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.

(New York Daily News)   There is a reason why you haven't heard a single word from the NRA and why they have taken down their Facebook page with 1.7million fans   (nydailynews.com) divider line 644
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Facebook, Jared Loughner, assault weapons, Newtown, Joe Manchin, gun controls  
•       •       •

7194 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 12:46:19 PM

Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?


School buses have a legitimate purpose with no good alternative available to satisfy that purpose. Semi automatic rifles with 30-round magazines have no legitimate purpose, unless you consider (a) compensating for your inadequate self-esteem, or (b) causing mayhem "legitimate purposes." And you can always substitute a sports car or an expensive hooker to compensate for you inadequate self-esteem.
 
2012-12-18 12:46:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Geotpf: You can't ban guns because the Supreme Court says you can't

They didn't used to. Who can we thank for that? The NRA.

Link


Yup; they are good at their job.

Which is why they are shutting up right now.

Nothing will be passed until the next Congress takes office, and then their first task will probably be cleaning up the remaining loose ends from the whole "fiscal cliff" business. Realistically, no new gun control bill will be discussed until the spring. By then, memories and emotions will have faded, and they can do their thing to block or water down whatever is proposed-remember, the House is still in Republican hands.
 
2012-12-18 12:47:05 PM

chuckufarlie: gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Are you saying that the German people KNEW that the Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy AT THE TIME?

And even if it hadn't been a "false flag", would that have made any difference as far as Hitler's power grab was concerned?

You need to defuddle your befuddlements and THINK for a moment.

I really don't get this. Are you saying it shouldn't matter whether or not this (Sandy Hook) was a planned false flag attack because its going to be used opportunistically? Is that what you're saying?

Because I think there are some parents of soem dead kids who would be interested to know if their kids were deliberately murdered by the US government as a part of an authoritarian gun grab.

Yes, I think that would be a piece of information they would consider highly relevant.

NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.

Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?


I DID NOT SAY SANDY HOOK WAS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK!

I said it was an opportunist authoritarian's wet dream.

But you didn't read my clear explanation, because you have me in ignore because you're tired of being trounced in every conversation we have.

Innatright?
 
2012-12-18 12:48:04 PM

Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)


Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.
 
2012-12-18 12:49:32 PM

CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.


Yeah, but magazines with a capacity over 3 are certainly in common civialian use, so this is unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-18 12:50:06 PM

Geotpf: chuckufarlie: I did not suggest that we take all guns, just the ones who serve no purpose beyond killing people.

Every gun can be used for target practice, so none would qualify under your rule.

Lots of people buy semi-automatic rifles (like the Bushmaster in question) to fire them at a gun range.

They also buy them for inflated self-protection reasons ("doomsday preppers", like the gunman's mother), and sometimes even to hunt with.


Your right to use a semi-automatic to shoot up targets is outweighed by our right to live.

Only a person who believes that he is going to be attacked by a crowd of people needs a semi-auto. People who think like that are not qualified to own any weapon because they are crazy.

Have you ever noticed that whenever there is a big natural disaster, it draws the people together. There is no "I got mine" attitude exhibited by the people. They pull together to help each other. People from outside the area go in to offer help. The government offers assistance, the Red Cross does the same. Where in any of this is there the scenario that these doomsday preppers are worried about? Doomsday preppers are ALL crazy.
 
2012-12-18 12:50:20 PM

Geotpf: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.

Yeah, but magazines with a capacity over 3 are certainly in common civialian use, so this is unconstitutional.


What does this even mean?
 
2012-12-18 12:51:16 PM

Benjamin Orr: and for the record... if you want to ban all guns I can understand you (not agree with you... but understand you at least). People that want to ban certain types of guns are just functionally retarded.


4.bp.blogspot.com

Let me make sure I understand you - are you seriously suggesting that, unless all, guns are banned, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should not be allowed to possess one of these? Is that what you actually intended to say?
 
2012-12-18 12:51:17 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night


My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".
 
2012-12-18 12:51:39 PM

CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.


Interesting proposal. Not sure it would ever get passed but interesting.

if you are going to limit capacity then this would be the way to go. limiting them from 30 to 15 or 10 just wouldn't make that much of a difference in my opinion.
 
2012-12-18 12:51:40 PM

sprawl15: orclover: I thought that it was already determined that she had these weapons (and others) in a gun safe?

No idea, there's so many ridiculously conflicting news reports that it's going to be farking impossible to know what Actually Happened for a couple weeks.

But the operating words being 'away from her son'. I doubt he was an expert safe cracker or used explosives to blow his way in.


