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.

(The New York Times)   At news conference to discuss his upcoming response to the Newtown massacre reporters ask Obama such hard-hitting questions like "who do you like better, Spider-Man or Batman?" and "what did you think about last night's episode of The Voice?"   (mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 57
    More: Asinine, Spider-Man, Newtown, obama, Batman, press conference, massacres  
•       •       •

931 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Dec 2012 at 8:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 08:12:58 PM
Because the media is so liberal, you see.
 
2012-12-19 08:13:09 PM
Why does the press suck so much. How do we get people who ask hard hitting questions there? Like comedians.
 
2012-12-19 08:14:05 PM
1. Gun Control is not going to solve this problem
2. There are bigger problems the nation faces like the Fiscal Cliff so bravo they took the initiative to ask any questions on this seeing that Obummer tends to avoid the press.
 
2012-12-19 08:15:32 PM
Now is not the time to talk about the Survivor finale

/Skupin shoulda won
 
2012-12-19 08:15:45 PM
Lisa: Honest Abe, he'll show me the way.
[goes to the memorial] Mr. Lincoln?
Man: Mr. Lincoln, I need your advice. What can I do to make this abetter country?
Woman: Is this a good time to buy a house?
Woman: I can't get my boy to brush proper.
Man: Would I look good with a mustache?
Old man: [takes of his hat, revealing his bald pate] So I tried some turpentine but that just made it worse.
Lisa: [trying to make herself heard over the din] Mr. Lincoln? My name is Lisa Simpson, and I have a problem.
 
2012-12-19 08:17:39 PM

Brick-House: 1. Gun ...bravo they took the initiative to ask any questions on this seeing that Obummer tends to avoid the press.


Palinsayswhat?
 
2012-12-19 08:19:05 PM

links136: Why does the press suck so much. How do we get people who ask hard hitting questions there? Like comedians.


Turn them into puppets, then they'll start doing their job.
 
2012-12-19 08:21:46 PM
Anyone who asked such stupid questions should have their press pass revoked.
 
2012-12-19 08:22:06 PM
Clowns
 
2012-12-19 08:24:03 PM
As of this morning, Spider-man no longer exists, so Batman wins by default.
 
2012-12-19 08:25:57 PM
So, was this like that Ray Lewis commercial where the little girl starts asking questions? Seriously, please tell me these questions were from children.

/damnitsomuch
 
2012-12-19 08:26:21 PM
It is rather shocking that it took 15 minutes before they got around to asking questions related to the specific issue the press conference was about in the first place, especially on such a major issue in the wake of a national tragedy. However, I'm already seeing people saying that this is a signal that Obama is going after peoples' guns now.

Why? Why are people so terrified that any kind of gun legislation whatsoever will automatically means that men in black suits will be searching your house for your personal arsenal? Or that any kind of gun legislation whatsoever will automatically be a slippery slope to our total enslavement by the government? Obama has simply said it's time to take action on preventing future massacres such as this one, and frankly, I'd be more upset if he just let another one slide on by without taking action. Seriously, why not reinstate the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004? You don't go hunting with assault rifles, talk about serious overkill; they're made specifically to take down humans. Reminds me of that Futurama episode where that NRA guy says he won't leave his house without his vial of mutated anthrax, "... for duck hunting."
 
2012-12-19 08:26:58 PM
Fart: We're taking some preliminary steps to address this crisis. We hope to have a Phase 1 plan by next month. It's a complex web of issues. It will take some time and cooperation to sort it out out. Biden's my guy on this one. Questions?

Reporters: Uh... Okay... He covered every.... Uh... FISCAL CLIFF!!!???

Twitter-folk: WTF? How come nobody asked a bunch of retarded questions about repealing the 2nd Ammendment? I know I'll ask some snarky pop culture questions to show my disdain.

Subby: I fail at comprehension. Liberal media!!!11,!

Fark Admin: INSTAGREEN!! Flame on!
 
2012-12-19 08:28:04 PM

StopLurkListen: Clowns


I retract this.

Subby is an idiot. I'm dumb for not reading first.

Fiscal Cliff questions are valid because it's a current event and it's not like Obama is available at press conferences very often.
 
2012-12-19 08:28:47 PM
So pathetic. There was outrage on twitter, then those MSM hacks defended themselves. They deserve to be mocked.
 
2012-12-19 08:37:58 PM

WraithSama: It is rather shocking that it took 15 minutes before they got around to asking questions related to the specific issue the press conference was about in the first place, especially on such a major issue in the wake of a national tragedy. However, I'm already seeing people saying that this is a signal that Obama is going after peoples' guns now.

