Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 644
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13573 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (2 years 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
 
2012-12-21 03:32:47 PM  

Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.


Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.
 
2012-12-21 03:34:23 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?


You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.

And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.
 
2012-12-21 03:34:47 PM  

chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??


Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:25 PM  
Start investment fund that buys up all the ammo and ships it overseas.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:32 PM  

ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.


I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.

And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.


So there is such a thing as settled law? Are you contradicting yourself this quickly?

How does such cognitive dissonance not make your head asplode?
 
2012-12-21 03:36:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.


Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.
 
2012-12-21 03:36:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.


The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!
 
2012-12-21 03:37:51 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.


Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.
 
2012-12-21 03:38:41 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.

The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!


thank you for proving that you really are as stupid as I thought.
 
2012-12-21 03:39:48 PM  
I Godwin'ed this thread like 2 hrs ago, and it has gotten even worse since then.

Trolls are trolling Trolls to precipitate more Trolling.
 
2012-12-21 03:39:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table


You DO know gun rights are a whole 'nother thing compared abortion, right?

Besides, a good chunk of the pro-gun people are the libertarian types who support peoples' rights to both.
 
2012-12-21 03:40:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.

Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.


Ahhh - young grasshopper, you fail at life again. Those matters have been settled. Prohibition will not be coming back. Dead issue. Repealed. Failed. Abortion is a failed rallying point. Not going away.

Same with the Heller and the Second Amendment. Simply put, it's settled. You'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out.
 
2012-12-21 03:41:01 PM  

Bull Moose 76: chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.

Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.


No, the Constitution says nothing about the type of guns that people can own. In fact, if it had made that distinction, you would own nothing but muzzle loaders.

It is rational. It is the only thing that will actually solve the problem.

I realize that you do not believe that there is a problem. You think that shooting school children is just part of what makes America free.
 
2012-12-21 03:41:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.

The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!

thank you for proving that you really are as stupid as I thought.


Hey - go back to the MADD-like rationalizations you were using earlier. Those were much better than what you're doing now. Seriously.
 
2012-12-21 03:42:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.

Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.

No, the Constitution says nothing about the type of guns that people can own. In fact, if it had made that distinction, you would own nothing but muzzle loaders.

It is rational. It is the only thing that will actually solve the problem.

I realize that you do not believe that there is a problem. You think that shooting school children is just part of what makes America free.


Lies, lies, and more lies!!! YAY!!!

I love it. Bravo - keep it up! Needs a bit more frothing, though. Not angry enough. Not enough appeal to emotion.
 
2012-12-21 03:43:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.


HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

img144.imageshack.us

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?
 
2012-12-21 03:44:27 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.

Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.

Ahhh - young grasshopper, you fail at life again. Those matters have been settled. Prohibition will not be coming back. Dead issue. Repealed. Failed. Abortion is a failed rallying point. Not going away.

Same with the Heller and the Second Amendment. Simply put, it's settled. You'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out.


OMG, you truly are stupid. Of course prohibition is gone. The point is that there was a Amendment that made prohibition the law of the land. Several years later, an Amendment was adopted that repealed prohibition and that initial Amendment.

What is or is not Constitutional is not chiseled in stone. The concept changes with a change in thinking of our society. The simple proof of this is that there is a process in place to change the Constitution.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:18 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

[img144.imageshack.us image 320x240]

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?



You people really do live in a fantasyland, don't you? No wonder you keep snapping and shooting up public places.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:32 PM  
HEADLINE FAIL SUBBY

YAY ANOTHER GUN NUT THREAD!


can't wait for the Gun Nut Farker to end up in the news...

"FARKERS FAMILY KILLED IN GUN NUT EXTRAVAGANZA: FAIL TAG FOR FARKERS PRO GUN POSTS"
 
2012-12-21 03:47:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: OMG, you truly are stupid. Of course prohibition is gone. The point is that there was a Amendment that made prohibition the law of the land. Several years later, an Amendment was adopted that repealed prohibition and that initial Amendment.