He probably knew the combination I would guess, or just had her open it. My eldest son will never know my combination, more for his own safety than anything else . My youngest, maybe when he's 16. So far I don't see any reason why I wouldn't give it to him when he's older. But people change. Sometimes just refusing to take their meds can change people horrifically. Forget the guns locked up, we have had to hide the knives and matches on occasion due to my oldest son refusing his medication for a day. Still took 3 days to get him processed into local MHMR. Three days without sleep I might add.
 
2012-12-18 12:52:44 PM

Geotpf: Yup; they are good at their job.

Which is why they are shutting up right now.


If you're right about something, it doesn't take long to formulate a statement. They are cowards.
 
2012-12-18 12:52:50 PM

Epicedion: Dr Dreidel: Haven't you heard? That clause is nothing more than lexical ornamentation. The Founders got paid by the word, so they had to "pad it out" so that they could afford the price of tea. "A well regulated militia" was 1789's version of "YOLO" - it adds no meaning or deeper understanding to the words around it, and the individual words that comprise the phrase, when combined, cease to hold any meaning whatever.

// what SCOTUS actually believes

The "well regulated militia" was more the "we might get attacked by Indians, French, British, Spanish, Dutch, Mexicans, or Bears at any time so if we yell please assemble in town with your gun" of the time. According to the renowned documentary Red Dawn, it would be the North Koreans today.


So "a well regulated militia" means "when we have a draft"? Someone should tell the Supremes they got Heller and MacDonald wrong, then, as 2A doesn't apply to the armed forces (and never did IIRC) - SCOTUS says 2A protects an individual's right to possess firearms, and AFA I've seen, nothing in either of those decisions applies those four words to any protected right we currently enjoy. IIRC, SCOTUS says those four words simply serve as a lead-in to the "real" amendment and do not confer or restrict any additional rights. Making them the "Meg White's drum tech" of Constitutional phrases.
 
2012-12-18 12:52:58 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".


No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.
 
2012-12-18 12:53:19 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".


That's gonna leave a mark.
 
2012-12-18 12:54:18 PM

Dr Dreidel: So "a well regulated militia" means "when we have a draft"?


Did I say anything about a draft?
 
2012-12-18 12:54:39 PM

Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.

Interesting proposal. Not sure it would ever get passed but interesting.

if you are going to limit capacity then this would be the way to go. limiting them from 30 to 15 or 10 just wouldn't make that much of a difference in my opinion.


I agree. I say 3 with the assumption that you are using the gun for protecting your property. Gives you the chance to miss a couple times, or fire a warning shot, or shoot two attackers without having to reload. If you're being attacked by more than two people per gun wielder then you're probably safer not firing at them anyway because you're going to get killed. If you need to be able to miss more than that you probably shouldn't have a gun until you can prove you're more accurate with it. I think ability should be a requirement of ownership.
 
2012-12-18 12:55:23 PM

BMulligan: Benjamin Orr: and for the record... if you want to ban all guns I can understand you (not agree with you... but understand you at least). People that want to ban certain types of guns are just functionally retarded.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x251]

Let me make sure I understand you - are you seriously suggesting that, unless all, guns are banned, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should not be allowed to possess one of these? Is that what you actually intended to say?


Yes... that is exactly what I meant... exactly that. Except not that at all though. I meant the people saying ban all semi-autos that look scary (assault weapons) but not knowing that other weapons exist that are just as deadly.

You do know that people can and do own weapons just like that already right? They are just more controlled and more expensive since they are scarce.
 
2012-12-18 12:55:43 PM
"If you attempt to take the guns of every gun owner in the country, you will trigger a civil war. Guaranteed."

Why? Be specific. Would you rather have your gun or your life?
 
2012-12-18 12:56:08 PM

randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this. Remember, exploitation of a tragedy for political reasons is wrong and sick until they're your political reasons.

To put it more bluntly, the Obama administration whom you have been defending to the hilt over Benghazi and howling in rage when anyone tries to hold the administration in any way responsible for it... Is FAR more connected to the deaths of those four Americans than the NRA is to these mass shootings. You're the same bunch of tools who ran around waving your arms and yelling "Islamophobia!" when people started talking about what led up to the Ft. Hood shooting

You know all those religious people whom you keep crying about because they took this chance to run their mouths about what they believe is the problem? Quit acting like them. If you're running around raging at the NRA then take a seat over there with those religious arsehats if you're going to behave like them. Most of all don't fly in to fits of indignant outrage when people "exploit" tragedies for "political" reasons unless you are prepared to stop doing it yourselves.

