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.

(Gizmodo)   Time machines are dangerous. Therefore, guns are too advanced for humans to be trusted with   (gizmodo.com) divider line 385
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10496 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-25 11:36:39 PM  

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?
 
2012-08-25 11:37:34 PM  

nigeman: how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?


stupid troll comic is stupid
 
2012-08-25 11:37:55 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.

The Supreme Court also once ruled that black people are property.

Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.


Just because you think they got this one wrong doesn't mean you are right.
 
2012-08-25 11:38:39 PM  
www.underconsideration.com
www.underconsideration.com

Nope... Not dangerous at all...
 
2012-08-25 11:39:11 PM  

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


HERR DERR HAR'S WUT I WOODA DUN TO DEM DAR TERISTS!

I'm all for gun rights, but shiat like that is farking pathetic.
 
2012-08-25 11:39:38 PM  

jaytkay: Great Janitor: jaytkay: pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.

oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?

You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.


You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?

There are millions of people in this country who own guns, millions, but, there are not the numbers of people who are murdered to say that all hand guns need to be taken away because of the murders because it's less than one percent of those with hand guns who cause the murders.

Let's also look at places like Chicago. Chicago has a 100% hand gun ban. But, there are hand gun murders in Chicago. A complete hand gun ban has done nothing but kept a city of 3 million people defenseless from those who have no problem going to the suburbs getting a gun, then breaking the law by bringing the guns into the city to commit more crimes. And that is one of the biggest flaws with the anti-gun movement, murderers break laws, so if you're going to commit a murder, what consequence is it to you to also break the no hand gun law? When you really think about it, if you use a hand gun to shoot someone in Chicago, what is the point is punishing you for breaking the hand gun ban? So in that view point, breaking the law of no hand guns is almost unpunishable, since odds are, you won't know they have a hand gun until it's used.
 
2012-08-25 11:40:12 PM  
I was looking at local news before coming to Fark. The first story I read: "Vancouver homeowner shoots, kills intruder." At the bottom of that article was a link to another story: "Whidbey Island woman beaten, strangled to death."

I wonder if the author of the time machine / gun story thinks the Whidbey Island woman is somehow superior to the Vancouver person who didn't want to be a victim. And I wonder why feminists, who otherwise claim that women should never rely on a man, say a woman should call 911 then spread her legs for a rapist instead of having access to a weapon for self defense.
 
2012-08-25 11:40:41 PM  
FTFA: How many people have to literally bleed to death in our streets before we realize that easy access to a tool that any unskilled person can use to snatch a life out of existence is too much responsibility for humans?

The alternative of only having weapons the skilled can use seems much worse to me. I'm not a trained historian, but I'm pretty sure that would lead to tyranny (not that guns are a sure fire way to avoid it or anything). Of course I should consider ancient Greece when I say this. I know they were a heavily restricted democracy, but perhaps they are a good counterexample. Anyone feel qualified to educate me on that?
 
2012-08-25 11:40:55 PM  
Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...
 
2012-08-25 11:41:31 PM  
 
2012-08-25 11:42:26 PM  

violentsalvation: nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.


This. I understand the argument about the militia and agree that it kind of makes sense. But I think it's wrong. Of course, what I think doesn't matter. SCOTUS has made it very clear how the 2nd is to be interpreted. So yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to change anything at this point.

Fortunately for me, I agree with SCOTUS on this issue. Now if we could just something done about the mistake called Citizens United.
 
2012-08-25 11:43:20 PM  

jaytkay: pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.

oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee


The lady doth protest too much, methinks
 
2012-08-25 11:44:11 PM  

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


Fine, than let's get rid of cars. Look at the number of automotive deaths per year and compare to gun deaths. Cars have to go; everyone can use public transport because that's safer.

Bacon needs to be banned, too. Red meat kills, there is science to prove it. I don't need to quote it, you are smart enough to google the numbers. More people die from eating red meat and the subsequent heart problems than from guns, so let's ban it too.

Tylenol is one of the deadliest over-the-counter medications. More deaths due to Tylenol overdose than some prescription meds. So, let's ban that. And aspirin while we're at it, because why not.

/stupid arguement
 
2012-08-25 11:44:15 PM  

RatMaster999: Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...


"someone should do something about Tiller"

Don't forget speech. Nothing but trouble.
 
2012-08-25 11:44:55 PM  
The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.
 
2012-08-25 11:45:49 PM  

Great Janitor: You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?


If he carries a gun, it's indicative of a society where guns are big business, where guns are promoted by politicians and easy for anyone to obtain, no matter how crazy they are. So you'll have the weekly/daily mass shootings that the US has been seeing this summer. These aren't mass stabbings, mass bombings, mass punchings. They're mass shootings - because free and easy access to guns makes it really easy for any crazy idiot to shoot whomever they like.
 
2012-08-25 11:46:09 PM  

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


Hey you managed to post something stupider than the article. Congrats.
 