What is or is not Constitutional is not chiseled in stone. The concept changes with a change in thinking of our society. The simple proof of this is that there is a process in place to change the Constitution.


But you said that no matter in US law was settled. However, you've now said that prohibition and slavery are settled. How can nothing be settled but some things are settled. Do you even read what you're typing?

Would you like a course on how easy is it machine metal into a firearm next?
 
2012-12-21 03:49:25 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: You people really do live in a fantasyland, don't you? No wonder you keep snapping and shooting up public places.


Another challenger enters the court!

Please, sir - please educate us such that we can aspire to be as advanced as you are. Please show us the error of our ways such that if we'd just do as you instruct, all rivers would flow with milk and honey.

Teach me, for I am unworthy.
 
2012-12-21 03:49:34 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: HEADLINE FAIL SUBBY

YAY ANOTHER GUN NUT THREAD!

can't wait for the Gun Nut Farker to end up in the news...

"FARKERS FAMILY KILLED IN GUN NUT EXTRAVAGANZA: FAIL TAG FOR FARKERS PRO GUN POSTS"


You sound more deranged than the gun nuts you're making fun of.
 
2012-12-21 03:50:36 PM  

Outlander Engine: I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition.


I think the problem is that, when it comes to gun control, no one has a definition for failure.
Every law is followed by new incidents and the renewed argument that another feature ban is needed.

More violence should be proof that the previous approach failed.
We've got a people problem and arguing about the appearances of things won't fix that.

/Its as if they'd tackle a drunk driving problem by arguing over the size of a cars tires.
/Or maybe its the number of tires, or the fuel mileage, or the loudness of the stereo...
 
2012-12-21 03:51:08 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

[img144.imageshack.us image 320x240]

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?


Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.

Is that a perfect solution? No. It is a compromise that allows paranoid cowards the option to arm themselves against that imagined threat and it allows people to go hunting.

And that is the point, by banning and confiscating rifles that use magazines or clips, you can still protect yourself and you can still go hunting. And it makes it a lot harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

Do you have a problem with making it harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?
 
2012-12-21 03:51:25 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 03:51:28 PM  

way south: Outlander Engine: I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition.

I think the problem is that, when it comes to gun control, no one has a definition for failure.
Every law is followed by new incidents and the renewed argument that another feature ban is needed.

More violence should be proof that the previous approach failed.
We've got a people problem and arguing about the appearances of things won't fix that.

/Its as if they'd tackle a drunk driving problem by arguing over the size of a cars tires.
/Or maybe its the number of tires, or the fuel mileage, or the loudness of the stereo...


That problem is easy to fix. Ban parking lots at bars.
 
2012-12-21 03:53:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.

Is that a perfect solution? No. It is a compromise that allows paranoid cowards the option to arm themselves against that imagined threat and it allows people to go hunting.

And that is the point, by banning and confiscating rifles that use magazines or clips, you can still protect yourself and you can still go hunting. And it makes it a lot harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

Do you have a problem with making it harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?


Why do you hate children? More children are killed by pools every year than firearms, yet you continue to allow those children to die. Why do you want children to die? Do you have a problem with making it harder for children to die in pools?
 
2012-12-21 03:54:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.


No I don't. Roe v. Wade is settled law. I'm OK with that, and always have been. In fact, when I was a wee lad, at the time that Roe v. Wade was in the news, I was attending a Catholic school, and they had us write letters saying how bad throwing babies out in the trash was. It was only later that I realized what was happening: The church was using 2nd graders in a cynical attempt to influence the law. Left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Also, I'm a foster parent. I *SEE* parents that shouldn't have had children all the time.

I think you have me mistaken for some kind of Republican. That's *YOUR* mistake.


And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.


It's called "reductio ad absurdum".
 
2012-12-21 03:55:39 PM  

brax33: Evil Twin Skippy:
Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


So apparently you're of the opinion that war could never come to our shores? Or of the opinion that our government could never become corrupt and evil and revolution could not be needed? The 2nd Amendment is there to protect our citizens from a tyrannical government, OUR government, if it becomes that way. The 2A is there to keep our government in check, not the other way around. Otherwise you end up with a runaway government like the UK or Australia where even porn is censored out of games, and you have to ask your social betters pretty please to buy a butter knife.