And you're not going to stop, I know it, and you know it.


Who are you shouting at, crazy old man? The clouds cannot hurt you.
 
2012-12-18 12:56:11 PM

orclover: Theres no gun control in the world that would have slowed crazy ol Ted down. As for gun fetishist it will be a good news bad news situation. Good news is you can keep your arsenal. Bad news is, sit down on this couch and tell me how yer feeling, no, really.


If someone has a collection of weaponry and is deemed to have some sort of mental illness or disorder, I think there is going to be more involved than a "come tell me how you're feeling" if even the slightest bit of mental illness is detected. It's going to be a "come put your arms into the sleeves of this jacket with the buckles on it, and step into this this padded room. Hope you like the color white" situation.

So all those gun fetishists who are clamoring for more mental health screenings and government authority to incapacitate screened as a possible danger in lieu of stricter gun control.... let's just be sure that we have you on record as to what exactly this is going to entail. Becuase I don't think you're going to like the psychiatrist's evaluation and recommended course of action very much when she gets your answers as to why you feel the need to stockpile yourself with military grade weaponry.
 
2012-12-18 12:56:24 PM

Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.


Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:04 PM

Epicedion: Dr Dreidel: So "a well regulated militia" means "when we have a draft"?

Did I say anything about a draft?


You implied it:

Epicedion: The "well regulated militia" was more the "we might get attacked by Indians, French, British, Spanish, Dutch, Mexicans, or Bears at any time so if we yell please assemble in town with your gun" of the time. According to the renowned documentary Red Dawn, it would be the North Koreans today.


Such a scenario today, one in which the US needs actual homeland defense from an outside threat, where the US asks people to "please assemble in town with your gun" is a draft. Maybe not a Vietnam-style draft, but it's "raising an army".

Or maybe I read an implication where there was none.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:23 PM

orclover: He probably knew the combination I would guess, or just had her open it.


She was (supposedly) shot in bed, so I'd imagine he got the guns without her knowledge.

orclover: My eldest son will never know my combination, more for his own safety than anything else . My youngest, maybe when he's 16. So far I don't see any reason why I wouldn't give it to him when he's older. But people change. Sometimes just refusing to take their meds can change people horrifically. Forget the guns locked up, we have had to hide the knives and matches on occasion due to my oldest son refusing his medication for a day. Still took 3 days to get him processed into local MHMR. Three days without sleep I might add.


Exactly. This kid was someone who she knew had serious problems, but she apparently didn't think they were serious enough to take the guns away. Not that he wouldn't have found a way to be a psycho, but it certainly isn't a responsible decision to let him know how to get into the gun safe.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:30 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Geotpf: Yup; they are good at their job.

Which is why they are shutting up right now.

If you're right about something, it doesn't take long to formulate a statement. They are cowards.


Once you stop thinking of them as a "charity" and remember that they are first and foremost a Business, the more it all starts to make sense. Same for Planned Parenthood. And baby, business is about to boom.
 
2012-12-18 12:58:04 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.


yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.
 
2012-12-18 12:58:44 PM

CPennypacker: I agree. I say 3 with the assumption that you are using the gun for protecting your property. Gives you the chance to miss a couple times, or fire a warning shot, or shoot two attackers without having to reload. If you're being attacked by more than two people per gun wielder then you're probably safer not firing at them anyway because you're going to get killed. If you need to be able to miss more than that you probably shouldn't have a gun until you can prove you're more accurate with it. I think ability should be a requirement of ownership.


People with significant training in self-defense situations trend toward hitting their target about 20% of the time.
 
2012-12-18 12:58:49 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.


You are so dumb... so very very dumb.
 
2012-12-18 12:59:26 PM

BMulligan: Benjamin Orr: and for the record... if you want to ban all guns I can understand you (not agree with you... but understand you at least). People that want to ban certain types of guns are just functionally retarded.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x251]

Let me make sure I understand you - are you seriously suggesting that, unless all, guns are banned, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should not be allowed to possess one of these? Is that what you actually intended to say?


John Moses Browning, you magnificent bastard!
 
2012-12-18 12:59:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: Such a scenario today, one in which the US needs actual homeland defense from an outside threat, where the US asks people to "please assemble in town with your gun" is a draft. Maybe not a Vietnam-style draft, but it's "raising an army".

Or maybe I read an implication where there was none.


Skipped right over where I called Red Dawn a documentary, I see?
 
2012-12-18 01:00:08 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.

yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.


Nah... your mom is just so sweet and ripe I could never bury her again.
 
2012-12-18 01:01:16 PM

gilgigamesh: chuckufarlie: NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.


Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?

I know that. You need to read the whole conversation. He first compared Sandy Hook to the Reichstag fire, which was a false flag attack, then moved the goalposts back to imply that whether it was a false flag attack is not relevant because it will be used in the same manner.

I was responding to that.



I didn't move any goal posts, sir.

I carefully and patiently explained my comparison between the Reichstag Fire and the Sandy Hook shootings - SEVERAL TIMES, but I'll do it again, as you appear to be a bit stupefied today:

Both the Reichstag Fire AND the Sandy Hook massacre were shocking events that were and are being used by ambitious, opportunistic authoritarians to excuse a power grab.

If you fail to grasp the concept at this point, I shall have to assume that you suffer cognitive deficiency or (god forbid) are simply a dishonest person.

Thank you.
 
2012-12-18 01:02:04 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.

You are so dumb... so very very dumb.


IT would be way too much of a coincidence if we were both very, very stupid. You have already shown how incredibly stupid you are.

Sorry, but the idea that you need a semi-auto for hunting is just wrong. You need to come to terms with that.
 
2012-12-18 01:02:15 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: I agree. I say 3 with the assumption that you are using the gun for protecting your property. Gives you the chance to miss a couple times, or fire a warning shot, or shoot two attackers without having to reload. If you're being attacked by more than two people per gun wielder then you're probably safer not firing at them anyway because you're going to get killed. If you need to be able to miss more than that you probably shouldn't have a gun until you can prove you're more accurate with it. I think ability should be a requirement of ownership.

People with significant training in self-defense situations trend toward hitting their target about 20% of the time.


They better practice up then
 
2012-12-18 01:03:41 PM

Amos Quito: gilgigamesh: chuckufarlie: NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.


Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?

I know that. You need to read the whole conversation. He first compared Sandy Hook to the Reichstag fire, which was a false flag attack, then moved the goalposts back to imply that whether it was a false flag attack is not relevant because it will be used in the same manner.

I was responding to that.


I didn't move any goal posts, sir.

I carefully and patiently explained my comparison between the Reichstag Fire and the Sandy Hook shootings - SEVERAL TIMES, but I'll do it again, as you appear to be a bit stupefied today:

Both the Reichstag Fire AND the Sandy Hook massacre were shocking events that were and are being used by ambitious, opportunistic authoritarians to excuse a power grab.

If you fail to grasp the concept at this point, I shall have to assume that you suffer cognitive deficiency or (god forbid) are simply a dishonest person.

Thank you.


But Sandy Hook isnt, so.... Keep on being stupid.

Gotta love how coy you are. Adorable troll is adorable
 
2012-12-18 01:04:04 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.

yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.

Nah... your mom is just so sweet and ripe I could never bury her again.


This is why we all know that you are incredibly stupid. Well, this and every other post that you have posted.
 
2012-12-18 01:04:23 PM
fark you gun nuts. no one cares. I have to show a goddamn id to get suddafed.
 
2012-12-18 01:04:47 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.

You are so dumb... so very very dumb.

IT would be way too much of a coincidence if we were both very, very stupid. You have already shown how incredibly stupid you are.

Sorry, but the idea that you need a semi-auto for hunting is just wrong. You need to come to terms with that.


Keep arguing points that I didn't make. I will keep farking your dead mother.
 
2012-12-18 01:05:14 PM

CPennypacker: They better practice up then


Real life isn't the movies -- very few people would be able to pull out their 3-shooter and drop two attackers, leaving the third bullet safely in reserve. Add into that the fact that shooting someone isn't a guarantee that they'll stop, depending on where they're hit and their physical state.

I mean, if you're going to propose limits, at least consider reality when you're trying to compose them, otherwise it's just noise.
 
2012-12-18 01:05:41 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.

yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.

Nah... your mom is just so sweet and ripe I could never bury her again.

This is why we all know that you are incredibly stupid. Well, this and every other post that you have posted.


How dare you talk about your own mother that way
 
2012-12-18 01:05:54 PM

Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

For the same reason that when OBL was killed, we weren't discussing a gun ban. It's not relevant to the discussion.

But since you brought it up, we did do things to make buses safer to operate normally - like adding seatbelts and



FYI, School buses have NO seatbelts OR airbags - at least not for the children.

For the driver, yes, but for the kids, no.

Now, what were you saying?
 
2012-12-18 01:06:19 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.

You are so dumb... so very very dumb.

IT would be way too much of a coincidence if we were both very, very stupid. You have already shown how incredibly stupid you are.

