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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1019
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4950 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1019 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 09:22:04 PM

WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


I'm curious as to their response to the Muslim kid singing.

No, wait, I'm not at all curious.
 
2012-12-16 09:22:40 PM

WienerButt:
I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


it's somewhere between Bat Country and Chinatown.
 
2012-12-16 09:22:56 PM
I wonder what it feels like to be the kind of person that, when twenty kids get murdered, worries that their hobby wil become a little less convenient.
 
2012-12-16 09:23:25 PM

WienerButt: I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


Perhaps...

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-16 09:23:29 PM

dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

As an ...


Just ignore the reasonable restrictions part and tell me I am dumb. Just ignore that in the complete decision that it says what can be considered "arms" is as the court finds today and not necessarily what subsequent findings would deem acceptable. Just ignore that they asked for a review of the terminology to better make decisions. I am just an idiot. Talking shiat and have no clue. When the second amendment was written there were lasers and death rays and million round a second guns. Nothing ever changes thin a way that can't be predicted.

Got it.
 
2012-12-16 09:24:09 PM

Farker Soze: You're the one wishing people to be killed by their own family members. What kind of monster are you?


I don't grieve much over the deaths of stupid and evil people.
 
2012-12-16 09:24:37 PM

chumboobler: DoctorCal: iq_in_binary: Did you even read my proposal?

It's really difficult for your attempt at discussion of reasoned policy changes, however impassioned and persistant, to compete with a good troll who is willing to resort to religious and sexual identity slurs to get attention. Sorry.

Please explain. I get that I mentioned women but not in a negative way. Just that they cannot be part of a well regulated militia if you are using the draft as your criteria. I never mentioned religion at all. So, if I am following things, if I disagree with you, I am a troll. Then you get to make stuff up out of nothing and call me a troll.

Got it.


I wasn't referring to you.
 
2012-12-16 09:24:46 PM

WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


They're addicted to hate and anger. It doesn't matter the politics, it's the endorphin rush they get out of it. Being a racist sexist rightwingnut just gives them more targets to be butthurt over.
 
2012-12-16 09:25:44 PM

James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: You're the one wishing people to be killed by their own family members. What kind of monster are you?

I don't grieve much over the deaths of stupid and evil people.


See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.
 
2012-12-16 09:26:10 PM

James F. Campbell: I hate people who disagree with me.


I'd be OK with the government denying your right to bear arms.
 
2012-12-16 09:26:11 PM

Farker Soze: See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.


Maybe more guns will solve your problem, Farker Soze.
 
2012-12-16 09:27:43 PM

Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.


You are wrong, and please go f*ck yourself.
 
2012-12-16 09:28:54 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Even better - one of the common arguments against gun control is "Cars kill people too!"


We also have driver's Ed classes in high schools so teenagers are familiar with how cars work, how to use them safely, and how to respect the risks involved in owning / operating one.

If you want to require training before someone can purchase a firearm, put it in the grade school curriculum so everyone's gone through it before they turn 18.
 
2012-12-16 09:29:55 PM

GoldSpider: James F. Campbell: I hate people who disagree with me.

I'd be OK with the government denying your right to bear arms.


All rights are conditional. Let's quit deifying gun rights just because it's a right that coward-ass white boys like.
 
2012-12-16 09:30:45 PM

UConnOIFVeteran: BTW, just thought I should chime in that Lanza's father was paying out $240,000 a year in child support for the little shiat, so he would be the big winner in this one.


Considering the actions of his son he might be envying his ex right about now.
 
2012-12-16 09:30:52 PM

WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


This is the state of the voting public my friend. Never mind that most of us were tearful if we were watching the presidents address to the people involved in this epic tragedy, there were libruls' to beat on. It is a sad state of affairs when we can't as a human population look past political differences to make things better. The hate is deeply entrenched and it comes from both sides. The symbol of real freedom for the world is now dying before our very eyes. Lady liberty has put down her torch for the people and now burns the fire of partisan hate. I guess all good things do come to an end.
 
2012-12-16 09:31:18 PM

chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restricti ...


