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 38
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10495 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-25 11:28:35 PM
3 votes:

ttc2301: I want those two minutes back.


quick, hop into your time machine
2012-08-25 11:03:30 PM
3 votes:
It's perfectly acceptable to own a gun as long as it's not black with rounded corners.
2012-08-25 09:06:58 PM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
Don't you mean "heaters?"
2012-08-26 11:17:18 AM
2 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-08-25 11:20:10 PM
2 votes:

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


1. Apple comes out with the iGun. (Gizmodo creams their jeans over it and suddenly doesn't hate guns anymore)
2. Apple sues all other gun manufacturers for retroactively ripping them off. Bribed judges see it Apple's way.
3. Now all guns are Apple iGuns
4. The Apple iGun only has half the functionality of regular guns, so less people die.
2012-08-25 10:58:44 PM
2 votes:

BuckTurgidson: Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?


that's a waste of a perfectly good pillow
2012-08-25 10:53:15 PM
2 votes:

MayoSlather: 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.


But then how will I defend myself when the Nazis Commies U.N. invades?
2012-08-25 10:52:03 PM
2 votes:
Jesus Christ, if I wanted to kill a bunch of people I'm pretty sure I could find a way to gas up a chainsaw in a Target and have at it.
2012-08-26 09:48:42 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: 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?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry bub. It's not. The clause is completely independent. End of story.

Do you want me to mail you your militia card?

Regardless, nothing changes now. People like yourself are too scared to admit that its not a gun problem. But for people like myself we've already won the fight. Not only is it our right and we choose to excercise it but no politician will touch it. It's political suicide.
2012-08-26 08:30:37 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: 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?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again? No matter how many times this comes up, you just never really address these issues.

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788

And last but not least:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.
2012-08-26 01:46:08 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Drug use is not a fundamental right.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?


Who's being murdered or even harmed by the filthy hippy? Roe v. Wade hinged on the right of privacy. How is drug use different? You walk the liberal walk on most issues, but on this libertarian issue you're an authoritarian purely due to personal bias from what I can tell.

GAT_00: loonatic112358: GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?

listen yes, agree with, probably not

So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?


I don't know, maybe if the person is actually not hurting anyone else and is just doing something that someone else disapproves of because said busybody is a moralistic douche?
2012-08-26 01:20:34 AM
1 votes:
nigeman:

media.tumblr.com

I would have thought the phrase dihydrogen monoxide would have tipped you off.

The point is that his argument is ridiculous. Also that humans are assholes that have spent the vast majority of our ingenuity on two things: impressing the opposite sex and killing each other. If guns are too dangerous for us, what isn't? Knives are every bit as deadly as a gun. It's harder to miss with a knife, very had to defend against, and a hell of a lot harder to fix. I know for a fact that if I were attacked, I would MUCH prefer to be shot than stabbed. I also know that I would much prefer to carry a gun rather than a knife for my own safety. I am just as likely to hurt myself with a knife as an attacker.

But go ahead. Keep missing my point. I'll just sit back and watch your grammar deteriorate further.
2012-08-26 01:07:06 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia.

No, it clearly isn't, as all research into original intent points to. Please, disagree with it if you want, but don't lie about it.

I'm sorry I'm capable of understanding how clauses work in English.

Clearly you don't, as the militia part is not a qualifying clause.

How do internal commas work again?


Honestly, it could be slightly clearer, but anyone with an modicum of unbiased thought can see that changing "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." to "GAT_00, being the wisest most totally awesome person in the world and definitely not authoritarian against anything he personally doesn't like, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." changes nothing concerning the right of the people to keep and bear Arms whether or not is shall be infringed.

Or are you making a jab at my shiatty grammar? Irrelevant.
2012-08-26 01:03:43 AM
1 votes:

loonatic112358: nigeman: no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.

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


i71.photobucket.com
2012-08-26 12:57:31 AM
1 votes:

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

I live in Canada's largest city. It's at about the same latitude as Southern Oregon. We have a lake effect so the winters are mild and the summers are pleasant.

But by all means, keep being the poster child for the ignorant American.


Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?
2012-08-26 12:38:43 AM
1 votes:

whatshisname: radiobiz: This is fun. Let's pull more dumb statements out of our butts and post em.

Sorry, it's not 47%, it's 46% of Americans believe God created humans in their current form within the last 10000 years.


Who cares? WE LANDED A GIANT FARKING ROBOT ON MARS LAST WEEK. Beat that, bumpkin.
2012-08-26 12:16:00 AM
1 votes:

whatshisname: Farker Soze: Handguns are piss-poor at killing people. 6 out of 7 people shot with one survive.

And only 1 in 100,000 people who have an iPhone thrown at them actually die.
What's your point?


That many? Wow, iPhones are dangerous. Let's ban them.
2012-08-25 11:34:21 PM
1 votes:
Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

www.scottbieser.com
2012-08-25 11:12:41 PM
1 votes:
Can't f*ck your own grandmother with a gun.

Well... Maybe... Hm...
2012-08-25 11:07:50 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-08-25 11:07:29 PM
1 votes:

dbubb: When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.


i.imgur.com
2012-08-25 11:05:33 PM
1 votes:
When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.
2012-08-25 11:00:51 PM
1 votes:
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...
2012-08-25 10:57:56 PM
1 votes:
Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?
2012-08-25 10:56:06 PM
1 votes:
Quick! Someone post that meme where some guy runs up to a group of people, falls down and yells out something trolly, only to have the group of people turn on each other in argument.

'cus that's all the article was.
2012-08-25 10:55:41 PM
1 votes:
Yeeehaw

i391.photobucket.com
2012-08-25 10:53:55 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.


I don't think that was an article, i think someone submitted comments from gizmodo to fark
2012-08-25 10:50:18 PM
1 votes:
This is,without,the dumbest article I've ever read. And it's not even from Cracked.com.
2012-08-25 10:46:54 PM
1 votes:
Article was stupid.

But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.
2012-08-25 10:40:22 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-25 10:36:39 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-25 10:28:55 PM
1 votes:

MayoSlather: 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.

2012-08-25 10:19:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-25 10:11:37 PM
1 votes:
I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.
2012-08-25 09:48:17 PM
1 votes:
Sale of most guns currently available should be banned...along with death rays. We can't expect Bugs Bunny to always be around to dismantle them.
2012-08-25 09:37:54 PM
1 votes:
Darn it, I've been waiting for a time travel-related thread for a while so I can jump in with "Boobies" and become a Fark time traveller.

Alas, too late.
2012-08-25 09:12:08 PM
1 votes:
As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.
2012-08-25 09:00:12 PM
1 votes:
Guns are similar to time machines in the same way catapults are to kumquats.

/worst rant ever
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report