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  
•       •       •

4954 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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 10:49:37 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Azlefty: jbc: Folks who go through life feeling they NEED to have guns 24/7 are cowards? Who would have guessed?

Took more guts to say no rather than use the kids bodies as a platform to advance you ready made agenda. Also did you know Senator Fienstien has a Coveted California CCW? Showing SHE is the one needing a gun 24/7 even with the taxpayer protection She recieves

She wants HER gun 24/7, but she doesn't believe that us peasants deserve the same right.


She has a CCW for an assault rifle?

/tard
 
2012-12-16 10:50:41 PM

When talking to a gun nut on the internet, it helps to have this image available. It helps to remind yourself what you are dealing with.


api.ning.com
 
2012-12-16 10:50:58 PM
why didn't the mom kill the shooter with her gun at the start anyway?
 
2012-12-16 10:52:08 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.

ahh so it was the efficiency of the weapon and not the number of rounds it held which was the important part? You should have said that instead of saying something else entirely then... Talking about this topic this close to the event makes me feel kinda dirty. Conversing with you makes me feel kinda stupid. I think you're contagious


The rifle was much more efficient because each mag held twice the number of rounds in the handguns.

Are you really as stupid as you appear?
 
2012-12-16 10:52:45 PM

pacified: why didn't the mom kill the shooter with her gun at the start anyway?


she was asleep in bed.
 
2012-12-16 10:54:36 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.

ahh so it was the efficiency of the weapon and not the number of rounds it held which was the important part? You should have said that instead of saying something else entirely then... Talking about this topic this close to the event makes me feel kinda dirty. Conversing with you makes me feel kinda stupid. I think you're contagious

The rifle was much more efficient because each mag held twice the number of rounds in the handguns.

Are you really as stupid as you appear?


yet he managed to carry TWO handguns and a rifle... almost as if he could have forgone the rifle entirely and not encumbered himself any more and STILL had the same number of rounds. Still a moran, farlie.
 
2012-12-16 10:54:42 PM

chuckufarlie: When talking to a gun nut on the internet, it helps to have this image available. It helps to remind yourself what you are dealing with.


I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

But the things you are saying are really dumb. You should stop, you aren't helping.
 
2012-12-16 10:54:46 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.

"much more efficient" and "could not have been done without it" aren't even close to the same thing.

You should stop, you are making yourself look dumber with every post.


/doesn't own a gun


He had to reload the rifle once for every two times he would have had to reload the handguns. That makes the rifle the weapon of choice because he did not have to reload as often.

Doing it with the pistols would have taken longer and given teachers a chance to hide more children.
 
2012-12-16 10:56:14 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: When talking to a gun nut on the internet, it helps to have this image available. It helps to remind yourself what you are dealing with.

I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

But the things you are saying are really dumb. You should stop, you aren't helping.


Not helping? Are you under the impression that the new gun laws are going to be generated on fark? Are you under the impression that you are going to change the opinion of any of these rednecks?

I am not helping but nothing here is gong to help anything.
 
2012-12-16 10:57:36 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: When talking to a gun nut on the internet, it helps to have this image available. It helps to remind yourself what you are dealing with.

I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

But the things you are saying are really dumb. You should stop, you aren't helping.


QFT
 
2012-12-16 10:58:42 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: If you believe that then you really don't know much about rifles, handguns or shot guns. He was able to kill so many young innocent children because he had 30 round magazines. If you do not understand that, you don't understand anything about guns.

He had a Glock 10mm as well. Can hold 15 rounds. He had 2 handguns. Up for some math?

And the only time he used a handgun was to kill himself. He was smart enough to realize that the rifle was much more efficient, even if you are not.

ahh so it was the efficiency of the weapon and not the number of rounds it held which was the important part? You should have said that instead of saying something else entirely then... Talking about this topic this close to the event makes me feel kinda dirty. Conversing with you makes me feel kinda stupid. I think you're contagious

The rifle was much more efficient because each mag held twice the number of rounds in the handguns.

Are you really as stupid as you appear?

yet he managed to carry TWO handguns and a rifle... almost as if he could have forgone the rifle entirely and not encumbered himself any more and STILL had the same number of rounds. Still a moran, farlie.


He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?
 
