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.

(LA Times)   If you have to screw up the facts in a debate, try not to screw up on gun control. Especially if you're the leader of the God, Guns and More Guns party   (latimes.com) divider line 118
    More: Fail, automatic weapon, semiautomatic firearms, federal assault weapons ban, arms industries, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

4302 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 10:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 11:10:05 AM
I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".
 
2012-10-17 11:11:10 AM

Saiga410: saintstryfe: Frank N Stein: We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?

Wait a minute, didn't he have a supermajority in Congress for two years? Isn't that the excuse the righties use for everything Obama didn't get done? Well he had that, and didn't do this... what does that say?

(yes, I know it was actually for like 12 weeks, but let's turn that talking point around on them.)

because he knows he would have gotten spanked over it come this election.... Just you wait if he gets reelected.

/not sure if serious.


The doofuses who care about this aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
 
2012-10-17 11:12:09 AM

Saiga410: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Then why do you want a scary weapons ban if you know that they are not the problem you marooon?


He seems to be using these terms interchangably. Either he doesn't understand the differences or he thinks the audience doesn't understand the differences. Either way the nuance that is being lost is important. Or his definition of "assault weapon" is different than was used in the previous ban.
 
2012-10-17 11:14:00 AM

Arkanaut: I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".


It's part of al Qaeda's new Automatic Terrorism Launching Attack System. Thousands of 747's will rain down across America.
 
2012-10-17 11:16:01 AM
test.axisofweevil.com
 
2012-10-17 11:18:40 AM

sprawl15: Arkanaut: I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".

It's part of al Qaeda's new Automatic Terrorism Launching Attack System. Thousands of 747's will rain down across America.


Or he has been cramming on firearms since he is not a gun guy. Fun act, There is an AK-47 and there is an AK-74. The 74 uses the same firing system as the 47 but is chambered in the 5.45 instead of the 7.62. it is also stamped in stead of milled.
 
2012-10-17 11:19:08 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.

Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.

Not only that but Mitt Romney in no way applied that women should stay in abusive relationships. I have done this type of thing defending the President before. The spin coming out of this is stupid. IU watched most of the debate, and it was tit for tat and you most likely think your guy won. This applies to Romney supportters as well.


Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?
 
2012-10-17 11:21:54 AM

Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


It mixes two GOP platforms together for maximum trolling. "Guns don't kill people. Children from single-parent households kill people."
 
2012-10-17 11:23:14 AM

Fjornir: [test.axisofweevil.com image 850x531]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
 
2012-10-17 11:24:02 AM

Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


Runs down the clock, plays to the 'family values' of the Republican party, tries to make R the party of wholesome families and D the party of welfare queens with AK-47 toting welfare babies and MOST OF ALL avoids mentioning the assault weapons ban he signed as Governor. With the added bonus that there's a perception that Obama would have a difficult time making an attack on Romney for the assault weapons ban because many (D) voters are for stronger gun control.

Obama did work in a nice, "For x before he was against x" rimshot though.
 
2012-10-17 11:24:54 AM

Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.

Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.

Not only that but Mitt Romney in no way applied that women should stay in abusive relationships. I have done this type of thing defending the President before. The spin coming out of this is stupid. IU watched most of the debate, and it was tit for tat and you most likely think your guy won. This applies to Romney supportters as well.

Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.
 
2012-10-17 11:29:28 AM
That fact-checking article needs to check its facts.

FTFA:That law banned the manufacture of assault-style semi-automatic weapons (guns that automatically reload, but fire only once when the trigger is depressed)

Rating: partially true.

It banned 'scary' semi-automatic weapons based on arbitrary characteristics passing an arbitrary threshold (2 out of 5 scary features). If an AR-15-style rifle had a flash suppressor permanently attached, it was legal after the ban. So many manufacturers just switched to making the same damn rifle with a permanent flash suppressor. If an AR-15-style pistol had a manufactured weight of less than 50 ounces, it was legal after the ban. 51 ounces? Illegal. This pistol is a great example of how stupid that 'assault weapon' definition was:

www.ar-15.us

This gun was swiss-cheesed and shipped without a magazine to barely come in under the 50-ounce limit. If it had shipped with a magazine, it would have had a 'manufactured weight' of over 50 ounces. You could add a magazine yourself once you bought it. Stupid law.
 