Sorry, but the idea that you need a semi-auto for hunting is just wrong. You need to come to terms with that.

Keep arguing points that I didn't make. I will keep farking your dead mother.


You just continue to show us that your stupidity has no limits.
 
2012-12-18 01:06:33 PM

Benjamin Orr: BMulligan: Benjamin Orr: and for the record... if you want to ban all guns I can understand you (not agree with you... but understand you at least). People that want to ban certain types of guns are just functionally retarded.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x251]

Let me make sure I understand you - are you seriously suggesting that, unless all, guns are banned, there is no rational reason why a private citizen should not be allowed to possess one of these? Is that what you actually intended to say?

Yes... that is exactly what I meant... exactly that. Except not that at all though. I meant the people saying ban all semi-autos that look scary (assault weapons) but not knowing that other weapons exist that are just as deadly.

You do know that people can and do own weapons just like that already right? They are just more controlled and more expensive since they are scarce.


Those people are sad and frightening. They should seek professional help.

But I agree that it would be nice if people having this debate were better informed. I nearly lost my shiat when I heard that pompous blowhard John Miller on CBS talk about how much bigger the bullet fired by a .223 was than the bullets fired by common handguns. As for knowledge of the law, I practice law and I've done some work with clients who had run afoul of various firearm laws, but I would describe my general knowledge of the law in this area as sketchy, at best. That's why I try never to make an assertion about the state of the law in this area without citation to a reliable source, and even then I've been steered wrong (once in this thread already).
 
2012-12-18 01:07:28 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: They better practice up then

Real life isn't the movies -- very few people would be able to pull out their 3-shooter and drop two attackers, leaving the third bullet safely in reserve. Add into that the fact that shooting someone isn't a guarantee that they'll stop, depending on where they're hit and their physical state.

I mean, if you're going to propose limits, at least consider reality when you're trying to compose them, otherwise it's just noise.


They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.
 
2012-12-18 01:07:32 PM

sprawl15: urbangirl: Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection.

What, in your words, is an 'assault weapon'? Be specific.


Why do his words matter. Why don't you frame -your- opinion on what is an assult weapon, and what is not. This is a debate all of society should be involved in. Or do you want people who in favor of removing -all- guns to be in charge of the changes that are indoubtedly coming.
 
2012-12-18 01:07:51 PM

InmanRoshi: Becuase I don't think you're going to like the psychiatrist's evaluation and recommended course of action very much when she gets your answers as to why you feel the need to stockpile yourself with military grade weaponry.


If you are referring to me then you would only need one look into my gun safe to realize how silly that statement is :-)

If you are referring to the 'average' gun nut, oh my god they are going to go nuts. Relatively. They are going to lobby, and sue and complain and every now and then they are going to have a shoot out on their doorstep with the mental health deputies. On their doorsteps most likely, not likely in a school. And not just them, BUT YOU!!! oh god and ME! well i've already been given a clean bill of mental health this year.....physically im a cholesterol stuffed farking train wreck how about you? Mental checkups, exactly like yearly physicals should not just be for gun nuts. It should be for all of us. It should be considered normal for everyone to do this. Hell it should be considered bad to not do this, like farking some random person without a condom. This needs to be a thing.
 
2012-12-18 01:08:26 PM

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

ANSWER:

That didn't happen, he shot a bunch of kids to death, and your hypothetical is stupid.



Okay, so you're an opportunist seeking to capitalize on this tragedy to further your authoritarian agenda.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-12-18 01:08:29 PM

Epicedion: Dr Dreidel: Such a scenario today, one in which the US needs actual homeland defense from an outside threat, where the US asks people to "please assemble in town with your gun" is a draft. Maybe not a Vietnam-style draft, but it's "raising an army".

Or maybe I read an implication where there was none.

Skipped right over where I called Red Dawn a documentary, I see?


Maybe I didn't realize that the rest of it was just as sarcastic?
 
2012-12-18 01:08:55 PM

CPennypacker: They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.


Knowing people that have died from home invaders, I don't see it as that paranoid. It's relatively rare, sure, but it does happen and having at least the potential opportunity to do something about it seems right.
 
2012-12-18 01:09:29 PM

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.

yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.

Nah... your mom is just so sweet and ripe I could never bury her again.

This is why we all know that you are incredibly stupid. Well, this and every other post that you have posted.

How dare you talk about your own mother that way


IF you try to insult a person and you fail miserably, you really should stop or at least try something different. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.

I am not surprised to find out that you are insane. I think that I am done with you. You serve no purpose beyond being an example of what intelligent people are not.
 
Displayed 50 of 644 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report