Why? Why are people so terrified that any kind of gun legislation whatsoever will automatically means that men in black suits will be searching your house for your personal arsenal? Or that any kind of gun legislation whatsoever will automatically be a slippery slope to our total enslavement by the government? Obama has simply said it's time to take action on preventing future massacres such as this one, and frankly, I'd be more upset if he just let another one slide on by without taking action. Seriously, why not reinstate the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004? You don't go hunting with assault rifles, talk about serious overkill; they're made specifically to take down humans. Reminds me of that Futurama episode where that NRA guy says he won't leave his house without his vial of mutated anthrax, "... for duck hunting."


Assault rifles are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are not readily available to civilians. An assault rifle was not used in Newtown. While some firearm ownership rights advocates are irrational, many rational advocates opposed proposed gun control legislation because it is proposed by individuals such as yourself who lack an understanding of current firearms regulation and who lack an understanding of common civilian firearm models and the fact that they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.
 
2012-12-19 08:43:25 PM

Dimensio: individuals such as yourself who lack an understanding of current firearms


I was informed earlier today by a condescending whore such as yourself that "assault weapon" is a meaningless terms, so kindly eat my ass.
 
2012-12-19 08:48:02 PM

Wooly Bully: Dimensio: individuals such as yourself who lack an understanding of current firearms

I was informed earlier today by a condescending whore such as yourself that "assault weapon" is a meaningless terms, so kindly eat my ass.


"Assault rifle" refers to intermediate-caliber rifles fed from detachable magazines that feature select-fire capable rendering them capable either of fully-automatic or "burst-fire" operation.

"Assault weapon" is in fact a "meaningless" term relating to semi-automatic civilian rifles based upon the presence of certain attachments that create cosmetic (but not functional) resemblance to assault rifles. They are still functionally identical to semi-automatic rifles that lack those attachments and that are not classified as "assault weapons". The definition of "assault weapon" varies between different legislative proposals; it has no established technical definition, but it typically encompasses numerous popular civilian sporting rifle models that are in fact used for hunting and for recreational target shooting.

Insulting me will not validate your position.
 
2012-12-19 08:48:28 PM

Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.


[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.
 
2012-12-19 08:49:42 PM

enry: Anyone who asked such stupid questions should have their press pass revoked.


Good thing they didn't. What stubmitter missed is that the two questions in the headline were twits mocking the reporters' actual questions.
 
2012-12-19 08:49:54 PM

Dimensio: Insulting me will not validate your position.


My position - on your face?
 
2012-12-19 08:51:32 PM

WraithSama: Why? Why are people so terrified that any kind of gun legislation whatsoever will automatically means that men in black suits will be searching your house for your personal arsenal?


Because the ATF is the group of black suits in charge of regulating firearm owners.
...and they are also known for unfortunate little incidents like this.

dl.dropbox.com

So in which absurd alternate universe could you possibly conceive that ANY citizen would want to deal with those guys on a more regular basis?

/Would you want the government in your home more often?
/Bad enough for normal folks. But we're also talking about 2nd amendment believers who cast a cynical eye on anything the feds do.
/This is like smoking a cigar in the powder room. Nothing good is gonna happen.
 
2012-12-19 08:51:42 PM

dslknowitall: Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.

[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.


How many shooters are able to pull a trigger thirty times in six seconds?
 
2012-12-19 08:52:24 PM

Wooly Bully: Dimensio: Insulting me will not validate your position.

My position - on your face?


My face is of no relevance to your initial claim.
 
2012-12-19 08:54:05 PM

Dimensio: Wooly Bully: Dimensio: Insulting me will not validate your position.

My position - on your face?

My face is of no relevance to your initial claim.



Haha, ok, well at least you made me laugh with that one.
 
2012-12-19 08:58:39 PM

Dimensio: many rational advocates opposed proposed gun control legislation because it is proposed by individuals such as yourself who lack an understanding of current firearms regulation and who lack an understanding of common civilian firearm models


Then they are not rational gun advocates if they only accept proposed regulation from people with a pre-approved level of understanding of the available firearm models and their capabilities. Laws and regulation are in place to protect everyone regardless of their level of knowledge of firearms is. The laws are not there to simply protect the gun experts.
 
2012-12-19 09:00:22 PM

Dimensio: dslknowitall: Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.

[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.

How many shooters are able to pull a trigger thirty times in six seconds?


So this is a debate about the literal meaning of "semi-automatic" versus the fact that some of the bodies had up to 11 bullets in them due to high capacity magazines and a weapon designed to disperse them quickly. I asked for a citation as to the actual legitimate use of such a weapon and so far you haven't provided it.
 
2012-12-19 09:03:41 PM
IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.
 
2012-12-19 09:03:53 PM

dslknowitall: So this is a debate about the literal meaning of "semi-automatic" versus the fact that some of the bodies had up to 11 bullets in them due to high capacity magazines and a weapon designed to disperse them quickly. I asked for a citation as to the actual legitimate use of such a weapon and so far you haven't provided it.