2012-10-17 11:30:23 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED.


I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.
 
2012-10-17 11:31:20 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So what can either candidate do to improve home lives? I still don't understand what your point is.
 
2012-10-17 11:31:31 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So is being raised by lesbians. Why didn't he bring that up?
 
2012-10-17 11:33:52 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So is being born white.
 
2012-10-17 11:37:12 AM

thurstonxhowell: I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.


I'll trade you two toddlers for an infant.
 
2012-10-17 11:45:54 AM

thurstonxhowell: globalwarmingpraiser: Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED.

I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.


My mom got divorced two times so now I have non-stop gay sex in front of whole some families being supported by welfare and only breaking for brunch

Anything to destroy American families.
 
2012-10-17 11:45:55 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Crap, from this spin, romney must have done well. He pointed out that fully auto weapons are already illegal, and then tried to show how his ban that President Obama had already mentioned was a compromise. Crap crap crap crap crap. Obama is actually going to lose.


There is no full auto assault weapon ban.

Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.

This is one thing I was really looking at. Both of them do not understand current gun laws.

Or yer trawlin.
 
2012-10-17 11:47:04 AM
Probably my favorite part of the debate was Romney taking the assault weapons question and turning it into a screed on Fast and Furious, with the coup de grace being a swipe at executive privilege. Because we all know that if there is anything that republicans support, it is the investigative role of Congress and if there is anything they are unshakably opposed to, it's executive privilege.
 
2012-10-17 11:47:05 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


And you agree with Romney when he implied that gun violence is caused by single mothers? That having two parents impedes the use of guns?
 
2012-10-17 11:47:42 AM

Fjornir: [test.axisofweevil.com image 850x531]


Looks like Fox retroactively moderated the debate.
 
2012-10-17 11:48:17 AM

GranoblasticMan: globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.

So what can either candidate do to improve home lives? I still don't understand what your point is.


Well, not offer them support services like food stamps or other "welfare" programs. Because if I know anything about creating better homes lives, all you need to do is pile on crippling financial worry and the home life just improves dramatically.
 
2012-10-17 11:53:59 AM

And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it
had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun
people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that
both wanted.

There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't
previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed-
upon piece of legislation.


So, Romney is a Fudd. IF the NRA wasn't full of shiat they would be denouncing him as such. Gun rights are not about hunting, they are about self defense.
 
2012-10-17 11:54:17 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Probably my favorite part of the debate was Romney taking the assault weapons question and turning it into a screed on Fast and Furious, with the coup de grace being a swipe at executive privilege. Because we all know that if there is anything that republicans support, it is the investigative role of Congress and if there is anything they are unshakably opposed to, it's executive privilege.


It was certainly the worse acting that night. Romney was pathetically pretending to be genuinely curious about the whole thing and wanting to know what it was all about just like he received an E-mailed forwarded to him about it from his nephew.
 
2012-10-17 12:01:38 PM

topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.


Hell, I bet if a full auto gun was used in a crime, everyone registered in the area would be getting a visit to check on them to make sure they had their shiat still and it hadn't been used at the time.

I saw that comment too and wanted to say "To have fun at the range with!!!"

I mean honestly, what red blooded American wouldn't want to go to the range and unload a 50 round drum from a Thompson?????
 
2012-10-17 12:16:16 PM

thekilt04: Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.


The tax stamp is a per-transfer thing. If you buy a machine gun from a dealer, you pay a one-time tax stamp of $200. There's no recurring costs.

/has such a tax stamp
 
2012-10-17 12:19:42 PM
The GOP must be creaming their pantaloons over Borderlands 2. SO MANY GUNS - ZERO REGULATION.
I mean, I just found an assault rifle with an 80 round clip in an outdoor toilet. UTOPIA!
 
