Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   The GOP is now calling for broader gun rights, including unlimited capacity for bullets within guns, because obviously when I look at the aftermath of this summer what I think is "we need guns with more bullets"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 458
    More: Asinine, GOP, David Keene, mass shooting, semiautomatic firearms, Sounds Good, assault weapons, NRA, Gabrielle Giffords  
•       •       •

1521 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 3:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 04:55:28 PM  

sprawl15: MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You're not addressing his assertion.


That he pulled out of his ass? I'm a cyclist and cars going under 30 can kill just as easily as over 30. There's literally no sense in anything he says.
 
2012-08-30 04:56:35 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.
 
2012-08-30 04:56:50 PM  

imontheinternet: But, the one thing that really should be on the table is the extended clips, like the ones used in the Aurora shooting.


the large capacity magazine jammed.  He switched to using multiple weapons.  
 
2012-08-30 04:57:10 PM  

sprawl15: You're not addressing his assertion.


That's because the assertion is bullshiat and irrelevant.
 
2012-08-30 04:58:33 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


Because "Wolverines!"?
 
2012-08-30 04:58:49 PM  

sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.


What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.
 
2012-08-30 04:58:57 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


www.exposemittromney.com

These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
 
2012-08-30 04:59:01 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


Well obviously since there's no deaths from atomic bombings and RPG's, those should be legalized too. I mean even if they are legal, sure there may be only one preventable attack every few weeks, but that's far less than the sum total of deaths, so therefore let's go nuts!



Or, in sane world where I live in, we outlaw devices whose only purpose to exist is to kill, maim, and destroy things and were used to perform those actions on a regular basis when they were legal. But I guess that makes far too much sense for some people.
 
2012-08-30 04:59:30 PM  

MithrandirBooga: That he pulled out of his ass?


Sure. If you're going to attempt to address it, why not be honest instead of pulling things out of your own ass?

You aren't going to win a shiatfest by being the smelliest.

Corvus: Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


Were we to go after the types of guns used in crime based on the frequency of use, we'd go after revolvers before assault rifles.
 
2012-08-30 05:00:19 PM  

LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.


And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?
 
2012-08-30 05:00:25 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Which is why we see RPG attacks and atomic bombings literally every day here in the united states. Literally. Because since they're illegal to possess, the criminals obviously have no issues obtaining them whatsoever, therefore we should legalize them because hey, I might need my own personal defense RPG one day.


You can buy a M203 grenade launcher and high explosive 40mm grenades cheaper than a round trip ticket to Australia. i can't remember the last time I heard abotu a civilian using one of them for murder though.
 
2012-08-30 05:00:30 PM  

sprawl15: Were we to go after the types of guns used in crime based on the frequency of use, we'd go after revolvers before assault rifles.


Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?
 
2012-08-30 05:01:24 PM  

Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?
 
2012-08-30 05:03:00 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


I would ask the same for people that have cars that can go faster than 70 MPH. I have to say that both are owned for the same reason. People that like them, and want them, enjoy them.

The number of bullets a gun can hold is irrelevant. Period. Even if they are taken back to the level of the assault gun ban, it wouldn't make a difference in the shootings. Go to youtube and watch people that do competitive shooting and how fast they can reload. Keep the crazies from getting the guns and there are less shootings. If you figure a way to do that, tell the world and solve the problem of the mass shootings. You may even make a buck or two
 
2012-08-30 05:03:55 PM  

the_geek: sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.

What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.


STG-44, you mean.

Strictly speaking, assault rifles have a mid-power round, selective fire, a stock, and are fed via magazine. They're by definition included in the ban on automatic weapons that EatHam mentioned (due to selective fire).

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's an assault weapon under the AWB, but that's a totally different definition and mutually exclusive from assault rifles since assault weapons, by definition, are semi-automatic. Assault weapons also fit in to the "scary looking" ban that he was talking about.
 
2012-08-30 05:04:16 PM  

Corvus:
Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


We have already cracked down on guns quite a bit. In the entire country you're required to pass a background check before purchasing any firearm from a dealer. In most states there's also a waiting period. While weapons that are styled similarly to military weapons are easy to get, actual fully automatic weapons are virtually unheard of amongst most gun owners and are prohibitively expensive for most people.

I was specifically responding to the argument that it would somehow be helpful to ban high capacity magazines or military styled weapons.

I feel it's important to note here that most hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than your typical AR-15 which shoots a tiny little round and is outlawed for hunting deer in most states because it's deemed cruel.. the weapon is not powerful enough to kill a deer in a single shot in most cases.

I would further again note that hand guns are not as dangerous as most people would think, 6 out of 7 people shot with hand guns live.
 
2012-08-30 05:05:09 PM  

violentsalvation: Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.

How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Here you go:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]
 
2012-08-30 05:05:51 PM  

the_geek: sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.

What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.


I always thought assault rifle was one issued by the military that had a selector for fully auto or burst. And that assault weapon meant a civilian version that was only semi-auto or bolt.
 