The second amendment isn't there just for hunting, or even sport shooting. It has a very real and important reason for existing. Freedom comes with a price, and unfortunately sometimes that price is paid in blood.


I dunno, I have seen a lot of mooj videos in the last few years, their assault rifles were not 1 bit of help when the hellfire dropped on their heads. If the US Govt/military were to go after its own people, all the guns in the world isn't going to be enough to protect you.
 
2012-12-21 03:55:42 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: OMG, you truly are stupid. Of course prohibition is gone. The point is that there was a Amendment that made prohibition the law of the land. Several years later, an Amendment was adopted that repealed prohibition and that initial Amendment.

What is or is not Constitutional is not chiseled in stone. The concept changes with a change in thinking of our society. The simple proof of this is that there is a process in place to change the Constitution.

But you said that no matter in US law was settled. However, you've now said that prohibition and slavery are settled. How can nothing be settled but some things are settled. Do you even read what you're typing?

Would you like a course on how easy is it machine metal into a firearm next?


I never said that prohibition is gone for good. What I said was that it is gone. I never said that it cannot come back.

Slavery is settled because owning other people is wrong on many levels. It should never have been in the Constitution and it had no business being in it.


Try to understand - nothing in the Constitution or in the Amendments is eternal, nothing is chiseled in stone. Changes have been made in the past and they can be made again. None of your stupidity is going to change that.
 
2012-12-21 03:58:33 PM  
img72.imageshack.us
I AM THE NRA!
 
2012-12-21 04:00:45 PM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Potheads. Have you ever listened to someone who smokes at least an ounce a day (and has NEVER been in trouble with the law for it) complain because the thing they love most in this world is illegal to have?
 
2012-12-21 04:01:30 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.

No I don't. Roe v. Wade is settled law. I'm OK with that, and always have been. In fact, when I was a wee lad, at the time that Roe v. Wade was in the news, I was attending a Catholic school, and they had us write letters saying how bad throwing babies out in the trash was. It was only later that I realized what was happening: The church was using 2nd graders in a cynical attempt to influence the law. Left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Also, I'm a foster parent. I *SEE* parents that shouldn't have had children all the time.

I think you have me mistaken for some kind of Republican. That's *YOUR* mistake.


And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.

It's called "reductio ad absurdum".


why am I not surprised that you misapplied that as well?

I never said that slavery was still on the table. In fact, I was very clear about that. Any sane, thinking person would see that. You are neither.

Roe vs. Wade is not settled law. There is no such thing as settled law. Slavery does not fall under this because owning other people is just wrong. The majority of the people in this country understand that. And what is or is not legal is based on the will of the people. The will of the people is not going to change to allow the return of slavery.

The will of the people can change concerning gun control.

I repeat: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head? And just so you do not bring it up again, Slavery is out of the picture because that is the way that the majority wants it.
 
2012-12-21 04:04:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.


Really? Four revolvers, two in each hand, two in holsters. Shoot six shots with right hand, while dropping that one shoots with left hand, rinse and repeat. Took me all of 30 seconds to think up the mechanics of it.

And if the revolvers are double action like a Starr, it's as fast as any semi-automatic. If they are similar to a LeMat, that's 40 rounds without having to pause.
 
2012-12-21 04:05:39 PM  

900RR: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.

As a "fan of guns", shut the hell up; you aren't helping. You are just another twit that doesn't understand why we even have the 2nd amendment, so zip it, ok?

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).


No, the second amendment is ambiguously worded CYA in an era where all it took was a nutter or two two keep the Constitution from being passed. The LAW is how the second amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme court.

Or did you not read that who Article I, II, and III that came before the "Admendments"?
 
2012-12-21 04:06:27 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.

Is that a perfect solution? No. It is a compromise that allows paranoid cowards the option to arm themselves against that imagined threat and it allows people to go hunting.

