klopfer: Every time I look into one of these threads I get the impression many of the anti gun control people are actually living in Somalia and not in the US. Are you really in serious danger of being attacked by a small army in your home so you need a huge gun with plenty of ammunition for self-defense?

(Don't really understand where the Second Amendment says you have the right to own any gun you want, it just says you have the right to bear arms...)


Heh. People still hunt deer with automatic weapons? How cute.

What do you think land mines are for?
 
2012-08-01 12:36:20 PM  

Happy Hours: syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


Need is irrelevant.

The primary rationale in the 2nd amendment indicates everyone gets to have a gun so a militia can be raised when needed, but folks get their guns even when not in the militia. The folks writing it still remembered a nasty war where they rebelled against their country, and were able to do so because everyone was armed before they started assembling, not after. And they were armed with the same stuff the government soldiers had.

The 2nd Amendment protects the ability to respond to both an external threat and an internal one from an oppressive regime.

Yes, it's unlikely we'll ever need it. Yes, it makes our day-to-day world a little more dangerous all around. Freedoms are like that--we have rights, but there's an unspoken (unfortunately so) responsibility to use them carefully, and there will always be people who abuse the right and ignore the responsibility. Just because someone does so, however, should never cause the rest of us to lose the right.

If we tried, we could probably round up all the guns, or most of them. It would probably make life safer for people. But we need to remember that life in general isn't safe, and accept a little more risk in our lives in order to maintain our rights.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag?


That's why I move to ban throws in Street Fighter. It's total bullshiat! I blocked that shiat!
 
2012-08-01 12:36:30 PM  

CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.


Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:31 PM  

Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!


I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:52 PM  

TheBitterest: dittybopper:
This does:

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x400]

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.

Except not one of them is using an assault rifle. I see a likely semi-automatic rifle, 2 shotguns and one handgun in that picture. None are set up to fire more than one round at a time. If you're protecting your house/store wouldn't it make more sense to go for accuracy than to just shoot up your entire neighborhood?



Seen many assault rilfes have ya?
 
2012-08-01 12:37:29 PM  

No Such Agency: dittybopper:
Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-01 12:37:38 PM  
Antimatter:
No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.


The average # of shots fired in self-defense seems to be less than three*. You think you might need 17-30?

* source: I Googled "average number of shots fired in self-defense"
 
2012-08-01 12:38:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Anyone who says you need a hi-cap magazine for hunting is an unsportsmanlike cock. Better men than us hunted bigger game armed with an inaccurate single-shot rifles - and they didn't have a Safeway nearby with a deli case if they missed.

How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.


Protip: 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

PS, many states already regulate the amount of ammunition you can have in a magazine while hunting.

PPS, laser sights don't work the way you think they work apparently

PPPS, considering that most many states already limit the amount of ammo in a magazine on a hunt, what difference does it make if the gun automatically expels the spend round and rechambers another round and a gun that uses a lever mechanism that can have a followup shot almost as quick?
 
2012-08-01 12:38:26 PM  

Cletus C.: dittybopper: Cletus C.: Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.

I'm calling "Markley's Law".

You just lost the argument by default.

You sound small penised.


I'd say my cock is average sized:

img134.imageshack.us

My cock can hold 1" flints in it's jaws. If you look very carefully, you can see my touch-hole liner.

But, again, since you invoked a variant of "Godwin's Law", you lost. Sucks to be you, I guess.
 
2012-08-01 12:38:31 PM  

Anenu: Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


It doesn't matter if a criminal can get ahold of any particular weapon. A truly determined individual can do damn near anything.

This doesn't mean that damn near anything should be legal.

Laws reduce the likelihood. And that's all it needs to do to be valuable.
 
2012-08-01 12:38:57 PM  

Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......


Because the state must maintain a militia to perform its function, and because that is fundamentally dangerous to freedom, the right of the people, as an entity separate from the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
2012-08-01 12:39:26 PM  

beta_plus: America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.


Norway doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They have far more guns per capita than most populations on the planet.
 
2012-08-01 12:40:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.


Okay so the other day I was walking through the forest and I came upon a clearing filled with 100 deer...
 
2012-08-01 12:40:30 PM  

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


I am pro gun, in general, but I have to side with you on this point CORVUS.

I have no real issue with sensible regulation. Flat out knee jerk bans, I do have issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 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