2012-08-30 05:06:14 PM  

the_geek: I feel it's important to note here that most hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than your typical AR-15 which shoots a tiny little round and is outlawed for hunting deer in most states because it's deemed cruel.. the weapon is not powerful enough to kill a deer in a single shot in most cases.


Power and rounds are two different things. People are concerned more about the mass killing ability.
 
2012-08-30 05:07:07 PM  

violentsalvation: Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.

How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Sorry highlighted the wrong part:



There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]

There you go!
 
2012-08-30 05:07:34 PM  

Corvus: 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]


www.sinepil.org

"The only question is: How do we arm the other 40%? "
 
2012-08-30 05:08:03 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You seriously have to have some mental issues to not be able to see that difference.


Sports cars are not designed for transportation, they are designed for speed. More people are killed every year by cars than guns, by far. Most vehicle accidents involve excessive speed or reckless driving.

If you can't see that's its a very valid analogy, then you're either ignorant or just plain disingenuous.

Or perhaps he should have asked "Should sports cars that do more than the legal speed limit in the state with the highest speed limit be banned"?
 
2012-08-30 05:08:10 PM  

Corvus: Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?


It's a silly argument to go after certain types of guns "because they're more dangerous" because when you're trying to allocate money to mitigate dangers to society, that danger needs to be measured in terms of danger per-capita. And when you start doing that, guns drop off the list of biggest concerns.
 
2012-08-30 05:08:16 PM  

violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____
 
2012-08-30 05:09:53 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?

It's a silly argument to go after certain types of guns "because they're more dangerous" because when you're trying to allocate money to mitigate dangers to society, that danger needs to be measured in terms of danger per-capita. And when you start doing that, guns drop off the list of biggest concerns.


You didn't answer my question. The top cause of homicide and suicides is a low concern?
 
2012-08-30 05:10:20 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Well obviously since there's no deaths from atomic bombings and RPG's, those should be legalized too. I mean even if they are legal, sure there may be only one preventable attack every few weeks, but that's far less than the sum total of deaths, so therefore let's go nuts!

Or, in sane world where I live in, we outlaw devices whose only purpose to exist is to kill, maim, and destroy things and were used to perform those actions on a regular basis when they were legal. But I guess that makes far too much sense for some people.


All forms of explosives are highly regulated. I'm okay with that. Gun powder is not an explosive. If you ever had a pile of gun powder and set it on fire you'd be quite disappointed. Things are legal and there's millions of legal users in this country. If we're going to ban something that millions of people safely and legally use in this country it's important to see what the affects of its use are (legal and illegal) and what we hope to accomplish by potentially increasing regulations on it. I think it's plainly obvious from the statistics involved that high capacity magazines are mostly harmless. Since people here are suggesting that high capacity magazines *should* be outlawed, I don't think it's unfair that I ask them to back up their claims of danger with real world statistics.
 
2012-08-30 05:11:09 PM  

bulldg4life: tangentman: Funny thing. Romney actually signed gun control legislation into law in MA when he was Governor. If Obama does respond, he should bring that up.

He should spend the debates doing just that.

Moderator: President Obama, your healthcare bill has received a large amount of scrutiny. Do you feel it was a success and is there anything about it that you would change?
Obama: Well, that's a good question. First, I'd like to say that Mitt Romney's signature legislation while he was Governor of Mass was a great start. Mitt Romney suggested it as a model for the nation some years ago and I took that to heart. His brave and honorable stand to fight for the uninsured is a great symbol for America. Without Mitt Romney, Obamacare would never have been considered for the nation.

Moderator: President Obama, during your first term, you expanded certain gun rights to the surprise of many. With the recent mass shootings in our nation, do you feel that was in error? What gun control issues do you see in a possible second term?
Obama: Well, that's another good question. You know, gun control legislation is something I truly believe in. And, like Mitt Romney, I support an assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. I am no hero for the NRA, just like Mitt Romney.

Repeat for abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the economy...


I generally don't have enough patience/attention span/booze to stand national politics, but I might watch the debates just for the possibility of THIS. It could be epic.
 
2012-08-30 05:12:03 PM  

Azlefty: .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


Actually,that isn't true. There are countless studies done by the FBI showing that the differences between most modern protection rounds are negligible. The biggest difference comes in how many you can carry. 380 and 9 mm are pretty popular for that reason. You can carry a bit more of the smaller rounds (380 and 9mm) than you can the larger (40 caliber and above)
 
2012-08-30 05:12:41 PM  

Corvus: You didn't answer my question. The top cause of homicide and suicides is a low concern?


Compared to what? You're making a list of things to be concerned about, what qualifications would an issue need to have to make it on that list?

Alright, homicide's on there. So's suicide. Cool. Is malaria? Is drowning? Is war? Is drug overdosing?

Define what you want to include in the discussion.
 
2012-08-30 05:12:50 PM  

Corvus: There you go!


The argument, which you clearly missed, is that the guns are not the cause of the murders. The people pulling the triggers are the cause of the murders.
 
2012-08-30 05:13:31 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?


Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?
 