2012-12-16 10:59:42 PM

siphra: Some numbers for you:

In 1992 Gun laws were stricter throughout the nation than they are now, many states had no CCW at all. In fact only 9 did. That year there were about 25,000 firearms related murders. In the last 20 years more than 40 states now have CCW, gun ownership is up from approximately 50 million to 80 million and the number of gun related murders is now down below 9,000.

For all of those of you who say 'more guns is safer is just derp' those are the factual numbers. Historically crime increases in bad economies, however the trend for firearms related deaths is simple: The more people that have guns, the less likely there is to be a gun related murder.

While I do oppose teachers carrying guns, which has been promoted by a few RWNJs, here is another startling fact for you: In Israel they had similar issues, teachers were issued guns, school shootings went away.

In Switzerland 1/2 the population owns guns, they have the lowest gun crime rate in the world.

In nations that ban guns, the trend is simple: More crime, more violence, more murder, more assault, and more rape.

Sources(not linked because I am too lazy on this my 3rd day of discussions) : FBI UCR; CDC; and Various UK, Australian; NZ, and other European law enforcement sites, WHO, and UN sites all confirm what I have just said, don't believe me go look it up yourself. ( I know one of you is going to point out the decline in murders in every nation in the world as proof I am wrong, here in the US murder is on the decline too clearly shown in the FBI UCR and CDC websites.


Switzerland has a pretty high firearm death rate, compared to most first world countries.
 
2012-12-16 10:59:47 PM

skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat


No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.
 
2012-12-16 11:01:08 PM

cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.


skullcrushed is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He is wrong about lots of things.
 
2012-12-16 11:04:03 PM

chuckufarlie: He had to reload the rifle once for every two times he would have had to reload the handguns. That makes the rifle the weapon of choice because he did not have to reload as often.

Doing it with the pistols would have taken longer and given teachers a chance to hide more children.




If the kids are waiting in the closet it doesn't matter how long it takes. He will eventually get there and then kill six more. Reload and start looking for the next hiding spot. The teachers aren't putting them in extra-dimensional space. Are you really this thick?
 
2012-12-16 11:07:29 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: He had to reload the rifle once for every two times he would have had to reload the handguns. That makes the rifle the weapon of choice because he did not have to reload as often.

Doing it with the pistols would have taken longer and given teachers a chance to hide more children.



If the kids are waiting in the closet it doesn't matter how long it takes. He will eventually get there and then kill six more. Reload and start looking for the next hiding spot. The teachers aren't putting them in extra-dimensional space. Are you really this thick?


Okay, Einstein, then why did he not kill the kids that were hiding? He had plenty of ammo and the cops had not shown up when he killed himself.

You are seriously farked up.
 
2012-12-16 11:07:33 PM

cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.


The minutemen had cannons. Merchant ships had cannons. The constitution allowed for letters of marque and reprisal; privateers most certainly had cannons.
 
2012-12-16 11:08:17 PM

chuckufarlie: I am not helping but nothing here is gong to help anything.


Not true. Your posts are helping everyone on both sides of the debate see how stupid you are.
 
2012-12-16 11:08:37 PM

Azlefty: Took more guts to say no rather than use the kids bodies as a platform to advance you ready made agenda...


I like how trying to prevent more people from being murdered is some nefarious agenda.
 
2012-12-16 11:09:10 PM

pacified: why didn't the mom kill the shooter with her gun at the start anyway?


Not enough guns. Or something.
 
2012-12-16 11:09:29 PM

elchip: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

The minutemen had cannons. Merchant ships had cannons. The constitution allowed for letters of marque and reprisal; privateers most certainly had cannons.


the minutemen were in the militia. The militia owned cannons. And many privateers had to requisition cannons from the govt.
 
2012-12-16 11:11:12 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: GUN THREAD != ABORTION THREAD


The derp in both is about equal.

The anti-gun crowd is as resistant to facts as the anti-abortion crowd is. Both groups of anti-'s buy their party line without question, repeat the same long-discredited lies, and generally act in a completely irrational matter on the subject

I am pro-RTKBA for the same reason I am pro-choice, and pro-marriage rights.

Against guns? Don't get a gun.
Against abortions? Don't get an abortion.
Against gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Logical consistency on personal rights is not hard if you try. Don't do things you don't like, and don't try to force other people to stop doing things you don't like.
 