2012-08-25 11:46:44 PM  
Setting people on fire is still okay.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:46 PM  

fastbow: nigeman: fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

What about the Japanese Tsunami? What about swimming pools? What about damned reservoirs and out-of-control rivers? Water's one vindictive biatch.

Or, to better adress your concern of design, nobody should have a knife. They're thousands of years old and designed to do one thing: kill. We've b ...


did you read what I wrote? How could you misunderstand it? How can you compare guns to a natural phenomenon like a tsunami? How are you that stupid ? You can't see a difference between the ease of killing someone with a gun or a knife? Or a bystander? Really? Stop being deliberately obtuse. The problem is the ease of killing someone and the lack of any real utilitarian use beyond that, apart from being an elaborate hole puncher. Now don't make me repeat myself again. Just go back and meditate on my reasoning, and you'll see it all quite simple to understand if you open your mind. good boy.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:49 PM  

TOSViolation: The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.


A-hyuck! Ah believes the gubmint should stay outta people's private lives. And the Constitooshun grants people all sortsa rights to say whatever they want.

Unless they're a dang-ol' librul.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:51 PM  

Farker Soze: RatMaster999: Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...

"someone should do something about Tiller"

Don't forget speech. Nothing but trouble.


Exactly. This whole internet thing needs to go.
 
2012-08-25 11:50:24 PM  

TWX: MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.


The 9mm under my bed would be useless if locked up. My 9mm would be illegal in your 10 round world.

Please tell me how someone would defend themselves if their gun was locked away. I'd love to hear it.

My wife knows its there and she also knows how to use it.
 
2012-08-25 11:51:08 PM  
Here's a hypothetical question: what if the second amendment had included explosives? What if it had said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms and explosives"?

Would that mean only gunpowder? Because back then that was the only explosive. Or would it mean that you should now be able to own C4? What about nuclear bombs?
 
2012-08-25 11:52:07 PM  

whatshisname: radiobiz: Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people.

Yes, and the average American keeps a handgun in their nightstand drawer to start marathons and bust up clay disks It's absolutely incredible how Americans will back peddle to try and justify their insatiable appetite for guns.


No back peddling here. You said guns are designed for one purpose and that is totally incorrect. There are many purposes.

You ever had a crazed drug addict try to break into your house at 2AM? I have. You ever had a stalker follow you around town? I have. You better believe there's a gun in my nightstand.

My shotgun's primary purpose is hunting, secondary is home defense. The handguns? Yep, they are designed to kill people. I've trained with them, practice regularly, carry them, and pray I'll never have use them on another human being.

Should there be limits? Absolutely, and I'm glad there are. But a total ban is idealistic and unreasonable.
 
2012-08-25 11:52:37 PM  

jaytkay: pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.

oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee


Seriously... Why the hell do you care if someone is carrying concealed while buying a slurpee? Is this something that keeps you up at night?

The people legally carrying aren't the problem.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:18 PM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?

If he carries a gun, it's indicative of a society where guns are big business, where guns are promoted by politicians and easy for anyone to obtain, no matter how crazy they are. So you'll have the weekly/daily mass shootings that the US has been seeing this summer. These aren't mass stabbings, mass bombings, mass punchings. They're mass shootings - because free and easy access to guns makes it really easy for any crazy idiot to shoot whomever they like.


Daily, weekly shootings??? Excuse me??? I think your numbers might be a bit off. But, don't you think it's a bit messed up to be in the frame of mind to think that anyone with a gun is a potential mass shooter? Great way to think the best of people. I know that were I live roughly one third of the population is carrying a concealed hand gun legally. It doesn't keep me scared hiding in my home, most of the time I don't even think about it. And in my area there hasn't been mass shootings or anything like that. The only time I've seen a gun fire a round I was at a firing range. And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:18 PM  

indylaw: ...tough road to hoe -...


Row to hoe.

/Sorry, man. Pet peeve.

I know, supposably there are people who could care less, and that's a mute point, but to each is own.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:23 PM  

Gaylord Fister: Here's a hypothetical question: what if the second amendment had included explosives? What if it had said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms and explosives"?

Would that mean only gunpowder? Because back then that was the only explosive. Or would it mean that you should now be able to own C4? What about nuclear bombs?


it's legal now, what do you think firecrackers and m-80's are?
 
2012-08-25 11:53:55 PM  

nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


...But to make this an argument for gun control, the audience must believe killing is always wrong.
Most people don't believe that, which is why there are laws allowing for Justifiable Homicide.

So the question is not just who should be allowed to own a gun, but who should have the ability to defend themselves with lethal force. If you say "only agents of the state" then we start going down a very different road than the original ideal of making the nation into a murder-free zone.
This is why people see gun control as being less about public safety and more about keeping the proletariat in line.


In the end, criminals and cops don't have to obey weapons laws.
The people who don't shoot other people will be weakened the most and gain the least.

I don't see why anyone in a democracy would want to support that.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:56 PM  

nigeman: fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


Logical fallacy: assuming the death happens because a gun is designed to kill. It could have happened in any other method. Pick one. There are a million ways to die.

It's not simple like you say it is.
 