2012-08-30 05:14:44 PM  

randomjsa: Actually I look at this summer and say "We need more protection for conceal carry rights"

There's a reason these shooting incidents keep happening in places where the shooter is relatively certain nobody is going to shoot back. The Aurora talking point of "he had body armor!" is ignorant by the way so you can save it since I'm tired of seeing that talking point get ripped apart in five seconds.


This logic employs the same fallacy to a rock that keeps tigers away. Correlation does not equal causation.

To think that because conceal carry is not allowed, more gun sprees occur or are not being prevented is not based in any facts in reality, only in the mind of fantastical crazy person like most small penis gun nuts.
 
2012-08-30 05:15:08 PM  
Is this another "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." threads?

*glances through thread*

And crazy people with guns kill lots of people at a time.

Maybe we should interpret the "well-regulated" language of the Second Amendment to include keeping weapons out of the hands of the insane.

/*sigh* I know. That's crazy talk.
 
2012-08-30 05:16:15 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____


A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.
 
2012-08-30 05:17:16 PM  
Sorry, farkdom. There used to be a "one of those" right after another and before the open quote.
 
2012-08-30 05:20:58 PM  
Are we back to guns not killing people again? Eric Holder will be glad to hear.
 
2012-08-30 05:22:51 PM  

LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?


My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.

Anyone who needs a gun to hunt is also a PUSSY.

Your hands, a nice dagger and some skill is all you need...

PUSSIES!
 
2012-08-30 05:23:52 PM  

ssa5: All I care about is the day I can legally own a tank, to hell with rush hour traffic forever.


Surely you can? You can in the UK anyway, Chris Eubanks (a ex-boxer) had one for a while, and there are numerous others in private hands. You can't have one with a functioning main gun of course (or any other weaponry), and presumably the insurance costs are pretty extortionate (particularly the third party damage part), and they can be road legal as well - so I would be surprised if you can't own one in the US.
 
2012-08-30 05:24:05 PM  
Meh - nobody but a few fanatics think gun control is an issue right now. I guess the GOP is trying to breathe life into an issue they think can work for them. Too bad nobody outside the gun-fapper circle jerk cares.
 
2012-08-30 05:25:47 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Are we back to guns not killing people again? Eric Holder will be glad to hear.


Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"
 
2012-08-30 05:26:31 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?

My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.



Yea, a 100 lbs women should totally be able to fight off a 200 lbs male attacker. Same with those losers who work at convenience stores who might be robbed by 2 or 3 people.
 
2012-08-30 05:29:44 PM  
Guuuunnnnn threeeeaaaadddddd!!

*slobbers all over mobile device*

*checks thread's content*

Dammit, the same old sh*t.

/it was expected, so I can't be too disappointed
 
2012-08-30 05:30:23 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG?


And yet there are a hell of a lot more people with these in their possession than you could ever imagine.


Carth: You can buy a M203 grenade launcher and high explosive 40mm grenades cheaper than a round trip ticket to Australia. i can't remember the last time I heard abotu a civilian using one of them for murder though.


Go figure.

bulldg4life: What if we imprisoned people or gave them heavy fines and removed their driving privileges if they exceeded posted speed limits to a point considered reckless?


Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.
 
2012-08-30 05:31:34 PM  

immrlizard: Azlefty: .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.

Actually,that isn't true. There are countless studies done by the FBI showing that the differences between most modern protection rounds are negligible. The biggest difference comes in how many you can carry. 380 and 9 mm are pretty popular for that reason. You can carry a bit more of the smaller rounds (380 and 9mm) than you can the larger (40 caliber and above)


I think there is plenty of room for the argument that being able to put more rounds downrange can be better than size in many cases.

I can't believe the FBi would actually say the differences in caliber are negligible though. That's just silly, unless they were talking about a select few like .40/9mm/.38.

The the Weeners, as an owner of a .357 I'm not sure I'd call it the king. When my particular S&W model 28 was made it was the king... however a much more powerful weapon known as the 44mag was made just a couple years later (late 50's).

And now, 60 years later there are even more options. I wouldn't stick my nose up at either, but everything from the 500 to The Judge could easily claim "king" depending on the specific application.
 
2012-08-30 05:31:53 PM  

Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"


Nope, I'm afraid of morons and psychopaths with guns. Better mental health services combined with much better background checks.

If you're mentally stable and intend to waste money shooting a machine gun for the hell of it, fine. Not stable? I don't want you carrying even a single shot handgun.
 
2012-08-30 05:32:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.


I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits.
 
2012-08-30 05:32:30 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?

My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.


The militia, or the muskets?

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.

Anyone who needs a gun to hunt is also a PUSSY.

Your hands, a nice dagger and some skill is all you need...

PUSSIES!


Oh. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
2012-08-30 05:33:48 PM  

qorkfiend: Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"


But nothing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, also Eric Holder is personally responsible for killing an ATF agent because the ATF let someone get a gun.
 
2012-08-30 05:34:47 PM  
One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.
 
2012-08-30 05:35:11 PM  

violentsalvation: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.


So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report