2012-12-16 11:11:51 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: I am not helping but nothing here is gong to help anything.

Not true. Your posts are helping everyone on both sides of the debate see how stupid you are.


Considering some of your posts, you have no idea how stupid other people are because you obviously have no idea how stupid you are.

Gonna explain that stupid post about the guy could have gone looking for the kids in hiding even though he actually did not do so, still have plenty of time and ammo to do it. Care to explain how stupid that comment was, you moron,
 
2012-12-16 11:12:18 PM

chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: He had to reload the rifle once for every two times he would have had to reload the handguns. That makes the rifle the weapon of choice because he did not have to reload as often.

Doing it with the pistols would have taken longer and given teachers a chance to hide more children.



If the kids are waiting in the closet it doesn't matter how long it takes. He will eventually get there and then kill six more. Reload and start looking for the next hiding spot. The teachers aren't putting them in extra-dimensional space. Are you really this thick?

Okay, Einstein, then why did he not kill the kids that were hiding? He had plenty of ammo and the cops had not shown up when he killed himself.

You are seriously farked up.


You are right. I don't know why the crazy man did the crazy thing he did in the crazy way he did it. Maybe he had a predetermined number of boys and girls to kill. Maybe he decided he was going to keep killing until he got him a Ginger. Maybe the voice in his head told him when he was done.

What I do know is that "he could not have killed that many kids with only pistols is false. Your doubling and tripling down on the argument makes you an idiot inside a moron wrapped up in a dumbass. You are the "turducken" of stupid.

What I do know is that "he couldn't have killed that many kids with only pistols.
 
2012-12-16 11:12:39 PM
Wonder how many muslim congressmen they "reached out to...to invite them on the program" on September 12, 2001.
 
2012-12-16 11:13:22 PM

clyph: demaL-demaL-yeH: GUN THREAD != ABORTION THREAD

The derp in both is about equal.

The anti-gun crowd is as resistant to facts as the anti-abortion crowd is. Both groups of anti-'s buy their party line without question, repeat the same long-discredited lies, and generally act in a completely irrational matter on the subject

I am pro-RTKBA for the same reason I am pro-choice, and pro-marriage rights.

Against guns? Don't get a gun.
Against abortions? Don't get an abortion.
Against gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Logical consistency on personal rights is not hard if you try. Don't do things you don't like, and don't try to force other people to stop doing things you don't like.


what do you say to the people who don't want to get shot? Don't they have rights? Is your right to own a gun better than my right to live?
 
2012-12-16 11:14:10 PM

chuckufarlie: When talking to a gun nut on the internet, it helps to have this image available. It helps to remind yourself what you are dealing with.

[api.ning.com image 350x366]


You're the one on the right, right?
 
2012-12-16 11:14:15 PM

chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I am not helping but nothing here is gong to help anything.

Not true. Your posts are helping everyone on both sides of the debate see how stupid you are.

Considering some of your posts, you have no idea how stupid other people are because you obviously have no idea how stupid you are.

Gonna explain that stupid post about the guy could have gone looking for the kids in hiding even though he actually did not do so, still have plenty of time and ammo to do it. Care to explain how stupid that comment was, you moron,


I don't see the disconnect. Are you saying he couldn't because he didn't choose to? The ability to do something and choosing not to do that thing are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.
 
2012-12-16 11:16:05 PM

jst3p: What I do know is that "he could not have killed that many kids with only pistols is false. Your doubling and tripling down on the argument makes you an idiot inside a moron wrapped up in a dumbass. You are the "turducken" of stupid.



*Applause*
 
2012-12-16 11:16:24 PM

clyph: demaL-demaL-yeH: GUN THREAD != ABORTION THREAD

The derp in both is about equal.

The anti-gun crowd is as resistant to facts as the anti-abortion crowd is. Both groups of anti-'s buy their party line without question, repeat the same long-discredited lies, and generally act in a completely irrational matter on the subject

I am pro-RTKBA for the same reason I am pro-choice, and pro-marriage rights.

Against guns? Don't get a gun.
Against abortions? Don't get an abortion.
Against gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Logical consistency on personal rights is not hard if you try. Don't do things you don't like, and don't try to force other people to stop doing things you don't like.


The different is if someone gets an abortion or gay married, I'm not increasing my chances of getting killed.