Actually, throughout the history of SCOTUS ruling on second amendment issues, the most common litmus is "In common use by the military at the time." They've been pretty consistent on that. Now, with the NFA, they managed to get some controls on select fire weapons but still to this day the litmus is "Is it in common use by the military? If so, have to allow it."
 
2012-12-16 09:31:30 PM

James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.

Maybe more guns will solve your problem, Farker Soze.


I doubt it, but some serious psychiatric may help you.
 
2012-12-16 09:31:53 PM
They have noting to gain and provide ammo in the way of quotes for their opponents in the off year elections.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined the show to discuss a greater need for gun control. She announced that Senate Democrats would intrduce a new bill banning assault weapons on the first day of the new Congress in January.


And since 31 senators are pro-gun rights I bet it has a good chance of passing!
 
2012-12-16 09:33:20 PM

DoctorCal: chumboobler: DoctorCal: iq_in_binary: Did you even read my proposal?

It's really difficult for your attempt at discussion of reasoned policy changes, however impassioned and persistant, to compete with a good troll who is willing to resort to religious and sexual identity slurs to get attention. Sorry.

Please explain. I get that I mentioned women but not in a negative way. Just that they cannot be part of a well regulated militia if you are using the draft as your criteria. I never mentioned religion at all. So, if I am following things, if I disagree with you, I am a troll. Then you get to make stuff up out of nothing and call me a troll.

Got it.

I wasn't referring to you.


To whom were you referring? It was a question asked by him directly to me..... I am confused...
 
2012-12-16 09:34:46 PM
Thank God that the NRA is fighting for my right to be able to murder a couple dozen children. They are so brave.
 
2012-12-16 09:34:48 PM

James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.

Maybe more guns will solve your problem, Farker Soze.


OK. I'm curious. I want to see if your reaction is in line with the others.

I:

- don't own a gun. Would like to, but currently don't. My reason for wanting one? I've spent just a little too much time looking at ISPC shooting championships, and that stuff looks fun.
- know quite a bit about guns. Not that kind of Call of Duty knowledge, but actual things about actual guns. Because of this, I have been accused of being a "gun nut" - a label I alternately embrace and shun.
- have never wanted to harm, much less kill someone.
- have wanted to have a CCW permit. Those aspirations have essentially faded, however, because I'm both unwilling and unable to take up the training I feel I'd need to responsibly hold it, nor do I feel a real sense of fear in my life to justify having one

Knowing that about me, what am I in your eyes?
 
2012-12-16 09:35:01 PM

Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.

Maybe more guns will solve your problem, Farker Soze.

I doubt it, but some serious psychiatric may help you.


Let me ask you a serious question, Farker Soze. How many people would have to die in mass shootings before you would agree to support gun control?

I don't want the standard troll bullshiat. Give me a figure.
 
2012-12-16 09:38:21 PM

James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: See, like James here. Addicted to hate and anger, and he's supposedly liberal. It's just a mental ilness.

Maybe more guns will solve your problem, Farker Soze.

I doubt it, but some serious psychiatric may help you.

Let me ask you a serious question, Farker Soze. How many people would have to die in mass shootings before you would agree to support gun control?

I don't want the standard troll bullshiat. Give me a figure.


I'm not going to try to have a rational discussion with a crazy person who openly advocates that innocent people should be shot and killed by their own family members and acquaintances. You are beneath that kind of respect from me, and I only have ridicule for you. Go troll someone else.
 
2012-12-16 09:40:24 PM

jso2897: All rights are conditional. Let's quit deifying gun rights just because it's a right that coward-ass white boys like.


What "reasonable" restrictions on the right to vote are you willing to accept to maintain responsible exercise thereof?
 
2012-12-16 09:41:11 PM

Farker Soze: I'm not going to try to have a rational discussion with a crazy person who openly advocates that innocent people should be shot and killed by their own family members and acquaintances. You are beneath that kind of respect from me, and I only have ridicule for you. Go troll someone else.


Your fake moral outrage is laughable. Are you this desperate for attention? How sad. :(

Hey. Know what you should do? Buy some guns.
 