2012-08-25 11:54:09 PM  

violentsalvation: GAT_00: violentsalvation: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.

The Supreme Court also once ruled that black people are property.

Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.

Just because you think they got this one wrong doesn't mean you are right.


Well, they pretended the original statement didn't exist, and just focused on the clause to the exclusion of the intent.

And just because you think they got it right doesn't mean you're right either.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:09 PM  

jaytkay: Great Janitor: jaytkay: pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.

oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?

You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.


I know anti-gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from the latest ill conceived gun control law (shoulder thing that goes up! OH NOES!), but just his once, please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten us.
How does disarming the law-abiding segment of the population make them any safer?

Compare violent crime rates in Switzerland to the UK. Almost all men in Switzerland are trained to handle firearms and keep 2 weapons in their homes (rifle and pistol).

lawful activity isn't newsworthy.

"Man drives to work... arrives safely"
"Couple engages in consensual sex in their home"
"Grandmother carries concealed pistol into beauty parlor... returns home without incident"

The millions of hunters aren't newsworthy.
The millions of people who carry daily aren't newsworthy.

Learn how to safely operate a firearm, and you'll not be so deathly afraid of them.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:24 PM  

Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.


Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:41 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.

The Supreme Court also once ruled that black people are property.

Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.


This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?
 
2012-08-25 11:58:09 PM  

Great Janitor: He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?


It's that and the hypocrisy.

Gun control groups and their supporters continuously put forth proposals to ban or restrict firearms-types, capacity, where carried, etc. THEN they criticize gun rights supporters as obsessed with the gun issue as if it's wrong or questionable to be that way. Well, gun rights supporters are only about as obsessed with keeping and expanding their firearms rights as the gun control groups are in taking away and diminishing them.

We hear the same thing play out with the whole carrying in public issue. Those who wish to carry firearms for protection or feel they "need" to are bedwetters. Those who wish to deny them that right are not bedwetters even though they nearly always delve into arguments about encouraging violence, fear that the person may misuse the gun on them, etc. Either they're both bedwetters of similar scale, or they're not.
 
2012-08-25 11:58:41 PM  

loonatic112358: Further you can's have a drive by without a gun.

i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms


Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.

There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.
 
2012-08-25 11:59:29 PM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


as we should be, it's not a boogieman lurking in a dark corner wating for innocent passersby, it's a tool that can be used for good, or evil just like much of the rest of the things humanity has come up with
 
2012-08-25 11:59:47 PM  

GAT_00: Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.


Like Roe vs Wade, right?
 
2012-08-26 12:00:04 AM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


Huh? WHY? Who's the cowardly one with he small penis again?
 
2012-08-26 12:01:11 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.


and those would be more difficult to fire while driving (not to say people don't, some folks are awesome archers from horseback)

but back to my statement, so far that's the only argument that i've seen the antigun posters make that at least has some sort of basis in rationality
 
2012-08-26 12:01:11 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: loonatic112358: Further you can's have a drive by without a gun.

i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms

Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.

There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.


So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!
 
2012-08-26 12:02:15 AM  
s10.postimage.org


/oblig
 
2012-08-26 12:03:47 AM  

loonatic112358: it's a tool that can be used for good, or evil just like much of the rest of the things humanity has come up with


Bullshiat. How much of the rest of our technology is specifically designed to kill or incapacitate people if used as directed?
 
2012-08-26 12:03:52 AM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


No it shouldn't. It shows me how educated much of the American public has come.
 
2012-08-26 12:04:20 AM  

hamdinger: TOSViolation: The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.

A-hyuck! Ah believes the gubmint should stay outta people's private lives. And the Constitooshun grants people all sortsa rights to say whatever they want.

Unless they're a dang-ol' librul.



English...do you speak it?
 
2012-08-26 12:04:44 AM  

MayoSlather: gameshowhost: MayoSlather: Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.

I mean if this is a critical function in modern society then allow a special permit to be available. It definitely sounds of utmost importance.


._.

/just so you know, i'm a libby-lib-libtard who disagrees with many interpretations of the 2nd amendment and supports a degree of gun control
//that said... what ~you~ are suggesting treads dangerously close to squeezing the meaning out of a constitutionally-protected right
///if 'critical function' is the guiding principle, then toss out everything we got: feel free to submit a draft of your version of the constitution
 
2012-08-26 12:05:19 AM  
Without a gun, explain to me how an elderly woman living alone can protect herself if someone breaks in.

Or should people too weak to put up a fight not be allowed to live on their own?
 
2012-08-26 12:05:24 AM  

nigeman: So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!


sure, you just need to do it the same way mcveigh did, get you some ammonia nitrate, which is commonly used in farming, and some other ingredients

though if some fool does i hope it blows up in there face
 
2012-08-26 12:06:00 AM  

nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.


That's a bullshiat argument and always has been. There were no standing militia at the time of the amendment. The militia was and is the citizenry, who own and bring their own guns.

Try again.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:01 AM  
Time machines made so you can't take guns. What could go wrong?
harrythespiderblog.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report