And that is the point, by banning and confiscating rifles that use magazines or clips, you can still protect yourself and you can still go hunting. And it makes it a lot harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

Do you have a problem with making it harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

Why do you hate children? More children are killed by pools every year than firearms, yet you continue to allow those children to die. Why do you want children to die? Do you have a problem with making it harder for children to die in pools?


There are all sorts of laws in place across the country to provide safety with swimming pools. Any public pool or beach has life guards on duty to help protect the children and the adults.

Your stupid arguments about me hating children because if kids dying in swimming pools is just an attempt to deflect the argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I am against rifles that serve no purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. They serve no useful purpose. Swimming pools do serve a useful purpose. For one thing, they are used to train children how to swim so that they will not drown. There is no good use for rifles that do nothing be kill lots of people in a short period of time.
 
2012-12-21 04:08:47 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.

Really? Four revolvers, two in each hand, two in holsters. Shoot six shots with right hand, while dropping that one shoots with left hand, rinse and repeat. Took me all of 30 seconds to think up the mechanics of it.

And if the revolvers are double action like a Starr, it's as fast as any semi-automatic. If they are similar to a LeMat, that's 40 rounds without having to pause.


And in the period that it takes to reload that revolver, people can get away or they can jump the shooter.

A 40 round Lemat revolver?? You really are an idiot.
 
2012-12-21 04:10:13 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: clane: Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]


Somebody needs to teach that girl about trigger discipline. Of course, nobody would give a gun to an untraind child, right?


There was a gun in that picture?
 
2012-12-21 04:11:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: why am I not surprised that you misapplied that as well?

I never said that slavery was still on the table. In fact, I was very clear about that. Any sane, thinking person would see that. You are neither.


I didn't say *YOU* were using it, I meant *I* was using reductio ad absurdum to show that what you said was wrong.

Roe vs. Wade is not settled law. There is no such thing as settled law. Slavery does not fall under this because owning other people is just wrong. The majority of the people in this country understand that. And what is or is not legal is based on the will of the people. The will of the people is not going to change to allow the return of slavery.


You don't know that, unless you are psychic. No, it's not going to happen tomorrow, or 20 years from now, but can you guarantee that 200 or 300 years from now that the will of the people will be against it? Of course you can't.

The will of the people can change concerning gun control.


And it has in the last 30 years, to be against gun control. Sucks to be you, I guess, but hey, chin up, maybe it will change in a few decades. Eat healthy, get some exercise, don't get so worked up about it, and maybe you'll live to see gun control become fashionable again.
 
2012-12-21 04:14:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: A 40 round Lemat revolver?? You really are an idiot.


I see math is not your strong point, so I will spell it out for you:

Each LeMat holds 10 rounds, 9 in the cylinder, 1 in the central barrel. If you have four of them, the equation is

4 revolvers * 10 rounds per revolver = 40 total rounds.

I mean, even my third-grader son knows how to do math that simple.
 
2012-12-21 04:15:44 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: A 40 round Lemat revolver?? You really are an idiot.

I see math is not your strong point, so I will spell it out for you:

Each LeMat holds 10 rounds, 9 in the cylinder, 1 in the central barrel. If you have four of them, the equation is

4 revolvers * 10 rounds per revolver = 40 total rounds.

I mean, even my third-grader son knows how to do math that simple.


And he probably can aim better than you if you need 40 rounds to drop a target.
 
2012-12-21 04:15:46 PM  
l2.yimg.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-21 04:18:01 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.

Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.


Ever hear of the 18th and 21st amendments? Prohibition was never "considered" Constitutional - they had to pass an amendment to MAKE it constitutional. Obviously you must've skipped school that day.

You're not going to pass a constitutional amendment for the prohibition of firearms. Not in 38 states.
 
2012-12-21 04:20:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: There are all sorts of laws in place across the country to provide safety with swimming pools. Any public pool or beach has life guards on duty to help protect the children and the adults.

Your stupid arguments about me hating children because if kids dying in swimming pools is just an attempt to deflect the argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I am against rifles that serve no purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. They serve no useful purpose. Swimming pools do serve a useful purpose. For one thing, they are used to train children how to swim so that they will not drown. There is no good use for rifles that do nothing be kill lots of people in a short period of time.