2012-12-16 09:41:33 PM

UConnOIFVeteran: BTW, just thought I should chime in that Lanza's father was paying out $240,000 a year in child support for the little shiat, so he would be the big winner in this one.


Wow, you really ARE an idiot, aren't you?
 
2012-12-16 09:42:20 PM

rosebud_the_sled: Thank God that the NRA is fighting for my right to be able to murder a couple dozen children. They are so brave.

 

i100.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-16 09:43:35 PM

Weaver95: Farker Soze:
Something will happen. No way in hell will it be a reasonable solution though. It will be a political do-nothing bill that won't solve anything but give an out so both sides can say they're doing something. Book it.

i'm not so sure. I have NEVER seen the GOP in such a weak position before. Obama isn't stupid, nor does he have any real reason to be merciful to the GOP...I fully expect him to shove the Republicans into a corner and leverage them into a deal on the fiscal cliff AND some kind of gun control legislation. I also suspect Democrats at the state level are going to make it exceptionally difficult for GOP governors to screw over teacher's unions (teachers gave their LIVES and the GOP is trying to make their jobs impossible blah blah).

now you can pretend to be disgusted by that sort of thing if you want...but we all know that the GOP wouldn't hesitate to do the exact same thing if they had a tragedy to exploit for their agenda. hell, they've already done it a couple/few times. so lets not pretend either party has any sort of 'moral high ground' over the other.


I thought for sure his speech tonight was building to a proposal to institute a new ban.
 
2012-12-16 09:44:04 PM

GoldSpider: jso2897: All rights are conditional. Let's quit deifying gun rights just because it's a right that coward-ass white boys like.

What "reasonable" restrictions on the right to vote are you willing to accept to maintain responsible exercise thereof?


So now we're comparing the nonexistent problem of voter fraud to the wildly out of control problem of gun violence?
 
2012-12-16 09:44:20 PM

James F. Campbell: Are you this desperate for attention? How sad. :(


You're so precious. You're no winterwhile though.
 
2012-12-16 09:46:20 PM

Clutch2013: Knowing that about me, what am I in your eyes?


You're a gun enthusiast with, as far as I can tell, a firm grasp on the reality of the statistical likelihood of ever needing a gun for self-defense who questions -- correctly -- his ability to ethically wield a gun in such a situation.
 
2012-12-16 09:50:30 PM

diaphoresis: [img2.timeinc.net image 400x400]

Don't stop the derpage people... I have to stay awake for another 7 hrs...


The babbling on this thread could keep you awake for another seven years.
 
2012-12-16 09:52:31 PM

The Name: So now we're comparing the nonexistent problem of voter fraud to the wildly out of control problem of gun violence?


No I'm talking about intelligence tests for voters. Maybe we could have avoided 8 years of George W. Bush if we had some sort of qualification test in place.
 
2012-12-16 09:52:34 PM

vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.


and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.
 
2012-12-16 09:53:49 PM
It is like when the mouthbreathers wanted to limit free speech after the embassy killings a few months ago.
 
2012-12-16 09:55:07 PM

WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.


I find them funny until I remember that their vote counts just as much as mine. Don't get me wrong, I don't want them disenfranchised because I disagree with them. It is because in a thread about Obama addressing the nation on the day of the shooting I found this there:

Exactly. The laws of psychics prove he did not shed a tear. His head was tilted forward as he read, meaning gravity would have pulled any "real" tears from the tear ducts next to the nose straight down the face toward the mouth. There is no possible way any "real" tears would have run toward the outside of his eyes unless he had been lying on his side which he was not.

It disgusts me how the leftist media, Fox included, ate it up.

He has no compassion for the deaths of these children because he has taught himself not to. That's probably the only way he could live with himself given his very open support of every type of the wholesale slaughter of children.



Because when I think "solid grasp of science" I think extreme right wing.
 
2012-12-16 09:55:33 PM

James F. Campbell: Clutch2013: Knowing that about me, what am I in your eyes?

You're a gun enthusiast with, as far as I can tell, a firm grasp on the reality of the statistical likelihood of ever needing a gun for self-defense who questions -- correctly -- his ability to ethically wield a gun in such a situation.