2012-10-17 12:21:05 PM

heypete: thekilt04: Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.

The tax stamp is a per-transfer thing. If you buy a machine gun from a dealer, you pay a one-time tax stamp of $200. There's no recurring costs.

/has such a tax stamp


I am jealous. I live in commiefornia so no SBR for me... I could have sworn it was recurring, but seeing how I can't get one in my state I wouldn't know.

Which is bull. I want an obrez.
 
2012-10-17 12:29:49 PM

tricycleracer: Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?

It mixes two GOP platforms together for maximum trolling. "Guns don't kill people. Children from single-parent households kill people."


Yeah, just ask Osama Bin Laden.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:58 PM

topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.


After reading that quote, I have to wonder if this person approves of police killing "lots of people" - since they think that police should have access to a weapon that has only 1 function - to kill "lots of people"...
 
2012-10-17 12:49:11 PM

Diogenes: That was pretty bad - another example of reflexive lying on Romney's part. But what really had me scratching my head was the part about Massachusetts and how whatever the hell they had there was the result of bipartisanship and pro- and anti-gun cooperation.

So was he saying their ban in his state was cool because opposing sides cooperated? If so, WTF does that have to do with core issue and whether there should be such restrictions?

I'm not arguing one side or the other. I just want to know what the hell Romney was saying (or wasn't, as the case may be).


Well if we are going to argue that automatic weapons are legal, we most also conclude that the so-called 'assault weapons ban' didn't ban assault weapons.

Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.

Romney was correct.
 
2012-10-17 01:00:23 PM

Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.



upload.wikimedia.org

Lolwut?
 
2012-10-17 01:08:34 PM

GanjSmokr: topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.

After reading that quote, I have to wonder if this person approves of police killing "lots of people" - since they think that police should have access to a weapon that has only 1 function - to kill "lots of people"...


Makes as much sense as Romney stating that single parrents cause violence.
 
2012-10-17 01:12:32 PM
That law banned the manufacture of assault-style semi-automatic weapons (guns that automatically reload, but fire only once when the trigger is depressed)...

Yeah, you fail here, too, dumbases. That describes ANY semi-auto weapon. The AWB was never able to define 'assault weapon' either, so I'll give you that, but they didn't blindly file every single semi-auto gun ever made as an "assault weapon". Just as an example, take my pistol, it's both an 'auto'(Which for pistos really means semi-auto), and it is a double-action, so I don't have do anything to prepare the next bullet to fire. By YOUR definition, that's an "assault weapon". The government focused on stupid stuff like how the gun " looked", because they couldn't define it either.
 
2012-10-17 01:17:34 PM

Saiga410: Makes as much sense as Romney stating that single parrents cause violence


Or the notion that under a Romney presidency, single-parent households will somehow decline in numbers.

Seriously, what was he trying to say with that? That his administration would be able to influence marriages staying together?
 
2012-10-17 01:29:36 PM

THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?


"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:22 PM
Ha ha, you NRA members thought it was about protecting your gun rights.

//Rubes
 
2012-10-17 01:50:25 PM

PanicMan: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Finally someone said this out loud.


It's even simpler than that. Gang-bangers use handguns because they are easily concealed and widely available. Cheap is just a convenient (and pejorative) adjective.
 
2012-10-17 01:57:15 PM
According to their own rules and bylaws, the NRA should be support the incumbent-President.

It's not a grey area, it's pretty black & white.
 
2012-10-17 02:03:25 PM

topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.


Remember all you aspiring murderers, topcon says that mass killings aren't really bad unless you use full-auto weapons.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you are probably already aware, the guns used by my clients were fully automatic, but were made so illegally - making them only semi-automatic. And on those grounds, we can't really know how many of the cowering, scared unarmed schoolchildren were gunned down by accident due to the illegal modification. I'm sure you'd have a case for prohibiting these weapons if they were fully automatic - as you may know, fully automatic weapons are terrible and should be banned - however these were not. We simply don't know who is to blame here - the boys that killed all those people, or the guy who illegally modified their guns. I don't think we can overlook this. Yes, they used these weapons to brutally gun down unarmed children, but did they mean to? Can you really say that if their assault weapons weren't fully automatic that they would still have gone on to kill so many in such a horrific and brutal manner? I simply don't think we can conclude that."
 