If someone gets a gun, that's another gun that can be used to kill the owner or another person.

No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.
 
2012-12-16 11:16:50 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: He had to reload the rifle once for every two times he would have had to reload the handguns. That makes the rifle the weapon of choice because he did not have to reload as often.

Doing it with the pistols would have taken longer and given teachers a chance to hide more children.



If the kids are waiting in the closet it doesn't matter how long it takes. He will eventually get there and then kill six more. Reload and start looking for the next hiding spot. The teachers aren't putting them in extra-dimensional space. Are you really this thick?

Okay, Einstein, then why did he not kill the kids that were hiding? He had plenty of ammo and the cops had not shown up when he killed himself.

You are seriously farked up.

You are right. I don't know why the crazy man did the crazy thing he did in the crazy way he did it. Maybe he had a predetermined number of boys and girls to kill. Maybe he decided he was going to keep killing until he got him a Ginger. Maybe the voice in his head told him when he was done.

What I do know is that "he could not have killed that many kids with only pistols is false. Your doubling and tripling down on the argument makes you an idiot inside a moron wrapped up in a dumbass. You are the "turducken" of stupid.

What I do know is that "he couldn't have killed that many kids with only pistols.


I will meet you at any open field of your choice. You can have two pistols just like the ones the moron had and I will have a rifle just like the one he had. We will each have four magazines just like the ones that he had.

Here is the challenge. We each have to fire 59 rounds into a barrel and then we can put the 60th bullet between the eyes of the other.

Are you up for it?

You have an advantage, not having anything important behind that spot between your eyes.
 
2012-12-16 11:16:59 PM

chuckufarlie: elchip: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

The minutemen had cannons. Merchant ships had cannons. The constitution allowed for letters of marque and reprisal; privateers most certainly had cannons.

the minutemen were in the militia. The militia owned cannons. And many privateers had to requisition cannons from the govt.


So what you're saying is that they were a well-regulated militia? :)
 
2012-12-16 11:17:51 PM

The_Sponge: jst3p: What I do know is that "he could not have killed that many kids with only pistols is false. Your doubling and tripling down on the argument makes you an idiot inside a moron wrapped up in a dumbass. You are the "turducken" of stupid.


*Applause*


you get the same option.

I will meet you at any open field of your choice. You can have two pistols just like the ones the moron had and I will have a rifle just like the one he had. We will each have four magazines just like the ones that he had.

Here is the challenge. We each have to fire 59 rounds into a barrel and then we can put the 60th bullet between the eyes of the other.

Are you up for it?

You have an advantage, not having anything important behind that spot between your eyes.
 
2012-12-16 11:18:50 PM

Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: And they told me gun nuts were the violent ones who wish death on others.

I bet you cheer for cancer.

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


Mike Huckabee level? You know, taking "God out of schools" means it's okay to kill kids.

That's one farked up God. Didn't see you getting your panties in a wad over THAT.
 
2012-12-16 11:20:06 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I am not helping but nothing here is gong to help anything.

Not true. Your posts are helping everyone on both sides of the debate see how stupid you are.

Considering some of your posts, you have no idea how stupid other people are because you obviously have no idea how stupid you are.

Gonna explain that stupid post about the guy could have gone looking for the kids in hiding even though he actually did not do so, still have plenty of time and ammo to do it. Care to explain how stupid that comment was, you moron,

I don't see the disconnect. Are you saying he couldn't because he didn't choose to? The ability to do something and choosing not to do that thing are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.


according the a teacher, he kept shooting until he ran out of targets. He did not go looking for the kids that were hiding. That is why your comment was stupid because it did not fit the facts.

Never let reality get in your way.
 
2012-12-16 11:20:19 PM

jmadisonbiii: Wonder how many muslim congressmen they "reached out to...to invite them on the program" on September 12, 2001.


None. Because there were none in Congress at that time. Try another analogy
 
2012-12-16 11:21:08 PM

chuckufarlie: pacified: why didn't the mom kill the shooter with her gun at the start anyway?

she was asleep in bed.


Well that's a piss poor excuse.
 
2012-12-16 11:22:39 PM

pacified: Has anyone figured out what well-regulated militia the shooter belonged to?


You are NOT supposed to mention that part!!!
 