You seem to be overlooking the RAMPAGING HOG crisis we face.
 
2012-12-19 09:07:30 PM

Dimensio: The definition of "assault weapon" varies between different legislative proposals; it has no established technical definition, but it typically encompasses numerous popular civilian sporting rifle models that are in fact used for hunting and for recreational target shooting.


So a few weapons that sport hunters or target shooters use might be affected in new restrictions?

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-19 09:12:05 PM

sendtodave: Dimensio: The definition of "assault weapon" varies between different legislative proposals; it has no established technical definition, but it typically encompasses numerous popular civilian sporting rifle models that are in fact used for hunting and for recreational target shooting.

So a few weapons that sport hunters or target shooters use might be affected in new restrictions?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]


Only the ones with the shoulder things that go up and the bayonet lugs.

/Bayonets: Abandoned by the army, feared by politicians.
/and Libyan dictators, but thats a different matter...
 
2012-12-19 09:16:40 PM
Getting back on topic...


The President should just be allowed to ignore or publicly insult idiot reporters who ask stupid questions.
 
2012-12-19 09:24:37 PM

sendtodave: Dimensio: The definition of "assault weapon" varies between different legislative proposals; it has no established technical definition, but it typically encompasses numerous popular civilian sporting rifle models that are in fact used for hunting and for recreational target shooting.

So a few weapons that sport hunters or target shooters use might be affected in new restrictions?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]


If by "a few" you mean "several million" and by "new restrictions" you mean "new restrictions that serve no beneficial purpose", then yes.
 
2012-12-19 09:26:18 PM

Brick-House: 1. Gun Control is not going to solve this problem
2. There are bigger problems the nation faces like the Fiscal Cliff so bravo they took the initiative to ask any questions on this seeing that Obummer tends to avoid the press.


speaking of... since the Oregon m all shooting and this recent school shooting... we haven't heard much about this "cliff" have we?

 
2012-12-19 09:29:06 PM

dslknowitall: Dimensio: dslknowitall: Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.

[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.

How many shooters are able to pull a trigger thirty times in six seconds?

So this is a debate about the literal meaning of "semi-automatic" versus the fact that some of the bodies had up to 11 bullets in them due to high capacity magazines and a weapon designed to disperse them quickly.


You are altering the subject of discussion; you have not demonstrated that Mr. Lanza "fired 30 bullets in 6 seconds", thus his actions are not relevant to your original request. While individuals capable of firing thirty rounds from a semi-automatic rifle in six seconds may exist (bearing in mind that one trick shooter is known to have fired twelve rounds from a revolver in three seconds), they are very uncommon if they do.


I asked for a citation as to the actual legitimate use of such a weapon and so far you haven't provided it.

AR-15 are suitable for hunting medium-size animals. The AR-15 platform is also one of the most popular centerfire target rifle platforms in the United States of America.
 
2012-12-19 09:31:01 PM

dslknowitall: Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.

[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.


Because the Federal Gov. & police have guns able to fire much much faster than that?

Legit point too, if these type of semi-autos are banned for civilians, does that mean police & feds will give their up too?

 
2012-12-19 09:31:23 PM

Muta: Dimensio: many rational advocates opposed proposed gun control legislation because it is proposed by individuals such as yourself who lack an understanding of current firearms regulation and who lack an understanding of common civilian firearm models

Then they are not rational gun advocates if they only accept proposed regulation from people with a pre-approved level of understanding of the available firearm models and their capabilities. Laws and regulation are in place to protect everyone regardless of their level of knowledge of firearms is. The laws are not there to simply protect the gun experts.


Proposed legislation banning the presence of barrel shrouds on rifles, authored by a legislator who openly admits to not knowing the definition of the term "barrel shroud", is not meaningful, beneficial nor reasonable legislation.
 
2012-12-19 09:35:17 PM

MooseUpNorth: enry: Anyone who asked such stupid questions should have their press pass revoked.

Good thing they didn't. What stubmitter missed is that the two questions in the headline were twits mocking the reporters' actual questions.


The questions that were actually asked of him weren't a whole lot better.
 
2012-12-19 09:39:27 PM

Dimensio: dslknowitall: Dimensio: dslknowitall: Dimensio: ... they serve demonstrable legitimate civilian use.

[citation needed]

/i'm 100% serious just give me a valid reason to be able to fire 30 bullets in 6 seconds.

How many shooters are able to pull a trigger thirty times in six seconds?

So this is a debate about the literal meaning of "semi-automatic" versus the fact that some of the bodies had up to 11 bullets in them due to high capacity magazines and a weapon designed to disperse them quickly.