2012-10-17 02:08:41 PM

Epoch_Zero: topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.

Remember all you aspiring murderers, topcon says that mass killings aren't really bad unless you use full-auto weapons.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you are probably already aware, the guns used by my clients were fully automatic, but were made so illegally - making them only semi-automatic. And on those grounds, we can't really know how many of the cowering, scared unarmed schoolchildren were gunned down by accident due to the illegal modification. I'm sure you'd have a case for prohibiting these weapons if they were fully automatic - as you may know, fully automatic weapons are terrible and should be banned - however these were not. We simply don't know who is to blame here - the boys that killed all those people, or the guy who illegally modified their guns. I don't think we can overlook this. Yes, they used these weapons to brutally gun down unarmed children, but did they mean to? Can you really say that if their assault weapons weren't fully automatic that they would still have gone on to kill so many in such a horrific and brutal manner? I simply don't think we can conclude that."


Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."

I don't even know WTF point you're even trying to make, but you either missed the point, or you're just trolling.
 
2012-10-17 02:11:10 PM

topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes


And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.
 
2012-10-17 02:20:05 PM

THX 1138: topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes

And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.


Legally owned F/A guns are virtually never used in crimes. Someone said legally owned F/A guns are a problem.

On the illegal side:

Any one of us could go to a local sporting goods store, buy an AK-47, download a PDF off the internet, go to Lowe's, buy some cheap tools, and crudely modify it to be fully automatic, and then go out and kill people with it.

Now, from that, why are legally owned F/A guns "a problem for police?"

They aren't. The people who have the money to buy real, pre-1986, registered machineguns aren't killing anyone with them. If you ban legally owned F/A guns, it still won't stop criminals from modifying semiautomatic guns, and even that isn't exactly common.
 
2012-10-17 02:23:35 PM
I own 12 guns. Everything from a .22 revolver to a AR-15.
I am not worried about the government taking my guns.
Im voting for Obama.
Once my Obama bumper sticker gets here im putting it on my truck right by my NRA sticker.
 
2012-10-17 02:25:09 PM

topcon: Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."


Too many words, maybe? Lemme try that again.

chimperror02: no one uses fully automatic weapons to commit crimes, you guys.
thx1138: actually, they are and a good example are these two fine young lads here
topcon: yeah, but they were just illegally modified to be automatic
epoch-zero: that doesn't make it ok, stop implying that it does
topcon: they aren't a problem for police though, so therefore more implications
 
2012-10-17 02:29:54 PM

Epoch_Zero: topcon: Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."

Too many words, maybe? Lemme try that again.

chimperror02: no one uses fully automatic weapons to commit crimes, you guys.
thx1138: actually, they are and a good example are these two fine young lads here
topcon: yeah, but they were just illegally modified to be automatic
epoch-zero: that doesn't make it ok, stop implying that it does
topcon: they aren't a problem for police though, so therefore more implications


Yeah, you're completely missing the point again, or being purposefully obtuse and trolling.
 
2012-10-17 02:36:24 PM

topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.


I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

/(double checking)
 
2012-10-17 02:43:39 PM

topcon: you're completely missing the point again


Actually no, you're the one who missed it.

Once again:

chimperror02: No one uses fully automatic weapons when committing crimes
Me: Here's an example
You: I'm going to ignore that example because I think the original statement should have said "legally owned" automatic weapons.
Everyone: Then you're refuting a different statement than the one at hand, and not addressing the one that the rest of us are talking about here.
You: You're all being obtuse!
 
2012-10-17 02:47:24 PM

DORMAMU: I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.


1988. He killed a police informant with a fully auto.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report