2012-12-16 11:22:44 PM
I wonder how many of you gun nuts would change your mind if the school that your children go to was shot up like the one in CT.
 
2012-12-16 11:23:24 PM

chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?


they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.
 
2012-12-16 11:23:46 PM

mediablitz: chuckufarlie: pacified: why didn't the mom kill the shooter with her gun at the start anyway?

she was asleep in bed.

Well that's a piss poor excuse.


She did not have time to come up with a better one because she woke up dead.

Watch the gun nutz climb on that statement.
 
2012-12-16 11:24:22 PM

chuckufarlie: I will meet you at any open field of your choice. You can have two pistols just like the ones the moron had and I will have a rifle just like the one he had. We will each have four magazines just like the ones that he had.

Here is the challenge. We each have to fire 59 rounds into a barrel and then we can put the 60th bullet between the eyes of the other.

Are you up for it?

You have an advantage, not having anything important behind that spot between your eyes.


What the hell does that do with what we are talking about? I am not arguing which is more efficient. I am arguing what is possible. Look, turducken, I am not going to rehash my argument. Go back and re-read my posts until it sinks in. Or don't, you seem like the type that is happier in ignorance.
 
2012-12-16 11:24:52 PM

cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.


I just posted a large list of privateers. When they speak of "guns" on those ships, what sorts of guns do you think they were?
 
2012-12-16 11:26:34 PM

chuckufarlie: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

skullcrushed is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He is wrong about lots of things.


ah, so you point was that many people couldn't afford cannon rather than whether the 2nd amendment covered them? Of course, it's all clear. You've been caught trying to move the goalposts yet again.
 
2012-12-16 11:26:51 PM

mediablitz: Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: And they told me gun nuts were the violent ones who wish death on others.

I bet you cheer for cancer.

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

Mike Huckabee level? You know, taking "God out of schools" means it's okay to kill kids.

That's one farked up God. Didn't see you getting your panties in a wad over THAT.


What the hell is your problem? Huckabee is an asshole, and so is his god. You're an asshole for assuming I agree with him. Gee, I'm sorry I didn't post my opinion on this matter for your special benefit in fark thread #69843587.

Idiot.
 
2012-12-16 11:27:05 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.


TWO CLASSROOM, moron.
 
2012-12-16 11:28:27 PM
All this talk about 'proper mental health care' is smoke. You aren't crazy until you open fire, and then it's too late.
 
2012-12-16 11:29:04 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.


So you are saying he did go looking for more kids to kill after he was done in the first room?

chuckufarlie: according the a teacher, he kept shooting until he ran out of targets. He did not go looking for the kids that were hiding. That is why your comment was stupid because it did not fit the facts.


Keep posting, turducken.
 
2012-12-16 11:29:31 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

skullcrushed is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He is wrong about lots of things.

ah, so you point was that many people couldn't afford cannon rather than whether the 2nd amendment covered them? Of course, it's all clear. You've been caught trying to move the goalposts yet again.


I did not move the goalposts, you moron. You stated that individuals owned cannons.and I pointed out that once again you were wrong. I never said anything about their ability to afford them.

You are a true moron/ Are you married to your sister or do you just live together with your kids?
 
2012-12-16 11:29:58 PM

elchip: chuckufarlie: elchip: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

The minutemen had cannons. Merchant ships had cannons. The constitution allowed for letters of marque and reprisal; privateers most certainly had cannons.

the minutemen were in the militia. The militia owned cannons. And many privateers had to requisition cannons from the govt.

So what you're saying is that they were a well-regulated militia? :)


With actual military training and a command structure and everything. And actually, they didn't have cannons- they equipped themselves, and most just had fowling pieces- shotguns and muskets. A few had rifles.

The militia simply does not exist anymore- it was a trained military body of common citizenry to be called up in case an armed force was needed. Keep in mind this is before police forces existed, and when the Constitution was ratified, it was the common understanding that it did not permit the formation of any sort of standing army- it could only call them when needed. Militias filled that gap. But despite the protestations of the fat yahoos with no training or military responsibly who call themselves militias now, the institution that the power of the 2nd Amendment is clearly predicated upon, flatly doesn't exist. No, the national guard doesn't qualify- they're a reserve branch of our regular army, and members don't exactly equip themselves.
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report