So you do hate children. I'm glad we could clear that up. It's obvious that the laws aren't working because more children are dying via drowning that via firearms. Yet you continue to ignore that problem and focus on the lesser.

You are incredibly callous. It's actually a shame to see someone as cynical as you.

chuckufarlie: I never said that prohibition is gone for good. What I said was that it is gone. I never said that it cannot come back.

Slavery is settled because owning other people is wrong on many levels. It should never have been in the Constitution and it had no business being in it.


Try to understand - nothing in the Constitution or in the Amendments is eternal, nothing is chiseled in stone. Changes have been made in the past and they can be made again. None of your stupidity is going to change that.


Yes you did. You said slavery and prohibition were settled and how you're saying they're not, but that nothing is settled. It's one or the other. Pick a single story and stick to it.
 
2012-12-21 04:20:33 PM  

Southern100: You're not going to pass a constitutional amendment for the prohibition of firearms. Not in 38 states.


Not yet. Let's talk a few massacres from now.

And that's the 800lb gorilla in the room, that the NRA and the gunfappers won't look at. That it WILL happen again. Each time it happens, their political power diminishes exponentially. Enjoy.
 
2012-12-21 04:20:59 PM  

brax33: Evil Twin Skippy:
Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


So apparently you're of the opinion that war could never come to our shores? Or of the opinion that our government could never become corrupt and evil and revolution could not be needed? The 2nd Amendment is there to protect our citizens from a tyrannical government, OUR government, if it becomes that way. The 2A is there to keep our government in check, not the other way around. Otherwise you end up with a runaway government like the UK or Australia where even porn is censored out of games, and you have to ask your social betters pretty please to buy a butter knife.

The second amendment isn't there just for hunting, or even sport shooting. It has a very real and important reason for existing. Freedom comes with a price, and unfortunately sometimes that price is paid in blood.


Wow, how did I miss your post. Oh right, it's so stupid it burns.

Are you a Supreme Court justice? Are you a constitutional scholar? Have you even so much as passed the bar? Then STFU about what "The Constitution" says. I'll bet dollars to donuts you haven't even read the entire thing through.

As far as "war coming to these shores...", well I'll have bigger frigging fish to fry. In the meantime, I'm perfectly content to make my way through civilized society. I swear you farkers are just looking for reasons to justify living like a goddamn neanderthal. Move to frigging Somalia.
 
2012-12-21 04:23:56 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: A 40 round Lemat revolver?? You really are an idiot.

I see math is not your strong point, so I will spell it out for you:

Each LeMat holds 10 rounds, 9 in the cylinder, 1 in the central barrel. If you have four of them, the equation is

4 revolvers * 10 rounds per revolver = 40 total rounds.

I mean, even my third-grader son knows how to do math that simple.

And he probably can aim better than you if you need 40 rounds to drop a target.


He's actually not bad. I started him with the fundamentals of markmanship and safety with archery when he was 5:

i40.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-21 04:25:22 PM  

ronaprhys: Yes you did. You said slavery and prohibition were settled and how you're saying they're not, but that nothing is settled. It's one or the other. Pick a single story and stick to it.


That's what I'm asking you to do: You said slavery was settled law, but abortion wasn't, and you didn't give a good legal reason for the difference.
 
2012-12-21 04:26:07 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As far as "war coming to these shores...", well I'll have bigger frigging fish to fry. In the meantime, I'm perfectly content to make my way through civilized society. I swear you farkers are just looking for reasons to justify living like a goddamn neanderthal. Move to frigging Somalia.



They feed off of this fantasy where they get to roam the streets and shoot "liberals" some day. The CCW people I know usually end up citing the possibility of a minority in their house at 3am whenever the gun debate comes up. It's like all they do is dream of the day they get their story printed in the NRA fapletter, after they shoot an unarmed black kid.

They are a very sick and demented part of our society. The Venn diagram between Gunfappers and Fox News viewers: 0
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report