I got it, you must be Jakevol2. I thought I smelled vaseline.
 
2012-12-16 10:02:54 PM
Nice caption stubby. So the inability to disprove them means your opinion is a fact. So the inability to disprove intelligent design means its true. Nice logic moron.
 
2012-12-16 10:03:04 PM

chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.


You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.
 
2012-12-16 10:03:13 PM

chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.


And read the quoted section, pointing out that existing mags were still legal to not only possess, but BUY AND SELL. So you were STILL able to buy the 30-round mags because the pallets and pallets of mags the manufacturers had in their warehouses were still legal.
 
2012-12-16 10:06:01 PM

chumboobler: DoctorCal: chumboobler: DoctorCal: iq_in_binary: Did you even read my proposal?

It's really difficult for your attempt at discussion of reasoned policy changes, however impassioned and persistant, to compete with a good troll who is willing to resort to religious and sexual identity slurs to get attention. Sorry.

Please explain. I get that I mentioned women but not in a negative way. Just that they cannot be part of a well regulated militia if you are using the draft as your criteria. I never mentioned religion at all. So, if I am following things, if I disagree with you, I am a troll. Then you get to make stuff up out of nothing and call me a troll.

Got it.

I wasn't referring to you.

To whom were you referring? It was a question asked by him directly to me..... I am confused...


There's been some cleanup since then, so it's a little harder now to scroll back and pick up what I was referring to, and at this point I'd rather not name the offending party (and give them more of the attention they obviously thrive on), but the reason I mentioned it in the place that I did was because iq has tried over and over to get people to give some scrutiny to a proposal that he made from the perspective of gun-ownership advocacy, and gotten such a small amount of uptake on the request, particularly compared to the thread-shiatter in question, and I wanted to (sarcastically) acknowledge his efforts. You just happened to be the most recent person he had requested to have a look at his proposal.
 
2012-12-16 10:06:35 PM

Farker Soze: WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.

They're addicted to hate and anger. It doesn't matter the politics, it's the endorphin rush they get out of it. Being a racist sexist rightwingnut just gives them more targets to be butthurt over.


Or... pretending that you are a rightwing nut.
 
2012-12-16 10:11:07 PM

James F. Campbell: Clutch2013: Knowing that about me, what am I in your eyes?

You're a gun enthusiast with, as far as I can tell, a firm grasp on the reality of the statistical likelihood of ever needing a gun for self-defense who questions -- correctly -- his ability to ethically wield a gun in such a situation.


Well...that was different.

The last couple of days, I've been a small-dicked hitman-in-training. Here, at least.
 
2012-12-16 10:11:24 PM

The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.


I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an animal standing in another zip code.

You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.
 
2012-12-16 10:12:03 PM

vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

And read the quoted section, pointing out that existing mags were still legal to not only possess, but BUY AND SELL. So you were STILL able to buy the 30-round mags because the pallets and pallets of mags the manufacturers had in their warehouses were still legal.


point taken. That means that the new law must be much stricter. Got it!.
 
2012-12-16 10:12:50 PM

LargeCanine: Farker Soze: WienerButt: I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.

They're addicted to hate and anger. It doesn't matter the politics, it's the endorphin rush they get out of it. Being a racist sexist rightwingnut just gives them more targets to be butthurt over.

Or... pretending that you are a rightwing nut.


I'm sure there are a lot of actual nuts. Sure, there will be some feigning the most extreme views to gain a sense of community from that sight and a lot of outright trolls, but there are many genuine freepers with deep anger issues.
 
2012-12-16 10:14:11 PM

GoldSpider: Hai guys!

Is this the thread where we discuss how almost every mass murderer in the past few decades either had a history of mental illness and/or on some kind of mind-altering psychiatric drugs?


What about Breyvjk or whatever?
 
2012-12-16 10:14:18 PM

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an animal standing in another zip code.

You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.


Nice to see that you dodged the point entirely.
 
2012-12-16 10:17:38 PM

chuckufarlie: You can not give me one valid, intelligent reason why any hunter needs a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.


To be clear, both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles are automatic rifles.
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report