You are altering the subject of discussion; you have not demonstrated that Mr. Lanza "fired 30 bullets in 6 seconds", thus his actions are not relevant to your original request. While individuals capable of firing thirty rounds from a semi-automatic rifle in six seconds may exist (bearing in mind that one trick shooter is known to have fired twelve rounds from a revolver in three seconds), they are very uncommon if they do.


I asked for a citation as to the actual legitimate use of such a weapon and so far you haven't provided it.

AR-15 are suitable for hunting medium-size animals. The AR-15 platform is also one of the most popular centerfire target rifle platforms in the United States of America.


You're being shallow and pedantic (thanks professor!) in order to defend your right to own a gun that has zero purpose other than the mass slaughter of human beings.

I hunt deer every November. I don't need a high powered rifle - like a 30 aught six bolt action - to do it, even tho my county allows for such weapons. No I use my 16 gauge Ithaca featherlight with ghost sights because I know I can hit what I aim at, most of which isn't beyond 100 yds.

So when you're saying you need an M4 copycat to go hunting, forgive me if I laugh at the apparent size of your penis.

Hell, I have a friend who kills deer with a recurve bow he made himself, out of staves found in his back yard.

So own up and obtain a bit of personal responsibility. You don't need to own an M4 and psychos won't have a way to obtain them when their psyche's snap.
 
2012-12-19 09:41:06 PM

Dimensio: sendtodave: Dimensio: The definition of "assault weapon" varies between different legislative proposals; it has no established technical definition, but it typically encompasses numerous popular civilian sporting rifle models that are in fact used for hunting and for recreational target shooting.

So a few weapons that sport hunters or target shooters use might be affected in new restrictions?

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]

If by "a few" you mean "several million" and by "new restrictions" you mean "new restrictions that serve no beneficial purpose", then yes.


ts1.mm.bing.net

about

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-19 09:52:47 PM

OneManArmy: You don't need to own an M4 and psychos won't have a way to obtain them when their psyche's snap.


What say you about the military coming home with PTSD who own their issued rifles?

hmmmmmmm?

 
2012-12-19 09:59:18 PM
Headline is inaccurate, but it's still a sorry situation. The press rarely has any balls.
 
2012-12-19 10:01:44 PM
Also, no questions about the Benghazi report. That really surprised me.
 
2012-12-19 10:30:38 PM

Barbecue Bob: IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.


What infantile nonsense. Grow up, and learn some history while you're at it.
 
2012-12-19 10:39:13 PM

BMulligan: Barbecue Bob: IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.

What infantile nonsense. Grow up, and learn some history while you're at it.


looks like you're the one in need of a history lesson...
 
2012-12-19 10:39:16 PM

BMulligan: Barbecue Bob: IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.

What infantile nonsense. Grow up, and learn some history while you're at it.


It's right there in the 2nd Amendment!

"A laxly restricted group of gun owners, being necessary to overthrow the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2012-12-19 10:43:05 PM

sendtodave: BMulligan: Barbecue Bob: IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.

What infantile nonsense. Grow up, and learn some history while you're at it.

It's right there in the 2nd Amendment!

"A laxly restricted group of gun owners, being necessary to overthrow the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
 
2012-12-19 10:45:44 PM

Old enough to know better: Getting back on topic...


The President should just be allowed to ignore or publicly insult idiot reporters who ask stupid questions.


That I'd support, I think idiots need to be publicly called out
 
2012-12-19 10:46:27 PM

BMulligan: Barbecue Bob: IMO the "actual legitimate use of such a weapon" is to protect ourselves from our own government or foreign invasion.

That's the point of the 2nd amendment anyway.

What infantile nonsense. Grow up, and learn some history while you're at it.


Here is Cornell University's website regarding the 2nd Amendment.
2nd Amendment interpretation
 
2012-12-19 11:06:12 PM

vegasj: OneManArmy: You don't need to own an M4 and psychos won't have a way to obtain them when their psyche's snap.

What say you about the military coming home with PTSD who own their issued rifles?

hmmmmmmm?


I know what PTSD can do to a person, a cousin of mine, who I grew up with, served a tour in afghanistan early in that grind. He came home a different person than when he left, still a good dude, but more of an edge to his demeanor. He confided enough detailed stories to make me realize how profound war is. Anyway, I go hunting with him a lot, and he blasts deer like he was still in Afghanistan. 5 rounds from his shotgun spent in as many or less seconds. Needless to say, I don't push deer for him haha.

But back to your overall point, I think the only place that these firearms should exist is IN the army, navy, marines etc. If you want to shoot a fancy top of the line firearm, it should be in a circumstance that is well regulated for purpose and saftey. Hence the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" bit. If you're discharged, you should join the rest of us plebes with our 1912 firearm technology :).

My overall point is, these guns are not for hunting. They mainly fill a fantasy many gun nuts have, and the power that rifle makes you feel is not worth the life of two dozen six year olds.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report